Analysis of Factors Affecting the Improvement of Quality of the Environment of Residential Complexes (Case Study: Vahdat Beton Complex of Sadra Town)

Subject Areas : architecture

Sudabeh Mohammadzadeh ¹ , Ali Reza Einifar ² , Hamid Majedi ³

1 - Ph.D. student of Architecture, Faculty of Arts and Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 - Professor, Department of Art and Architecture, College of Fine Arts, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
3 - Professor, Department of Art and Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Received: 2020-03-25 Accepted : 2021-02-07 Published : 2023-04-21

Keywords: Intermediate spaces, Residents’ characteristics, Keywords: Quality of residential environments, Architectural design, residential complexes,

Abstract :

The first thing that comes to mind when residential areas in the culture of contemporary Iranian architecture are studied is that achieving higher quality in residential environments is a necessity given the said point. Identifying the main factors that affect quality improvement, providing a model for quality measurement in the residential environment, and then prioritizing indexes is essential. Not only does this method study the issue of quality from the perspective of residents living in the selected complex, but also it can be used in quality improvement policies and strategies of residential environments. Therefore, this article considers three main factors: capability of intermediate spaces, quality of architectural design, and personal characteristics of residents in question. This article analyzed the relationship between these factors and the quality of residential complexes. Further, it determined environmental quality based on residents’ needs and expectations by providing a four-level model for measuring quality in residential complexes and measuring indicators from residents. Then, it identified the principal indicators in quality improvement of the environment by prioritizing indicators. This measurement used t-test, correlation, and factor analysis. The results obtained in the field of research hypotheses showed that there is a significant correlation between the indicators of the duration of residence, level of education, age and type of ownership (in the individual characteristics of residents), the ability of intermediate spaces, and the quality of architects’ design with the quality of the residential environment. The results showed that the residents of Vahdat Beton Complex are not satisfied with the quality of their residential environment. The quality score showed that the most dissatisfaction is with the area of the residential complex. Also, the consequence of the significant coefficient demonstrated that the area of the residential unit should be considered by the city officials, as their top priority. The results of the analysis of the elements that make up the quality of the environment showed that space 2 at the level of the neighborhood unit, space 2 at the level of the residential complex, and space 3 at the level of the residential unit is more important spaces for the residents. Moreover, the lowest level of residents’ satisfaction is with the accessibility at the level of the residential complex and the observance of privacy, overlooking, and visual pleasure at the level of the residential unit. Prioritization of measures to improve the quality of the environment showed that space 3, at the level of the neighborhood unit, space 2 at the level of a residential complex, spaces 1 & 3 at the level of the residential unit are the most important spaces for improving the quality of buildings. It also showed that indicators of green space and social livelihood in space 2, visual pleasure and sensual richness in space 3 of neighborhood unit level, accessibility, and readability in space3, green space and controlling the entry of strangers to the complex in space 1 of residential complex level, green space, and belonging in space 3, privacy and overlooking in space 1 of the residential unit level. 

References:

. بلیلان اصل، لیدا؛ و ستارزاده، داریوش. (1394). جایگاه فضای بینابین در سازماندهی فضایی عناصر معماری و شهری در ایران (مطالعه موردی: شهر تبریز در دوره قاجار). مجله علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست، 17(2)، 169-181.      

2. پاکزاد، جهانشاه. (1381). کیفیت فضا. فصلنامه آبادی، مرکز مطالعات و تحقیقات شهرسازی و معماری ایران، 12(37)، 100-111.


3. راپاپورت، آموس. (1388). انسان شناسی مسکن. (خسرو افضلیان، مترجم). چاپ اول. انتشارات حرفه: هنرمند.


4. رفیعیان، مجتبی؛ صالحی، فرزین امین؛ و تقوایی، علی اکبر. (1389). سنجش کیفیت محیط سکونت در شهرک اکباتان تهران. فصلنامه مدرس علوم انسانی-برنامه ریزی و آمایش فضا، 14(4)، 85-63.


5. شریعتمداری، علی. (1373). فلسفه (مسائلی فلسفی-مکتبهای فلسفی، مبانی علوم). چاپ پنجم. تهران: دفتر نشر فرهنگ اسلامی.


6. عینی­فر، علیرضا. (1379). عوامل انسانی-محیطی موثر در طراحی مجموعه­های مسکونی. نشریه هنرهای زیبا، 8، 118-109.  


7. گلکار، کورش. (1380). مولفه­های سازنده کیفیت طراحی شهری. نشریه صفه، 11(32)، 65-38.


8. لینچ، کوین. (1374). سیمای شهر. (منوچهر مزینی، مترجم). تهران: دانشگاه تهران.


9. مدنی پور، علی. (1387). طراحی فضای شهری (نگرشی بر فرآیند اجتماعی و مکانی). (فرهاد مرتضایی، مترجم). چاپ سوم. تهران: شرکت پردازش و برنامه ریزی شهری.


10. معینی، مهدیه. (1390). تبیین کیفیت محیط مسکونی بر اساس مولفه­های معرف مکان (مطالعه موردی سه مجموعه مسکونی در کرمان)، پایان­نامه دوره دکتری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران.


11. معینی، مهدیه؛ و اسلامی، سید غلامرضا. (1391). رویکرد تحلیلی به کیفیت محیط مسکونی معاصر. هویت شهر، 6(10)، 58-47.


12. Adriaanse, C. C. M. (2007). Measuring Residential Satisfaction: A Residential Environmental Satisfaction Scale (RESS). Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22, 287-304.


13. Amole, D. (2009). Residential satisfaction in students housing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 76-85.


14. Billings, K. (1993). Quality in Design. University of Sydney: Department of Architecture.


15. Djebarni, R., & AL-Abed, A. (2000). Satisfaction level with neighbourhood in low-income public housing in yemen. Property Management, 18(4), 230-242.


16. Gausa, M., Guallart, V., Muller, W., Soriana, F., Porras, F., & Morales, J. (2003). The Metapolis Dictionary of Advanced Architecture: City, Technology and Society in the Information Age. Barcelona: Actar. 334.


17. Huang, Z., & Du, X. (2015). Assessment and determinants of residential satisfaction with public housing in Hangzhou, China. Habitat International, 47, 218-230.‏


18. Ibem, E. O., & Aduwo, E. B. (2013). Assessment of residential satisfaction in public housing in Ogun State, Nigeria. Habitat International, 40, 163-175.‏


19. Juran, J. M. (1989). Juran on Leadership for Quality: An executive handbook. New York: Free Press.


20. Mullins, P., Western, J., & Broadbent, B. (2001). The links between housing and nine key socio cultural factors: a review of the evidence Positioning paper. (AHURI), Positioning Paper No, 4, 17.


21. Savasdisara. T., Tips, Walter. E. J., & Suwannodom, S. (1989). Residential satisfaction in private estates in Bangkok: a comparison of low-cost housing estates and determinant factors. Habitat International, 13(1), 65-73.