تحلیل الگوی خلوت گزینی در فضاهای باز شهری (نمونه موردی: پارک جنت در شهر شیراز)
محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه علمی و پژوهشی پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهریزهره نادریان 1 , علی اکبر حیدری 2
1 - دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد معماری، واحد یاسوج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، یاسوج، ایران
2 - دانشیار معماری، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه یاسوج، یاسوج، ایران
کلید واژه: شیراز, اوقات فراغت, خلوت فردی, خلوت جمعی, پارک جنت,
چکیده مقاله :
فرآیند تنظیم خلوت علاوه بر ویژگی‌های فردی، به عوامل محیطی نیز وابسته است و محیط پیرامون فرد میتواند زمینه‌ساز نمودهای مختلف خلوت فردی و جمعی باشد. پارکها به عنوان مکانی جهت گذارن اوقات فراغت، میتواند تا حد زیادی بستر مناسبی برای بروز خلوت در یک فضای جمعی باشند. بر همین اساس پژوهش حاضر با انتخاب یک پارک شهری در کلانشهر شیراز به عنوان نمونه موردی، سعی در بررسی ابعاد مختلف الگوهای وقوع خلوت در این فضا و چگونگی تاثیر آن بر ارتقا اوقات فراغت استفاده کنندگان دارد. بنابراین هدف پژوهش حاضر، شناسایی انواع الگوهای تحقق خلوت در فضاهای باز شهری و عوامل مؤثر بر بروز آنها و نیز بررسی ارتباط آن بر اوقات فراغت استفاده کنندگان از این فضاها است. روش تحقیق در این پژوهش ترکیبی از روشهای کمی و کیفی است که در قالب پیمایش میدانی و نیز مشاهده و مصاحبه با استفاده کنندگان از پارک به گردآوری اطلاعات پرداخته است. به منظور شناسایی الگوهای خلوت‌گزینی در فضای عمومی، روشی جدید مبتنی بر مشاهده و ثبت الگوها از طریق تکنیک نقشه‌برداری رفتاری بکار گرفته است. این روش به تفکیک جنسیت به ثبت الگوهای خلوت در محیط پرداخته است. نتایج تحقیق نشان داد که خلوت در پارک در قالب دو الگوی فردی و جمعی نمود می‌یابد. بعد انسانی و به ویژه سن و جنس افراد در خلوت آنها بیشترین تأثیر را داشتند و بیشترین نمودهای خلوت شامل بازی کردن، نشستن روی زمین (چمن) و نشستن درون آلاچیق با تکنیک نقشه برداری رفتاری ثبت گردیدند. بروز الگوی خلوت فردی با انجام رفتارهایی چون مطالعه کردن، تماشای طبیعت، تماشای افراد و مواردی از این دست همراه است و خلوت جمعی نیز با رفتارهایی چون دوهم نشینی خانوادگی و دوستانه، ملافات با دوستان و صحبت با آنها نمود می‌یابد.
In addition to individual characteristics, the process of adjusting solitude is also dependent on environmental factors, and the environment around a person can be the basis for different manifestations of individual and collective solitude.Parks, as a place to spend leisure time, can be a suitable platform for solitude in a collective space.Based on this, the present study, by choosing an urban park in Shiraz metropolis as a case study, tries to investigate the different dimensions of the patterns of solitude in this space and how it affects the improvement of the leisure time of the users.Therefore, the aim of the current research is to identify the types of patterns of solitude in urban open spaces and the factors affecting their occurrence, as well as to investigate its relationship with the leisure time of the users of these spaces.The research method in this study is a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, which collected information in the form of field survey, as well as observation and interview with the users of the park. In order to identify patterns of seclusion in public space, a new method based on observing and recording patterns through behavioral mapping technique has been used. This method has recorded the patterns of solitude in the environment by gender. The results of the research showed that solitude in the park is manifested in the form of two individual and collective patterns.The human dimension and especially the age and gender of people had the greatest effect on their solitude, and the most manifestations of solitude including playing, sitting on the ground (grass) and sitting in gazebos were recorded with the behavioral mapping technique. The occurrence of individual solitude pattern is associated with behaviors such as reading, watching nature, watching people and such things, and collective solitude is manifested with behaviors such as family and friendly gatherings, hanging out with friends and talking to them.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
The field of environmental psychology shows that spatial organization can strengthen desirable social interactions, and on the other hand, this spatial organization can have a direct effect on creating desirable solitude. In fact, it is possible to achieve a suitable level of collective communication through proper organization of spaces and spatial arrangement. and desired privacy was achieved in accordance with the desired spatial activities. Leisure time is also a social structure and like solitude is one of the human needs in the environment City streets are passed.In the present research, we will analyze and identify the types of patterns of realization of solitude in urban open spaces and the factors affecting their occurrence, as well as investigate its relationship to the leisure time of users, using the case example of Jennet Park in Shirazmi city, Jennet Park is one of the very interesting projects that In the Qajar era in 1223, it was built and operated on a land of 54 hectares, 27 hectares of which can be used and visited by the people. However, providing different levels of privacy (individual privacy and collective privacy) in such spaces and the mechanisms to create it, can play an important role in spending the best leisure time of people in urban parks. Based on this, in this research, the solutions for providing optimal privacy in urban parks and how it affects the quality of people's leisure time are discussed. Therefore, the questions that the current research seeks to answer are as follows:
What are the different patterns of seclusion of people during their free time in the city park?
What characteristics do the users of city parks choose for their solitude in the city park?
What is the relationship between the patterns of seclusion and spending leisure time of users in urban parks?
Methodology
The main goal of this research is to analyze how people choose solitude in urban parks (case example: Gent Park, Shiraz) and the factors affecting this issue. In this regard, the first step was to record the patterns of seclusion of people in the park, which was done using the behavioral mapping technique of users. In the next step, the factors affecting the formation of solitude, the relationship between the environmental components of the park and the patterns of people choosing solitude in leisure activities were evaluated with the help of a questionnaire with questions from the Likert spectrum. The statistical population of the research included people who were present in the park for individual or group use of the space, of which 109 people were selected as the sample size. Questionnaires were distributed among people at different times (12:30-9 in the morning and 19:30-15:30 at night) and during one week in December 2019. After collecting the data, it was entered into the SPSS software environment and tested according to the needs of the research.
Results and discussion
According to the process mentioned in the research method section, in this section, based on the mentioned steps, data was collected and analyzed, which will be discussed in the following.
The first step: extracting different types of patterns of realization of solitude based on behavioral systems in the park: in recording different patterns of solitude with an emphasis on the leisure behaviors of people in the city park, the technique of behavioral mapping and simply exploring stop or static behaviors at the level of the park is used and addressing They refrained from dynamic activities and their analysis in the field of solitude. With this explanation, the types of behaviors that were performed in the park with Greenie's intention of solitude include: 1. Sitting in the gazebo 2. Sitting on the ground (grass) 3. Sitting on the benches 4. Sitting on the platform 5. Standing 6. Playing 7 Exercising 8. Lying on the bench 9. Lying on the ground (grass). Second step: extraction of environmental characteristics effective in the formation of various patterns of solitude in the park. There are various activities in the park to spend free time, each of which requires a type and amount of solitude. In general, the pattern of individual and collective solitude lies in the heart of providing individual and collective leisure. For example, lying on the ground individually and collectively in the park and its green areas is one of these behaviors. Taking pictures next to the dense green mass also happened collectively or next to the signs that have good legibility and good recognition. According to Table 2 and by examining the frequency of behaviors at the park level, it can be seen that most people choose pavilions for sitting and then sitting on the ground has the highest frequency. In collective solitude (group of two), most people can be seen without personalizing the environment and under shade trees (in heat) and in the sun to warm up (in cold).
Third step: Analysis of the relationship between the park's environmental characteristics and human components with the updated patterns of solitude in people's free time: After examining the significance level of solitude, the impact of the park's environmental characteristics on the acquired solitude of people was analyzed. For this purpose, Friedman's test was used, the results of which are presented in Table 6. According to the findings of this table, among the environmental components that affect solitude, the possibility of reflection in the space despite individual and collective security and peace, as well as visual comfort (not being visible) are among the most important factors that influence the creation of solitude in the park. In addition to this, the diversity of vegetation in the park and physical comfort conditions (the presence of shade, proper light, air flow and the absence of noise and environmental pollution) are other factors that are effective in providing environmental conditions to create solitude in parks.
Conclusion
Field investigations and statistical results showed that there are two types of temporary and permanent usage patterns of city parks, in which people use these spaces on certain days of the year and with specific purposes. This is despite the fact that in the permanent model, people use these urban spaces without any background and just to spend their daily leisure time. Since in this research, the issue of spending daily leisure time in city parks is considered, therefore, only the permanent patterns of using these spaces are considered, and in this connection, the most important findings obtained are as follows:
Most of the behaviors of seclusion are formed individually and collectively next to the defined park entrances and crowded spaces;
Most people choose pavilions for group sitting and conversation (collective solitude); Therefore, people use the fixed positions and furniture of the park for their private and expensive leisure time.
Individual solitudes are generally formed on the benches and along the main roads;
Sitting on the ground is generally done in the vicinity of short green spaces, including shrubs and boxwoods, both individually and collectively;
Collective solitude is done by playing group games in green areas or in special sports spaces;
Lying down and looking at the sky is one of the behaviors that provide individual and collective solitude, which is done in green areas and generally in a space away from the physical and visual access of others. Such as the collectability of the environment, having security, the possibility of reflecting on the space, the color of belonging and spatial permeability have the greatest impact on providing individual and collective solitude for people in urban parks, and as a result, the existence of these conditions in these spaces can lead to the desire of people to use them. to provide for leisure time. For example, when people feel that they have the possibility to create a personal space for themselves in a space and away from the eyes of others, they consider that space suitable for solitude and according to the location of that space and the level of visual access of others to it. They engage in leisure activities. However, the existence of security and the possibility of being seen by others in the park (without causing disturbance) is the most important factor that people pay attention to in providing a suitable space for privacy, which of course is more evident in relation to women than men. With these explanations in Table 7, the types of solitude-seeking behaviors in urban parks and the environmental factors affecting them are presented.
1-Al Moqrin, A. J. A. (2016). Children’s Conformity: The Child's Age and Level of Privacy. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences , 4(6), 188-193. doi:10.5923/j.ijpbs.20160604.02
2-Altman, I. (1976). A conceptual analysis. Environment and behavior, 8(1), 7-29.
3-Ayala-Azcárraga, C., Diaz, D., & Zambrano, L. (2019). Characteristics of urban parks and their relation to user well-being. Landscape and urban planning, 189, 27-35.
4-Brown, G., Rhodes, J., & Dade, M. (2018). An evaluation of participatory mapping methods to assess urban park benefits. Landscape and urban planning, 178, 18-31.
5-Cheung, P. K., & Jim, C. Y. (2019). Differential cooling effects of landscape parameters in humid-subtropical urban parks. Landscape and urban planning, 192, 103651.
6-Davis, S.F. & Palladino, J. J (1997), Psychology. Prentice-Hall Inc. New Jersey U.S.A.
7-Foddy, W. (1984). A critical evaluation of Altman's definition of privacy as a dialectical process.
8-Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: principles and practices, Colville, WA: optimal books.
9-Hallak, M. E. (2002). Privacy Patterns in Homes of Middle-Class Shaamy Immigrants in Montreal. Paper presented at the ARCC Conference Repository.
10-Hatchison, R. (2010). Ensyclopedia of urban studies. Loss Angels, Londen, AAGE Publications, Inc.
11-kazemi, m., & Soheili, J. (2019). Effects of Architectural Components on the Satisfaction Rate of Residents with Different Ages and Genders in Relation to Privacy (Case Study: a Residential Complex in Tabriz). International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 9(3), 39-50.
12-Kim, D., & Jin, J. (2018). Does happiness data say urban parks are worth it? Landscape and urban planning, 178, 1-11.
13-kowaltowski, D., & Pina, s., & Barros, R. (2006). architectural design analysis as a strategy for people environment studies: finding spaces that work proceeding (CD) of 19th IAPS conference, international association for people environment studies, Alexandria, egypt, p 1-6.
14-Lang, J. (1987). creating atchitectural theory : the role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design, Van Nostrand Reinhold , New York.
15-Laurence, G. A., Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. (2013). “My space”: A moderated mediation model of the effect of architectural and experienced privacy and workspace personalization on emotional exhaustion at work. Journal of Environmental psychology, 36, 144-152.
16-Marshall, N.J., (1972) Privacy and environment. Human ecology,. 1(2): p. 93-110.
17-Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and urban planning, 84(1), 7-19
18-Margulis, S. T. (2003). On the status and contribution of Westin's and Altman's theories of privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 411-429.
19-Mohammad Niay Gharaeiy, F., & Rafieian, M. (2013). Investigating Cross-Cultural Differences in the Privacy Regulation and Perception of Crowding (Northern and Kurdish Women in Iran). International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 3(4), 41-46.
20-Namazian, A. and A. Mehdipour (2013), Psychological demands of the built environment, privacy, personal space and territory in architecture. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences,. 3(4): p. 109-113.
21-Newell, P. B. (1998). A cross-cultural comparison of privacy definitions and functions: A systems approach. Journal of Environmental psychology, 18(4), 357-371.
22-Ondia, E. P. (2019). Addressing the Dilema Between Collaboration and Privacy in Coworking Spaces. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 9(3), 5-10.
23-parsaee, M., & karimi, b., (2014). space and place component s anlyseis based on semiology approche in residential architecture: the case study of traditional city of bushehr, iran, HBRC journal.
24-Pedersen, D. M. (1999). Model for types of privacy by privacy functions. Journal of Environmental psychology, 19(4), 397-405.
25-Qeidi, S., Motedayen, H., & Cheshmehghasbani, M. (2019). A study on the role of the landscape design with the approach of solving the limitations of use for women in the coastal areas in Iran as an Islamic country. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 9(3), 51-60.
26-Rapaport, A. (1972). Some perespective on human use and organization of space, Australian association of social anthropologists, Melborn, Australia, May.
27-Ramezani, S., & Hamidi, S. (2010). Privacy and social interaction in traditional towns to contemporary urban design in Iran. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 501-508.
28-Rigolon, A., Browning, M., & Jennings, V. (2018). Inequities in the quality of urban park systems: An environmental justice investigation of cities in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 178, 156-169.
29-Rapaport, A. (1977). Human aspect of urban forms: toward a man- environment approach to urban form and design, pergamon press, new york, us.
30-Thompson, C. W., Aspinall, P., & Bell, S. (2010). Innovative approaches to researching landscape and health: open space: people space 2: Routledge.
31-Weber, C. (2018). Privacy Fit in Open-Plan Offices: Its Appraisal, Associated Outcomes & Contextual Factors. University of Surrey,
32-Wollman, N., Kelly, B. M., & Bordens, K. S. (1994). Environmental and Intrapersonal Predictors of Reactions to Potential Territorial Intrusions in the Workplace. Environment and Behavior, 26(2), 179-194. doi:doi:10.1177/00139165940260020
33-Zhang, S., & Zhou, W. (2018). Recreational visits to urban parks and factors affecting park visits: Evidence from geotagged social media data. Landscape and urban planning, 180, 27-35
_||_