واکاوی مفهوم مکانسازی بیوفیلیک: مروری نظام مند با تکنیک فراروش
محورهای موضوعی : معماری و شهرسازی
الناز خلیلی
1
,
سید مسلم سیدالحسینی
2
*
,
تکتم حنایی
3
,
ساناز سعیدی مفرد
4
1 - دانشجوی دکتری، گروه شهرسازی، ،واحد مشهد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مشهد، ایران.
2 - استاد، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مشهد، ایران
3 - دانشیار، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مشهد، ایران.
4 - دانشیار، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مشهد، ایران.
کلید واژه: فراروش, بیوفیلیک, مکانسازی, توسعه پایدار.,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه و هدف: باتوجهبه کمبود پژوهشهای علمی در حوزه مکانسازی مبتنی بر طبیعت و البته ضرورت ترکیب این دو حوزه برای ارتقای سطح مکانسازی فضاهای عمومی شهر نیاز به روشهای علمی نوینی است که بتوان آنها را مورد بررسی و نقد قرار داد و پس از آن بهترین نتیجه را از ترکیب این حوزهها در مطالعات جدید مورداستفاده قرارداد، بنابراین هدف از این پژوهش بررسی روششناسی فرایند عملیاتیکردن مکانسازی بیوفیلیک میباشد که بتوان در آینده نیز از این مفهوم برای رفع چالشهای زیستمحیطی به استفاده کرد.
روشبررسی: پژوهش حاضر به لحاظ هدف كاربردي و از نظر ماهيت، کمی با رویکرد فراروش است و جمعآوری اطلاعات بهصورت كتابخانهاي بوده و جستجوی مقالات در بازه زمانی 2019- 2024، یعنی پنج سال اخیر صورت گرفته و تعداد 19 مقاله انتخاب و مورد بررسی و تحلیل قرار گرفته است.
یافتهها: ترکیب مفهوم مکانسازی و بیوفیلیک، میتواند بهعنوان یک رویکرد نوین طراحی شهری قرار گیرد که از عناصر طبیعی و ارتباط انسان با طبیعت الهام میگیرد و میتواند اثرات قابلتوجهی بر کیفیت حوزههای روانشناختی افراد داشته باشد. کنار هم قرارگرفتن استراتژیهای تحقیقاتی بر تنوع و غنای روششناختی موجود در مجموعه ادبیات مورد بررسی بیشتر تأکید میکند و این مشاهدات بر اهمیت درنظرگرفتن و ارزیابی تفاوتهای روششناختی و پیامدهای انتخاب استراتژیهای تحقیقاتی مختلف در این زمینه تأکید میکند.
بحث و نتیجهگیری: باید در نظر داشت که ناهمگونی در طراحی مطالعه و انتخاب نادرست روششناسی در بین برخی از مطالعات مشاهده شد. از سویی دیگر مطالعات نشان دادهاند حضور عناصر طبیعی و بومی در فضاهای شهری، مانند درختان، گیاهان، آب و مناظر سبز، میتواند به کاهش استرس، اضطراب، بهبود خلقوخو، افزایش کیفیت محیط، رونق گردشگری و اقتصاد و موارد بسیار زیادی که چالشهای امروزه زندگی شهری هستند کمک کند.
Background and Objective: Considering the lack of scientific research in the field of nature-based place-making and, of course, the necessity of combining these two areas to improve the level of place-making in public spaces in the city, there is a need for new scientific methods that can be examined and criticized, and the the best The result of the combination of these areas was used in new studies, so the purpose of this research is to investigate the methodology of the process of operationalizing biophilic locations so that this concept can be used in the future to solve environmental challenges.
Material and Methodology: In terms of its practical purpose and in terms of its nature, the present research is a bit of a meta-methodology approach, and the collection of information has been done in a library. The search for articles was done in the period of 2019–2024, i.e., the last five years, and 19 articles were selected and included. It was reviewed and analyzed.
Findings: The combination of the concepts of place-making and biophilia can be seen as a new approach to urban design that is inspired by natural elements and the relationship between humans and nature and can have significant effects on the quality of people's psychological spheres. The juxtaposition of research strategies further emphasizes the diversity and richness of the methodology available in the reviewed literature, and this observation emphasizes the importance of considering and evaluating methodological differences and the consequences of choosing different research strategies in this field.
Discussion and Conclusion: It should be kept in mind that heterogeneity in study design and incorrect choice of methodology were observed among some studies. On the other hand, studies have shown that the presence of natural and native elements in urban spaces, such as trees, plants, water, and green landscapes, can reduce stress and anxiety, improve your mood, increase the quality of the environment, boost tourism and the economy, and do many other things.
1. Smith b. philanthropy: the intersection of values and love. health prog. (2017),mar-apr;98(2):56-7. pmid: 30039948.
2. Barbiero g, berto r. biophilia as evolutionary adaptation: an onto- and phylogeneticframework for biophilic design. front psychol. 2021 jul 21;12:700709. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg. (2021).700709. pmid: 34367025; pmcid: pmc8334556.
3. Boffi m, pola l, fumagalli n, fermani e, senes g, inghilleri p. nature experiences of olderpeople for active ageing: an interdisciplinary approach to the co-design of community gardens. front psychol. (2021) sep 27;12:702525. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702525. pmid: 34646195; pmcid: pmc8503679.
4. Tulloch ait, auerbach n, avery-gomm s, bayraktarov e, butt n, dickman cr, ehmke g, fisher do, grantham h, holden mh, lavery th, leseberg np, nicholls m, o'connor j, roberson l, smyth ak, stone z, tulloch v, turak e, wardle gm, watson jem. a decision tree for assessing the risks and benefits of publishing biodiversity data. nat ecol evol. (2018) aug;2(8):1209-1217. doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0608-1. epub 2018 jul 23. pmid: 30038417.
5. Cobreros, c., medoza-ruvalcaba, n., flores-garcía, m., & roggema, r. (2023). improving psychological well-being in urban university districts through biophilic design: two cases in mexico. sustainability, 15(7), 5703.
6. Tekin, B. H., Corcoran, R., & Gutiérrez, R. U. (2023). A systematic review and conceptual framework of biophilic design parameters in clinical environments. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 16(1), 233-250.
7. Twedt e, rainey rm, proffitt dr. designed natural spaces: informal gardens are perceived to be more restorative than formal gardens. front psychol. [2016] feb 11;7:88. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00088. pmid: 26903899; pmcid: pmc4749713.
8. Çaksın, S. M., & Eryıldız, D. I. (2024). Holistic Place Making: Yangon Reimagined.
9. Edward, L., Kamel, S., & Khodeir, L. (2024). Impact of Biophilic Design on Supporting Metacognitive Thinking in Early Childhood in Childcare Centers: A Multidisciplinary Study. The Academic Research Community publication, 8(1), 01-23.
10. Totaforti, s. (2020). emerging biophilic urbanism: the value of the human–nature relationship in the urban space. sustainability, 12(13), 5487.
11. Hes, D., & Hernandez-Santin, C. (Eds.). (2020). Placemaking fundamentals for the built environment. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan
12. Strydom, W., Puren, K., & Drewes, E. (2018). Exploring theoretical trends in placemaking: Towards new perspectives in spatial planning. Journal of Place Management and Development, 11(2), 165-180.
13. Boros, J., & Mahmoud, I. (2021). Urban design and the role of placemaking in mainstreaming nature-based solutions. Learning from the Biblioteca degli Alberi case study in Milan. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3, 635610.
14. Yin j, arfaei n, macnaughton p, catalano pj, allen jg, spengler jd. effects of biophilic interventions in office on stress reaction and cognitive function: a randomized crossover study in virtual reality. indoor air. (2019) nov;29(6):1028-1039. doi: 10.1111/ina.12593. epub 2019 sep 11. pmid: 31418925.
15. Bush, J., Hernandez-Santin, C., & Hes, D. (2020). Nature in place: placemaking in the biosphere. Placemaking fundamentals for the built environment, 39-61.
16. Donaldson, G. H., & João, E. M. (2020). Using green infrastructure to add value and assist place-making in public realm developments. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(6), 464-478.
17. Brownett t, evans o. finding common ground: the conception of community arts festivals as spaces for placemaking. health place.(2020) jan;61:102254. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102254. epub 2019 nov 22. pmid: 31767274.
18. Eid, s., khalifa, m., and abd elrahman, a. s. [2021]. biophilic perceptions in theurban waterfront: analytical study of the nile waterfront in central cairo. hbrcj. 17, 19–39. doi: 10.1080/16874048.2021.
19. Sen, A., & Nagendra, H. (2019). The role of environmental placemaking in shaping contemporary environmentalism and understanding land change. Journal of Land Use Science, 14(4-6), 410-424.
20. Gulsrud, N. M., Hertzog, K., & Shears, I. (2018). Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating “green placemaking” as a nature-based solution. Environmental Research, 161, 158-167.
21. Ghavampour, e., & vale, b. [2019]. revisiting the “model of place”: a comparative study of placemaking and sustainability. urban planning, 4(2), 196-206.
22. Moreira, S. (2021, May 27). What Is Placemaking? ArchDaily. https://www.archdaily.com/961333/what-is-placemaking
23. Akbar, P. N. G., & Edelenbos, J. (2021). Positioning place-making as a social process: A systematic literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 7(1), 1905920.
24. Wardhani, F., Winarso, H., & Argo, T. A. (2024). Shifts in the urban planning paradigm following the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8(6), 3526.
25. Habib, F., Moarefi, S., & Zarabadi, Z. S. S. (2024).Analyzing the Biophilic Paradigm in Urbanism, Based on Content Analysis Technique
26. Mahrous, A., Dewidar, K., Refaat, M., & Nessim, A. (2024). The impact of biophilic attributes on university students level of Satisfaction: Using virtual reality simulation. Ain Shams engineering journal, 15(1), 102304.
27. Öncel, H., & Levend, S. (2023). The effects of urban growth on natural areas: the three metropolitan areas in Türkiye. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(7), 816.
28. Makhkamov, S., Yigitaliyeva, D., & Azizov, O. (2024). ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF TERRITORIES AND THE FORMATION OF A" GREEN ECONOMY". Science and innovation, 3(A4), 182-189.
29. Greedy, W., Zhu, H. W., Pemberton, J., Mellor, J., & Ponte Costa, R. (2022). Single-phase deep learning in cortico-cortical networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35, 24213-24225.
30. Erro-Garcés, A., & Alfaro-Tanco, J. A. (2020). Action Research as a Meta-Methodology in the Management Field. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920917489.
31. Pigott, T. D., & Polanin, J. R. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24-46.
32. Attwater, R. (2014). Meta-methodology. The SAGE encyclopedia of action research, 532-534.
33. Payne, P. G. (2018). Ecopedagogy as/in scapes: Theorizing the issue, assemblages, and metamethodology. The Journal of Environmental Education, 49(2), 177-188.
34. Saunders, M. N. (2012). Choosing research participants. Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges, 35-52.