Application of Social Perception Variables in Urban Rivers Regeneration (Case Study: Shiraz Khoshk River)

Subject Areas : environmental management

Ali Asadpour ¹ , Farhang Mozaffar ² , Mohsen Faizi ³ , Mostafa Behzadfar ⁴

1 - PhD in Landscape Architecture from Iran University of Science & Technology, Assistant Professor at Shiraz University of Arts, Fars, Iran.* ( Corresponding Author)
2 - Associated professor, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran
3 - Professor, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran.
4 - Professor, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2013-08-06 Accepted : 2015-02-05 Published : 2016-12-21

Keywords: landscape, Natural environment variables, Khoshk River, Social perception, Urban Regeneration,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: By definition, the urban landscape is a natural structure in an urban setting and research in social perception about studying the intangible norms that the landscape, as a medium, represented and transmitted throough the society. In this sense, in contrast to landscape restoration which has an ecological approach, social perception has fewer contributions to regeneration of urban streams. Shiraz Khoshk River is one of the natural and historical edges of city that has become a symbol of the city and one of its natural identities for lack of sufficient water, presence of physical interventions and valuable religious monuments in its path across the city. This paper aims to find out the social perceptions of Khoshk River in order to establish a practical framework for landscape regeneration of the urban streams. Hence, categorizing the citizens’ perceptions is inevitable and this could be defined as one of the research objectives. Method: This study relies on integrated strategies as a research method; we applied a complex description with a social survey within the case study using an exploratory content analysis approach. Besides, during assessing the social perception of residence, totally 32 person were chosen randomly through semi-structured interviews. Social perception variables obtained from literature review and categorized in two main groupes: landscape to society variables (six variables), and society to landscape variables (four variables). These variables were evaluated in a field survey (interviews and photography). Results: Results showed that the upper part of the river has higher potential for social perception than the middle and lower part. Furthermore, according to the survey, the social perception consists of some variables which could be categorized in three groups: “natural environment variables”, “functional and activity variables” and “emotional variables” appeared in the responses in priority order. Conclusion: In the social opinions, the noticeable elements of the river were in order of “natural elements”, “arterial and manmade elements” and at least “functional-activity elements”. It means that the relations between landscape and people are mostly a one-way direction than a two-way correlation. In another word, society to landscape variables is less considered than landscape to society variables.  At the end, the principle of urban natural stream regeneration based on the case study and social perception of the landscape was modeled and proposed as “cultural, symbolic and identical strategies”, “recreational strategies” and “social and legal sensitivity strategies”.

References:

1-      بل، سیمون (1382). منظر؛ الگو، ادراک و فرآیند، ترجمه دکتر بهناز امین زاده، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

2-      خراسانی زاده، محسن(1382). مباحثی درباره شناخت معماری منظر، فصلنامه معماری ایران، شماره 12و 13، 16-10.

3-   موسسه منظر و موسسه مدیریت و ارزیابی زیست محیطی (1385). دستور العمل‌های ارزیابی منظر و آثار بصری، ترجمه دکتر منوچهر طبیبیان، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

4-      Lindholm, G. 2011. 'Visible Gestures' : On Urban Landscape Perspectives In Planning. Planning Theory, 1-15.

5-      حاجی­پور، خلیل (1385). مقدمه‌ای بر سیر تحول و تکوین رویکردهای مرمت شهری، فصلنامه اندیشه ایرانشهر، ش 9 و 10، 26-16.

6-   پوراحمد، احمد و حبیبی، کیومرث و کشاوز، مهناز (1389). سیر تحول مفهوم شناسی بازآفرینی شهری به عنوان رویکردی نو در بافت‌های فرسوده شهری، فصلنامه مطالعات شهر ایرانی اسلامی، ش 1، 92-73.

7-      Couch, Chris And Sykes, Olivier And Borstinghaus, Wolfgang (2011). “Thirty Years Of Urban Regeneration In Britain, Germany And France: The Importance Of Context And Path Dependency”, Progress In Planning, 75: 1–52.

8-      Yu, Jung-Ho And Kwon, Hae-Rim (2011). “Critical Success Factors For Urban Regeneration Projects In Korea”, International Journal Of Project Management, 29: 889–899.

9-      Roca, Mike (2003). “Assessing The Discourses And Practices Of Urban Regeneration In A Growing Region”, Geoforum 34: 37–55.

10-  Sairinen, Rauno And Kumpulainen, Satu (2006). “Assessing Social Impacts In Urban Waterfront Regeneration”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26: 120– 135.

11-  Uysal, Ulke Evrim (2012), “An Urban Social Movement Challenging Urban Regeneration: The Case Of Sulukule, Istanbul”, Cities, 29: 12-22.

12-  Orueta, Fernando Dıaz (2007). “Madrid: Urban Regeneration Projects And Social Mobilization”, Cities, 24(3): 183–193.

13-  Bailey, Nick (2010). “Understanding Community Empowerment In Urban Regeneration And Planning In England: Putting Policy And Practice In Context”, Planning Practice And Research, 25(3): 317-332.

14-  Sasaki, Masayuki (2010). “Urban Regeneration Through Cultural Creativity And Social Inclusion: Rethinking Creative City Theory Through A Japanese Case Study”, Cities, 27: S3–S9.

15-  Couch, Chris And Dennemann, Annekatrin (2000). “Urban Regeneration And Sustainable Development In Britain”, Cities, 17(2): 137–147.

16- کوکبی، لیلا، امین­زاده، بهناز (1387). کاربرد اکولوژی سیمای سرزمین در حفاظت و بهسازی رودخانه­های درون­شهری: مطالعه موردی رودخانه خشک شیراز، فصلنامه علوم محیطی، سال 6، شماره 2، 120-105.

17- پورجعفر، محمدرضا، صادقی، علیرضا، احمدی، فریال (1389). بسط اصول و معیارهای طراحی منظر پایدار در مرمت طبیعی مسیل خشک شیراز، فصلنامه علوم محیطی، شماره 4، 202-193.

18-  منصوری، سید امیر، حبیبی، امین (1389)، تبیین و ارزیابی مولفه­های موثر بر ارتقای نقش منظر در پایداری محیط؛ بررسی موردی رودخانه خشک شیراز، فصلنامه باغ نظر، سال7، شماره 15، صص 78-63.

19-  زندیه، مهدی، جافرمن، محمود (1389). رهیافتی در منظر پایدار بر روی رودخانه­های دایمی، فصلنامه باغ نظر، سال 7، شماره 14، 26-15.

20-  Deming, M. E. & Swaffield, S. 2011. Landscape Architecture Research; Inquiry, Strategy, Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

21-  اسدپور، علی (1392). راهبردهای توصیفی در پژوهش منظر، فصلنامه علمی- ترویجی منظر، شماره 22، 25-22.

22-  Cassatella, C. 2011. Assessing Visual And Social Perceptions Of Landscape. In: Cassatella, C., Peano, Attilia (Ed.) Landscape Indicators; Assessing And Monitoring Landscape Quality. Springer.

23-  Tveit, M., Ode, A. & Fry, G. 2006. Key Concepts In A Framework For Analysing Visual Landscape Character. Lanscape Research, 31, 229-255.

24-  لنگ، جان (1386). آفرینش نظریه معماری؛ نقش علوم رفتاری در طراحی محیط، ترجمه دکتر علیرضا عینی فر، چاپ سوم، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

25-  Nasar, J. L. 2011. Environmental Psychology And Urban Design. In: Banerjee, T., Sideris, Anastasia Loukaitou (Ed.) Companion To Urban Design.

26-  Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L. & Taylor, J. G. 1982. Landscape Perception: Research, Application And Theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1 – 33.

27-  بهزادفر، مصطفی، قاضی زاده، سیده ندا (1390). حس رضایت از فضاهای باز مسکونی؛ نمونه مورد مطالعه مجتمع‌های مسکونی شهر تهران، فصلنامه هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی، شماره 45، 15-24.

28-  رفیعیان، مجتبی، خدائی، زهرا (1388). بررسی شاخص‌ها و معیارهای موثر بر رضایت‌مندی شهروندان از فضاهای عمومی شهری، فصلنامه راهبرد، شماره 53، 248-227.

29-  Che, Y., Yang, K., Chen, T. & Xu, Q. 2012. Assessing A Riverfront Rehabilitation Project Using The Comprehensive Index Of Public Accessibility. Ecological Engineering, 40, 80-87.

30-  Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. 1989. The Experience Of Nature: A Psyvological Perspective, Combridge University Press.

31-  Nassauer, J. 1979. Managing For Naturalness In Wildland And Agricultural Landscapes. The National Conference On Applied Techniques For Analysis And Management Of The Visual Resource. Incline Village, Nevada.

32-  Ozguner, H. & Kendle, A. D. 2006. Public Attitudes Towards Naturalistic Versus Designed Landscapes In The City Of Sheffield (Uk). Landscape And Urban Planning, 74, 139–157.

33-  Lamb, R. J. & Purcell, A. T. 1990. Perception Of Naturalness In Landscape And Its Relationship To Vegetation Structure. Landscape And Urban Planning, 19, 333-352.

34-  Churchward, C., Palmer, J. F., Nassauer, J. I. & Swanwick, C. A. 2013. Evaluation Of Methodologies For Visual Impact Assessments. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.

35-  Soliva, R. & Hunziker, M. 2009. Beyond The Visual Dimension: Using Ideal Type Narratives To Analyse People’s Assessments Of Landscape Scenarios. Land Use Policy, 26, 284–294.

36-  Iema & Li 2002. Guidelines For Landscape And Visual Impact Assessment, Spon Press.

37-  Mansvelt, J. D. & Kuiper, J. 1999. Criteria For The Humanity Realm: Psychology And Physiognomy And Cultural Heritage. In: Mansvelt, J. D. V., Lubbe, M. J. Van Der (Ed.) Checklist For Sustainable Landscape Management. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

38-  Stobbelaar, D. J. & Pedroli, B. 2011. Perspectives On Landscape Identity: A Conceptual Challenge. Lanscape Research, 36, 321-339.

39-  Larsen, S. E. 1997. Landscape, Identity And Literature. Journal Of Literary Studies, 13, 284-302.

40-  فیضی، محسن، اسدپور، علی (1392). تحلیل منظر کلان تاریخی شیراز بر اساس ترسیم‌های جهان‌گردان خارجی، فصلنامه باغ نظر، شماره 24، 12-3.