Measurement of Urban Landscape Continuity Components on Increasing Inclination Walking in Urban Parks (A Case Study; Urban Parks in Shiraz)

Subject Areas :

Masoumeh Sazandeh ¹ , Seyed Abbas Yazdanfar ² , Mohsen Faizi ³

1 - Department of Art and Architecture, Zarghan branch, Islamic Azad university, Zarghan, Iran
2 - b Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
3 - Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

Received: 2018-05-13 Accepted : 2018-09-07 Published : 2018-09-23

Keywords: Shiraz, park, connectivity, landscape, Walking,

Abstract :

Today, presence in urban spaces has led to prevalence of physical, mental and social diseases. The close relationship between physical activities and the surrounding urban environment has led the researcher to promote walking in order to improve the health of citizens from the point of view of environment and landscape design. Meanwhile, the role of urban parks as spaces to promote individuals’ social and physical activities is important. The main goal of this study is analyzing the relationship between the urban landscape connectivity (ULC), as a new concept in urban landscape architecture literature and the individuals’ willingness to walk in urban parks. A mixed method of research was used in this study, in which in the first phase, qualitative method was used to select case studies and priority concepts of ULC influencing walking. In the next phase, quantitative research methods were used to quantify ULC and walking. At the end of the comparison and analysis of the results, the relationship between the two variables was determined. The findings of the research showed that Janet Park with an average of 12.66 has the highest ULC, and Chamran park, with an average of 12.05, had the lowest ULC. Moreover, Janet Park, with an average of 14,625 pedestrians in counting, has the highest walkability and Chamran Park with an average of 8,324 people had the least amount of walking. The results showed that the highest level of walking was observed in parks with the highest ULC in Shiraz. Among the components of ULC, socio-cultural connectivity and functional connectivity played more important roles in increasing people's willingness to walk.

References:

1. اسمعیل پور، نجما؛ سلطانی، علی؛ ایزدی، فاطمه، (1390): «بررسی عوامل مؤثر در افزایش فعالیت پیاده در فضای شهری خیابان، نمونه موردی: خیابان رحمت‌آباد شهر شیراز» همایش بین‌المللی زندگی پیاده در شهر، جلد اول، تهران


2. ایمان، محمدتقی؛ نوشادی، محمود رضا؛ (1390): «تحلیل محتوای کیفی»، پژوهش، سال سوم، شماره دوم، پاییز و زمستان.


3. باردن، لورنس؛ (1375): «تحلیل محتوا»، ترجمه ملیحه آشتیانی، مرکز چاپ و انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران.


4. باقری، محمد؛ (1387): «فضای عمومی محله و ارتقاء فعالیت فیزیکی»، پایان‌نامه دکتری معماری دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران.


5. پاکزاد، جهانشاه؛ (1384): «راهنمای طراحی فضاهای شهری»، وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی، معاونت شهرسازی و معماری، دبیرخانه شورای عالی شهرسازی و معماری، تهران.


6. جکوبز، جین؛ (1386): «مرگ و زندگی در شهرهای بزرگ آمریکایی»، ترجمه حمیدرضا پارسی، آرزو افلاطونی، چاپ اول، مؤسسه انتشارات و چاپ دانشگاه تهران.


7. دلاور، علی؛ (1389): «روش تحقیق در روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی»، چاپ سی و دوم، نشر ویرایش، تهران.


8. سازنده، معصومه؛ (1396): «پیوستگی منظر شهری و میزان تمایل به پیاده‌روی در پارک‌های شهری، نمونه موردی: پارک‌های شهری شیراز»، پایان‌نامه دکتری معماری منظر دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران.


9. صحراگرد منفرد، ندا سادات؛ (1394): «مدل مؤلفه‌های طراحی مرکز محله مشارکت محور با رویکرد ادراکی»، پایان‌نامه دکتری معماری دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران.


10. گل، یان؛ (1389): «فضاهای عمومی و زندگی جمعی» ترجمه علی غفاری، محمدصادق سهیلی پور، مرکز چاپ و انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران.


11. گل، یان؛ سوار، برجیت؛ (1394): «چگونه زندگی همگانی را مطالعه کنیم»، ترجمه دکتر مصطفی بهزادفر، محمد رضایی ندوشن، احمد رضایی ندوشن، مؤسسه علم معمار، تهران.


12. گل، یان؛ (1394): «شهر انسانی»، ترجمه علی غفاری، لیلا غفاری، چاپ دوم، مؤسسه علم معمار، تهران.


13. مهندسین مشاور شهر و خانه؛ (1390): «بازنگری طرح تفصیلی شیراز»، شهرداری شیراز.


14. معینی، سید مهدی، (1390): «شهرهای پیاده مدار»، انتشارات آذرخش، تهران.


15. Antonson, H., Gustafsson, M., Angelstam, P. (2010): Cultural heritage connectivity. A tool for EIA in transportation infrastructure planning, Transportation Research Part D 15, pp 463-472


16. Bonnin, M.; Bruszik, A.; Delbaere, B.; Lethier, H.; Richard, D.; Rientjes, S.; van Uden, G. and Terry, A. (2007): The Pan- European Ecological Network: taking stock (Nature and Environment No: 146).


17. Campoli, Julie, (2013): Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form,


18. Carvalho, F.M.V., De Marco P.Jr., Ferreira, L.G., (2009): The Cerrado into-pieces: habitat fragmentation as a function of landscape use in the savannas of central Brazil.Biological Conservation 142, 1392–1403


19. Cook, E. A. &. v. Lier, H. N (1994): Landscape Planning and Ecological Networks. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers


20. Cook, E. A. (2000): Ecological Networks in Urban Landscapes, Wageningen University Doctoral Dissertation. Wageningen, The Netherlands


21. Council of Europe (2000): European Landscape Convention, Florence, CETS No. p 176.


22. Crooks, K.R., Sanjayan (2006): Connectivity Conservation. Conservation Biology, vol. 14. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


23. Doerr, V. A. J., Doerr, E. D., & Davies, M. J. (2010): Does structural connectivity facilitate dispersal of native species in Australia’s fragmented terrestrial landscapes? Systematic Review No. 44.


24. Erickson, D. (2006): MetroGreen: Connecting Open Space in North American Cities Washington, DC: Island Press.


25. Ersoy, Ebru (2016): Landscape Ecology Practices in Planning: Landscape Connectivity and Urban Networks, Chapter 13 of the book with name “Sustainable Urbanization”, published by INTECH


26. Fisher, J., Lindenmayer, D.B., (2007): Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeography 16, 265–280.


27. Forman, R.T.T., (1995): Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press


28. Fruin, JohnJ, (1971): Pedestrian Planning and Design.New York. Metropolitan Association of Urban


29. Designers and Environmental Planners,Inc, reprinted in 1987. Mobile, AL. Elevator World Publications


30. Goodwin, B. J. (2003): Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? andscape Ecology, 18, 687-699


31. Hsu, Chia-chien, Sandford, Brian A., (2007): Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol 12, No 10


32. Hyung Chon, Jin, (2004): Aesthetic Responses To Urban Greenway Trail Corridors: Implications For Sustainable Development In Tourism And Recreation Settings. A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy, Texas A&M University.


33. Johnson, B.; Hill, K. (2002): Ecology and Design: Frameworks for Learning, Island Press.


34. Jongman, R. H. G. and Pungetti, G. P. (2004): Ecological Networks and Greenways Concept, Design, Implementation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. UK.


35. Kaplan S., Kaplan, R. (2003): Health, Supportive Environments, and the Reasonable Person Model, American Journal of Public Health. Vol 93, NO 9, pp 1484-1489.


36. Kindlmann, P. and F. Burel, (2008):Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecology, 23: p. 879-890.


37. Lynch, Kevin. 1971. Site Planning, The MIT. Press, USA.


38. Makhzoumi,Jala, Pungetti, Gloria, (1999): Ecological landscape design & Planning, Epson,London


39. May, Rachel, (2006): ‘‘Connectivity’’ in urban rivers: Conflict and convergence between ecology and design, Technology in Society 28, 477–488


40. Mead E., Dodson, J. & Ellway, C., (2006): Urban Environments and Health: Identifying Key Relationships & Policy Imperative, Urban Research Program. Griffith University, pp 1-5.


41. Park, So Hyun, (2011): Ecological Connectivity Assessment and Urban Dimensions: A Case of Phoenix Metropolitan Landscape. A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy, Arizona state university


42. Parker, K., Laurie, L. H., Chisholm, A., & Feneley, N. (2008): A conceptual model of ecological connectivity in the Shellharbour Local Government Area, New South Wales, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 47-59.


43. Sazandeh, M., Faizi, M., Yazdanfar, S. A., Behzadfar, M., (2018): The typology of connectivity in landscape architecture: A review of studies on landscape connectivity (LC), Journal of Building Performance, Volume 9 Issue 1, 21-32.


44. Swaffield, S. & Deming, M. E. (2011): Research strategies in landscape architecture: mapping


45. the terrain. Journal of Landscape Architecture.


46. Taylor, P.D., et al., 1993, Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos, 68(3): p. 571-573.


47. Tischendorf, L. and L. Fahring, (2000): On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity. Oikos, 90, 7-19.


48. Transportation Research Board TRB, 2005, p3.


49. Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H., & O'Neill, R. V. (2001): Landscape ecology in theory and practice: pattern and process. New York: Springer


50. Ward JV, Tockner K, Schiemer F. (1999): Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems: ecotones and connectivity. Regul Rivers-Res Manage; 15.1–3:125–39


51. WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development), (2017): Landscape Connectivity A call to action, Geneva, Switzerland, www.wbcsd.org


52. Wheater, P. C., (1999): Urban Habitats. London: Routledge


53. www.ipaq.ki.se, 2017/12/10