Study of Effective Components on Place Attachment in Terms of Tehran City Teenagers

Subject Areas : architecture

Zahra Khodaee ¹ , Mojtaba Rafiean ² , Hashem Dadashpoor ³ , Aliakbar Taghvaee ⁴

1 - د‌انشجوی د‌کتری شهرسازی، د‌انشکد‌ۀ هنر و معماری، دانشگاه تربیت مد‌رس.
2 - د‌انشیار گروه شهرسازی، د‌انشکد‌ۀ هنر و معماری، د‌انشگاه تربیت مد‌رس.
3 - استاد‌یار گروه شهرسازی، د‌انشکد‌ۀ هنر و معماری، د‌انشگاه تربیت مد‌رس.
4 - Associate Professor of Urban Planning, Tarbiat Modares University of Tehran, Iran

Received: 2014-05-09 Accepted : 2015-10-26 Published : 2018-02-20

Keywords: District Entity, District Affiliation, Place attachment, Social Connection,

Abstract :

Place attachment is the complex and multi-level concept that people with emotional ties to a specified location,is defined as part of Place. Sense of place attachment is the cognitive and emotional link between human and theenvironment that is rooted in the individual's characteristics and past experiences, So this feeling is caused thespaces inverted to place with sensory attributes and specific behaviors for the people.This article clarify the factors affecting the place attachment, including the place identity, place independenceand social connections which is measuring and comparing them in the selected neighborhoods of Tehran city inthe viewpoint of teenager group. Infact, The aim of this study was to clarify attachment to the place of teenagers,living in selected cummunities of the city of Tehran. The main question raised in this research is what proceduresand how much are effected on the interest of the teenage people living in urban community?This essay embarks for a research on the Effect of “Place Attachment” on certain chosen districts in the City ofTehran. The method of research and study in this essay has been an analytical and dialectic process.This study has been concluded with dispersion of 475 among teenagers between ages 12 to 16 from certain districtsof Tehran city such as Elahie, Narmak, Hashemi and Yaftabad District. It is quite necessary to be mentioned thatall these districts were chosen in an analytical and systematic way. In this essay the effective factors of “PlaceAttachment” were basically researched and discovered in those four districts separately.According to the aim of the measure variables Pearson correlation tests, F test, T test and Tukey was used.In relation to the analysis of statistical tests, F test results showed that the place dependence and place identityas well as place attachment index has significant difference between neighborhoods. However, there was nodifference in the variable of social ties among the four neighborhoods. Therefore, due to significant differencesin the components of place identity, place independence and place attachment index, Tukey's test was applied todetermine which neighborhoods in terms of place attachment and from its components, are similar to each otherand could be in the cluster.Considering the meaningful correlation among examined components or studied curves, in general the Tukey testindicates that regarding the “place attachment”, two districts of Yaftabad and Hashemi stand in one category, andthe two districts of Narmak and Elahyein another category either. Study of these two categories indicates that theNarmak and Elahiye teenagers have more social connection of place attachment than the teenagers of Yaftabad andHashemi. Finally, Among the factors affecting the place attachment index, place identity with Lambda coefficientof 0.854 has greatest variance accounted for the other components.So, this means that in promoting the sense ofplace attachment, place identity is explained this relation better than the other components and strengthen a senseof place identity increases the sense of place attachment from the views of teenager group.

References:

1. حبیب، فرح؛ ناد‌ری، سید مجید؛ فروزانگهر، حمید‌ه. (1387). پرسمان تبعی د‌ر گفتمان کالبد شهر و هویت (کالبد شهر تابع هویت یا هویت تابع کالبد شهر؟). هویت شهر. 3، 23-13.
2. د‌انش پور، عبد‌الهاد‌ی؛ سپهری مقدم، منصور؛ و چرخیان، مریم. (1388). تبیین مد‌ل د‌لبستگی به مکان و بررسی عناصر و عوامل مختلف آن. هنرهای زیبا. 38، 48-37.
3. د‌واس، د‌ی. ای. (1383). پیمایش د‌ر تحقیقات اجتماعی. (هوشنگ نایبی، مترجم)، تهران: نشرنی.
4. قاضی‌زاد‌ه، سید‌ه ند‌ا. (1390). تأثیر طراحی فضای باز مجتمع مسکونی د‌ر ایجاد حس د‌لبستگی به مکان. پایان‌نامه د‌کتری معماری، دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
5. مد‌یری، آتوسا. (1387). مکان. هویت شهر، 2، 79-69.

6. Altman, I., & Low, S. (1992).Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.
7. Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 331–352.
8. Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, Ferdinando & Bonnes, M. (2003). Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in urban
environments: a confirmation study on the city of Rome, Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 41-52.
9. Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sence of Place as an Attitude: Lakeshore owners Attitudes toward their Properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233-248.
10. Brown, B.B., & Warner, C.M. (1985). Social cohesiveness, Territoriality and holiday decorations. Journal of Environment and Behavior, 17, 539-565.
11. Brown, B., Perkin, D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 259–271.
12. Case, D. (1996). Contributions of journeys away to the definition of home: An empirical study of a dialectical process. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 1-15.
13. Feldman, R.M. (1990). Settlement Identity: Psychological bonds with home places in a mobile society.Environment and Behavior, 22, 83-229.
14. Fleury-Bahi, G., Félonneau, M & Marchand, D. (2008). Processes of Place Identification and Residential Satisfaction”, Environment and Behavior, 5, 669-682. Accessed March, 2010, from http://online.sagepub.com
15. Félonneau, M. L. (2004). Love and Loathing of the City: Topological Identity and Perceived Incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 43-52.
16. Fried, M. (1982). Residential attachment: Sources of residential and community satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 107-119.
17. Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of attachment and place attachment. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological theories for environmental issues, (pp. 137–170). Aldershot: Ashgate.
18. Gustafson, P. (2001). Roots and routes: Exploring the relationship between place attachment and mobility. Environment and Behavior, 33, 667-686.
19. Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 5–29.
20. Hidalgo, M. C., Hernandez, B. (2001). Place
Attachment: Conceptual and Empirical Questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273-281.
21. Hur, M, L., Nasar, J., & Chun, B. (2010). Neighborhood Satisfaction, Physical and Perceived naturalness and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 52-59.
22. Kamalipour, H., Yeganeh, A. J., & Alalhesabi, M. (2012).Predictors of Place Attachment in Urban Residential Environments: A Residential Complex Case Study. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 475-469.
23. Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328-339.
24. Lalli, M. (1992). Urban related identity: Theory, measurement and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 285–303.
25. Lewicka, M. (2011).Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207-230.
26. Livingston, M., Bailey, N., & Kearns, A. (2008).People's attachment to place: the influence of neighborhood deprivation. Project Report. Charterd Institute of Housing/Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Coventry, Glasgow.
27. Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental Connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 422-434.
28. Milligan, M. J. (1998). Interactional past and potential: the social construction of place attachment. Symbolic Interaction, 21, 1-33.
29. Mesch, G. S., & Manor, O. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Journal of Environment and Behavior, 4, 504-519.
30. Proshansky, H., & Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83.
31. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited.
32. Riger, S., & Lavrakas, P. J. (1981). Community ties: Patterns of attachment and social interaction in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 9, 55-66.
33. Scopelliti, M., & Tiberio, L. (2010). Homesickness in university students: The role of multiple Place attachment. Journal of Environment and Behavior, 42, 335-350.
34. Stedman, R., Beckley, T., Wallace, S., & Ambard, M. (2004). A picture and 1000 words: Using resident-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 580-606.
35. Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition social behavior and the environment (pp. 441–488). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. Terkenli, T. S. (1995). Home as a region. Geographical Review, 85(3), 324-334.
37. Trentelman, C. K. (2009). Place attachment and community attachment. Society and Natural Resources, 22, 191-210
38. Tuan, Y. F. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Journal of Landscape, 24, 3-8.
39. Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J.W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sci, 14, 29-46.
40. Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Journal of Forest Science, 49, 830–840.
41. Woldoff, R.A. (2002). The Effects of Local Stressors on Neighborhood Attachment. Journal of Social Forces, 81, 87-116.