Investigating the Relationship between Legibility and the Rate of Territorial Behavior in Urban Parks

Subject Areas : architecture

Mansour Yeganeh ¹ , Negar Dehgan ² , Zahra Zare ³ , Mansour Yeganeh ⁴

1 - Professor, Art and Architecture Faculty, Tarbiat Modares University
2 - M.A. in Landscape Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran. Iran
3 - M.A. in Landscape Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
4 - Associate Professor of Architecture, Architectural Design, Modeling, and fabrication Lab, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2019-10-15 Accepted : 2021-04-26 Published : 2021-12-22

Keywords: Social interactions, Territory, Territorial behavior, Behaviorism, Legibility,

Abstract :

Landscape design involves functional as well as perceptive and imaginative aspects of space. It is this particular combination, which is essential to making contemporary landscapes more attractive. Legibility is a quality of the environment that clarifies the city and makes the city's image better remembered. In urban parks, the components of spatial legibility can create different degrees of territorial behavior in citizens. According to Lynch's theory, these components include the legibility of paths, nodes, districts, edges, and landmarks. Therefore, the impact of urban parks legibility on several users and reaching a territorial behavior in these spaces formed the present study's focus. Territory refers to the part of urban spaces that individuals or groups regularly and consistently benefit from and protect against intruders and outsiders because of their sense of belonging and ownership of the area.Any personalization and marking in the environment or defense against harassment is considered a form of territorial behavior. Territorial behavior is one of the social dimensions of urban spaces. The quality and way of its occurrence are related to the quality of urban public spaces. In other words, citizens' attitudes and levels of territorial behaviors interact with the criteria by which they evaluate an urban public space as favorable, with high quality. Strengthening territories in parks create an environment that will give users a sense of belonging and ultimately lead to increased social interactions in the urban environment. The purpose of this research is to study the process of the impact of legibility and how to apply methods to improve territorial behavior in urban parks. This research used a descriptive-analytical research method, followed by a survey to serve the empirical research aspect. The paper claims that the proper path widths, recognizable entrances, distinguished districts, and the ease of comprehension of the space are useful and considered by the citizens to be very desirable and necessary to create legibility. Also, having different people in a park and being comfortable and flexible is one of the most vital factors in enhancing the sense of ownership and defensiveness of a place. To enhance territoriality and understand the space, it is necessary to consider the criteria by which citizens evaluate legibility because of differing the legibility assessment criteria in diverse parks. The design of spaces should also consider the citizens' diversity and cultural differences and create spaces appropriate to the people who use that place, following the social and cultural context. The results show that legibility indicators must exist together in one space to make that space understandable from citizens' viewpoint. Moreover, this understanding will ultimately enhance the sense of ownership and territory. Physical legibility is analyzed through variables such as geometry, spatial structure and configuration, visual barriers and disruptions, access capabilities, underlying architectural components of routing and path recognition, node, edge, district, landmark or landscape, and quantitative and syntactic legibility. Compared to related research, the innovation aspect Conceptual modeling and extraction of readability mechanisms and processes (factors on components) in urban parks are other unique aspects of the study.

References:

1. آلتمن، ایروین. (1382). محیط و رفتار اجتماعی، (علی نمازیان، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی. (نشر اثر اصلی 1975).


2. بینیاز، فاطمه؛ و حنایی، تکتم. (1396). بازشناسی عناصر مؤثر بر خوانایی در ادراک بزرگسالان. فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی مطالعات شهری، ۲۳، 17-28.


3. جلیلی، محمد؛ عینی فر، علیرضا؛ و طلیسچی، غلامرضا. (1392). فضای باز مجموعه‌های مسکونی و پاسخدهی محیطی. هنرهای زیبا، ۴، 57-68.


4. دویران، اسماعیل؛ و کریمی نژاد، ملیحه. (1391). هویت و حس تعلق مکانی در فضاهای عمومی جدید الحداث شهری (مطالعه موردی: بوستان نهج‌البلاغه - تهران). هویت شهر، 18، 81-92.


5. سرمدی، صدف؛ شاهچراغی، آزاده؛ و کریمی فرد، لیلا. (1398). مقایسه تطبیقی مؤلفه‌های غنای حسی دوره گذار باغ به پارک در تهران (مطالعه موردی: باغ ایرانی و پارک نیاوران). هویت شهر. 14(4)، 5-18.


6. ضرغامی، اسماعیل؛ قنبران، عبدالحمید؛ سعادتی وقار، پوریا؛ و ضامنی، مرتضی. (1397). نقش خوانایی کالبدی بر امنیت بوستان‌های شهری. فصلنامه مطالعات شهر ایرانی اسلامی، 8 (32)، 15-32.


7. کارمونا، متیو؛ تیسدیل، استیون؛ و هیت، تیم. تنراک. (1388). مکانهای عمومی فضاهای شهری: ابعاد گوناگون طراحی شهری. (فریبا قرائی، مهشید شکوهی، زهرا اهری، اسماعیل صالحی، مترجمان) تهران: دانشگاه هنر. (نشر اثر اصلی2010).


8. لنگ، جان. (1383). آفرینش نظریۀ معماری: نقش علوم رفتاری در طراحی محیط. (علیرضا عینی فر، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران. (نشر اثر اصلی 1987).


9. محمدحسنی، الینا؛ طغرایی، ابوالفضل؛ و میرغلامی، مرتضی. (1395). تحلیل گونه شناسانه عوامل مؤثر بر خوانایی نشانه‌های شهری (مطالعه موردی: خیابان ولیعصر (ع) تهران محدوده میدان ونک تا میدان تجریش(. هویت شهر. 10(25)، 61-74.


10. مطلبی، قاسم؛ و ضرغامی، اسماعیل؛ و سعادتی فر، پوریا. (1397). نقش خوانایی فضای باز بر ایجاد تعاملات اجتماعی در مجموعه‌های مسکونی (نمونه موردی: مجموعه مسکونی سعیدیه همدان). معماری و شهرسازی ایران. 9(2)، 139-156.


11. یگانه، منصور؛ بمانیان، محمدرضا؛ عینی فر، علیرضا؛ و انصاری، مجتبی. (1393). تبیین رابطه رفتار قلمروپایی شهروندان با معیارها و میزان ادراک پیوستگی ساختمان و شهر در فضاهای عمومی شهر. هویت شهر. 8(19)، 5-18.


12. Altman, I. (1973). Reciprocity of interpersonal exchange. Journal for Theory of Social Behavior. (3), 249–261.


13. Bentley, I., McGlynn, S., Smith, G., Alcock, A., & Murrain, G. (1985). Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers. (1^st ed). Oxfordshire: Routledge.


14. Larsen, L., Eppinga, M., Passalacqua, P., Getz, W., Rose, K., & Liang, M. (2016). Appropriate complexity landscape modeling. Earth-Science Reviews. 160, 111–130.


15. Lawson, B. (2001). The Language of Space. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.


16. Lynch, K. (1960). Image of the City. Cambridge: Massachusetts, MIT Press.


17. Moulay, A. Ujang, N. Said, I. (2017). Legibility of neighborhood parks as a predicator for enhanced social interaction towards social sustainability. Cities. 61, 58–64.


18. Osóch, B., & Czaplińska, A. (2019). City image based on mental maps — the case study of Szczecin (Poland). Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development. 23(2), 111-119.


19. Olazabal, M., & Pasacual, U. (2016). Use of fuzzy cognitive maps to study urban resilience and transformation. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 18,18-40.


20. Roberts, C., & Russell, J. (2002). Angles on Environmental Psychology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.


21. Stamps, A. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1),1-16.


22. Topcu, K., & Topcu, M. (2012). Visual Presentation of Mental Images in Urban Design Education:Cognitive Maps. Social and Behavioral Sciences. 51, 573-582.


23. Warren, W., Rothman, D., Schnapp, B., & Ericson, J. (2017). Wormholes in virtual space: From cognitive maps to cognitive graphs. 166, 152-163.