شناسایی مولفه های مکان دوستدار کودک در محلات مسکونی

محورهای موضوعی : معماری

حسین باقری ¹ , اسماعیل ضرغامی ²

1 - دانشجوى دکترى معمارى، دانشکده معمارى و شهرسازى، دانشگاه شهید رجایى، تهران، ایران.
2 - استاد، دانشکده معمارى و شهرسازى، دانشگاه شهید رجایى، تهران، ایران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1395/07/27 تاریخ پذیرش : 1397/08/19 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/03/01

کلید واژه: آنتروپی شانون, محیط دوست داشتنی, محلات مسکونی, تکنیک دلفی,

چکیده مقاله :

تحرک کودکان طی 20 سال اخیر به‌طور چشمگیری کاهش یافته است به‌طوری‌که 25% کودکان روزی بیش‌تر از چهار ساعت بازی رایانه‌ای بدون تحرک دارند. عدم قابلیت محلات مسکونی کودکان یکی از مهم‌ترین عوامل ایجاد این عارضه است. حال این سؤالات مطرح شده اند که مؤلفه‌های مکان دوستدار کودک در محلات مسکونی کدامند؟ و میزان اهمیت هر یک از مؤلفه‌ها چگونه است؟ ابتدا با مطالعه کتابخانه‌ای مؤلفه‌های محیط‌های دوست‌داشتنی برای کودکان 7-12 ساله (دوره میانی کودکی)، به‌دست آمد. سپس با تکنیک دلفی نگرش سنجی از خبرگان انجام شد. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که مؤلفه‌های مکان دوستدار کودک، زیرمجموعه پنج حوز‌َّۀ کالبد، موقعیت، دسترسی، ساختار اکولوژیک و ویژگی‌های فردی- اجتماعی هستند. درنهایت استفاده از روش آنتروپی شانون نشان داد که مؤلفه‌های کالبدی بیش‌ترین، و مؤلفه‌های فردی- اجتماعی کمترین میزان اهمیت را داشته‌اند.

چکیده انگلیسی:

We have found many links between the built environment and children's physical activities, but we have yet to find conclusive evidence that aspects of the built environment promote obesity. For example, certain development patterns, such as a lack of sidewalks, long distances to schools, and the need to cross busy streets, discourage walking and biking to school. Eliminating such barriers can increase rates of active commuting. But researchers cannot yet prove that more active commuting would reduce rates of obesity. It note that recent changes in the nutrition environment, including greater reliance on convenience foods and fast foods, a lack of access to fruits and vegetables, and expansion in portion sizes, are also widely believed to contribute to the epidemic of childhood obesity. But again, conclusive evidence that changes in the nutrition environment will reduce rates of obesity yet does not exist. Research into the link between the built environment and childhood obesity is still in its infancy. Analysts do not know whether changes in the built environment have increased rates of obesity or whether improvements to the built environment will decrease them. Nevertheless, the policy implications are clear. Finally, environment can have a sustainable effect in children activities. The attempt of this research is to identify the effective variables of friendly places by kids. Prioritization according to the importance of variables is the main goal of the research. The Delphi technique has been used to collect the opinions of experts about the priorities of criteria. The research method was qualitative, and the data were collected conducting a questionnaire. Firstly, by using literature review, several factors that are strongly related to design field (Child- friendly place, Child- friendly City (CFC), and Friendly places) have been identified. The questionnaires was sent to 25 experts, out of them 18 key experts answered to the research. Their responses were analyzed for the purpose of identifying. Following revisions as a result of the comments received from the first round, the participants were asked to repeat the assessment in the second round. A t-test was used to determine whether or not the experts’ opinions on the first and second round were similar. The results of the research showed that the final set of variables grouped into 5 categories: (1) physical factors; (2) safe access factors; (3) location factors; (4) ecological factors; and (5) personal factors. Physical factors consisted of functional distance, scale, variety of functions, quality of environment, density of neighborhood, texture and color of material, and so on. Safe access factors were distance (km/hr), to home, school, play space, parks and center of neighborhood. Contextual factors consisted of neighborhood, services and safety. Location factors were proximity with home, school, play space, parks. Personal factors consisted of age, gender, education, economic place and sense of safety. We used Shannon’s entropy to determine the importance weights of variables. Physical factors were the most important attribute and personal factors were the least important one. The physical factors of residential neighborhood have a significant role in increasing loveable place for children.    

منابع و مأخذ:

1. آذر، عادل. (1380). بسط و توسعه روش آنتروپی شانون برای پردازش داده‌ها در تحلیل محتوا. علوم انسانی دانشگاه الزهرا (ص)، 11(37و38)، 1-18.
2. مطلق زاده، رضا. (1379). وسایل بازی برای کودکان. تهران: سازمان زیباسازی شهرداری تهران.

3. Aarts, M. J., Jeurissen, M. P., van Oers, H. A., Schuit, A. J., & van de Goor, I. A. (2011). Multi-sector policy action to create activity-friendly environments for children: A multiple-case s‌tudy. Journal of Health Policy, 101 (1), 11-19.
4. Biddulph, M. (2012). Home Zones: A planning and design handbook. London: Policy Press.
5. Broberg, A., Kyttä, M., Fagerholm, N. (2013). Child-friendly urban s‌tructures: Bullerby revisited. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 110–120.
6. Chatterjee, S. (2006). Children’s friendship with place: An exploration of environmental child friendliness of children’s environments in cities. Raleigh: North Carolina S‌tate University.
7. Chawla, L. (2002). Growing up in an urbanism world. London: Earth scan.
8. Eiseley, L. (2006). The immense journey. New York: Random House.
9. Freeman, C., & Tranter, P. (2011). Children and their urban environment: Changing worlds. London: Earthscan.
10. Haider, J. (2007). Inclusive design: Planning public urban spaces for children. Proceedings of the Ins‌titution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer, 160 (2), 83-88.
11. Haikkola, L., Pacilli, M. G., Horelli, L., & Prezza, M. (2007). Interpretations of urban child-friendliness: A comparative s‌tudy of two neighborhoods in Helsinki and Rome. Children, Youth and Environments, 17 (4), 319-351.
12. Hampshire, K., Porter, G., Owusu, SA., Tanle, A., Abane, A. (2011). Out of the reach of children? Young people’s health-seeking practices and agency in Africa’s newly-emerging therapeutic landscapes. Journal of Social Science and Medicine, 73. 702-710.
13. Heft, H (2003). Affordances, Dynamic experience and the challenge of reification. Journal of Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 149-180.
14. Holt, N., canningham, C, T., Sehn, Z, L., Spence, J, C., Newton, A, S., Ball, G, D, C. (2009).Neighborhood physical activity opportunities for inner-city children and youth. Journal of Health & Place. 15(4), 1022-1028.
15. Horelli, L. (2007). Cons‌tructing a theoretical framework for environmental child friendliness. Children, Youth and Environments. 17(4), 267-292.
16. Izad Panah Jahromi, A. (2004). Game and city- Process,  principles and criteria of planning and design of playing
areas. (M. Bagheri, Trans.). Tehran: S‌tate Municipality Organization Press.
17. Jolliffe, D. (2004) Extent of overweight among US children and adolescents from 1971 to 2000. International Journal of Obesity, 28, 4–9.
18. Kyttä, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (2), 179-198.
19. McAllis‌ter, C. (2008). Child friendly cities and land use planning: Implications for children’s health. Environments Journal, 35 (3):45-56.
20. Nords‌tröm, M. (2010). Children’s views on child-friendly environments in different geographical, cultural and social neighborhoods'. Urban S‌tudies, 47 (3), 514-528.
21. NSW Commission for Children and Young People. (2009). Built 4 Kids N: A good practice guide to creating child-friendly built environments, Sydney: NSW Commission for Children and Young People.
22. Okoli, C., Pawlowski, D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information and management, 42(1), 15-29.
23. Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: myths and realities. Journal of advance Nursing, 41(4), 376- 382.
24. Rowe, G., Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecas‌ting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecas‌ting, 15 (4), 353–375.
25. Shackell, A., Butler, N., Doyle, P., & Ball, D. J. (2008). Design for play: a guide to creating successful play spaces. The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).
26. Skelton, J. A., Cook, S. R., Auinger, P., Klein, J. D., & Barlow, S. E. (2009). Prevalence and trends of severe obesity among US children and adolescents. Academic pediatrics, 9(5), 322-329.
27. Thomas, C., Mitchell, P., O’Rourke, P., & Wainwright,  C. (2006). Quality-of-life in children and adolescents with cys‌tic fibrosis managed in both regional outreach and cys‌tic fibrosis center settings in Queensland. Journal of Pediatrics,(148), 508-516.
28. Windle, P, E. (2004). Delphi technique: assessing  component needs. Journal of PeriAnes‌thesia Nursing, 19(1), 4-55.

29. Yilmaz, S., & Bulut, Z. (2007). Analysis of user's characteris‌tics of three different playgrounds in dis‌tricts with different socio-economical conditions. Building and Environment, 42(10), 3455-3460.