تأثیرنشانه‌های نمای مسکن بر استیگمای وضعیت اجتماعی-اقتصادی ساکنین (مطالعه موردی: منطقه 4 شهرداری تهران)
محورهای موضوعی : معماریعلی شرقی 1 , اسماعیل ضرغامی 2 , مهرناز رمضانپور 3
1 - دانشیار دانشکده مهندسی معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران.
2 - استاد دانشکده مهندسی معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران
3 - دانشجوی دکتری معماری، دانشکده مهندسی معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجایی، تهران، ایران.
کلید واژه: نشانه, برچسب, مسکن, نما, استیگما,
چکیده مقاله :
نمای مسکن توسط نشانه هایی، ویژگی های ساکنین خویش را بیان م یکند. هدف یافتن ارتباط بین فاکتورهای عینی نمایمسکونی و استیگما 1 است. این تحقیق توصیفی-تحلیلی به صورت پیمایشی و با روش تلفیقی سه بعدی روی نماهای مسکونیمنطقه 4 تهران انجام شد. در این راستا، 40 تصویرنما، توسط 203 شهروند به روش تحلیل کیفی قضاوت شد. بعلاوه، پرسشنامه ایجهت سنجش تأثیر فاکتورهای نما بر شأن ساختمان در اختیارشان قرار گرفت. طبق تحلیل عامل اکتشافی، 5 عامل مؤثر براعتبار نمای مسکن: طراحی نما، ابعاد ساختمان و جزئیات، مصالح و بازشو، ویژگی بالکن و آشفتگی بصری. توجه به این عواملدر طراحی، می تواند ننگ ناشی از نما را کاهش داده و در ادراک افراد از طبقه اجتماعی-اقتصادی ساکنین تأثیر مثبت ایجاد کند.
The housing facade shows the social, economic, and cultural characteristics of its inhabitants through the complex system of "signs" and it forms a stereotyped image in the audience`s mind. On the other hand, people with lower socioeconomic status are constantly being stigmatized. This study aims to find the relationship between the objective factors of the residential facade and the stigma. In this regard, residential facades of Tehran's District 4 were investigated using a compound research method. First, theoretical bases and the conceptual framework of the research were compiled by the library method. Then, using a survey method, 40 residential facade images were judged in terms of the perception of the income group of their inhabitants by 203 citizens. Also, a questionnaire containing residential facade visual factors was presented to the citizens to assess their impact on the perception of the prestige of the building. The factor analysis of the data provided five effective factors in the perceived prestige of the house facade: 1) Design of the Facade: This is the factor that determines the first and determines the perceived validity of the residential view. It can be defined as follows: The design factorsare the design of the walls of the building, the lighting of the facade and the design of the balcony. With these three faces, they upgrade a residential prestige in terms of design. 2) Building Dimensions and Detail of facade: One of the value aspects of housing is the dimensions and details of the facade, due to the decorations and details of the materials, the width of the facade (the ground) and its height and cleanliness. The facade is provided. It is deduced that clearness is due to its influence on the perception of details of materials and decorations in this group. Therefore, to be considered a housing facade of residents of high socio-economic class, attention to the dimensions and details of the facade and its elements is necessary. 3) Material and Opening: This factor is obtained through the shape of the window, the color of the glass, the shape of the input, and the kind of the material. Therefore, the materials and shapes of openings play an important role in shaping the perceived value of a home. 4) Balcony feature: This factor is provided with the presence of the balcony and its dimensions and the darkness and illumination of the materials. So, for facade accreditation, attention should also be paid to the balcony features. 5) Visual disturbance: Visual disturbance is achieved by factors such as window count, imbalance, and artificial adjoining elements. This factor is the last in shaping the perceived credibility of a viewpoint that has been taken into consideration by citizens in value judgments. The images were also categorized into five faces by the respondents, thereafter a final analysis and strategies for reducing the stigma of the lower group housing were presented. This research can be a step in creating social interactions between different income groups in heterogeneous neighborhoods.
افروغ، عماد. (1396). فضا و جامعه (فضای شهری و نابرابری اجتماعی). تهران: نشر علم
باقری،سحر؛ وعینیفر،علیرضا. (1395). تدقیقوتحدیدحوزهشمولونمودنشانه‌هادرمعماری. آرمان‌شهر، 17، 1-10.
براتی، ناصر؛ و کاکاوند، الهام. (1392). ارزیابیتطبیقیکیفیتمحیطسکونتشهریباتأکیدبرتصویرذهنیشهروندان.هنرهایزیبا، 18(3)، 25-32.
پاکزاد،جهانشاه. (1382). پدیدارشناسینمایساختمان‌هایمسکونیوسیرتکوینیتوقعاتازآن. هنرهایزیبا، 14، 51-62.
پیری، عیسی؛عزیزی، میلاد؛روشنایی، پیمان؛ ورضایان، مهدی.(1394). تأثیرکیفیتنقشه‌یذهنیبرامنیتاجتماعیخانوادهدرفضاهایعمومیشهرمطالعه‌ایدرکلان‌شهرتبریز. مطالعاتاجتماعیایران، 29(9)، 50-70.
خلوصی، امیرحسین؛ بهزادفر، مصطفی؛ ومحمدی، مریم. (1393). تبیینعواملمؤثربرطراحیبدنهخیابانیمبتنیبردلالت‌هایزیباییشناسانهمطالعهموردی: خیابانبهار،منطقه 7 شهرداریتهران. معماریوشهرسازیپایدار، 2(1)، 27-42.
سازمانامورمالیاتیکشور. (1396). ارزشمعاملاتیاملاکشهرتهران (مناطق 22 گانه). وزارتاموراقتصادودارایی،سازمان امور مالیاتی کشور. تهران: معاونت پژوهش، برنامه‌ریزی و امور بین‌الملل، دفتر پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی.
عباسی،زهرا. (1396). معیارهایزیباییشناسانهنماوبدنه‌هایمطلوبشهریباتأکیدبرهویتبومی (نمونهموردیحدفاصلمیدانمطهریتاتقاطعخیابانحجتشهرقم). مدیریتشهری، 16(47)، 255-276.
کاکاوند، الهام؛براتی، ناصر؛ وامین‌زادهگوهرریزی، بهرام. (1392). سنجشتطبیقیتصویرذهنیشهروندوشهرسازبهمفهومکیفیتمحیطشهری (مطالعهموردی: بافتفرسودةشهرقزوین). ماهنامهباغنظر، 10(25)، 101-112.
گلکار،کوروش. (1387). محیطبصریشهر؛سیرتحولازرویکردتزیینیتارویکردپایدار.علوممحیطی، 5(4)، 95-11.
لنگ،جان. (1386).آفرینشنظریهمعماری: نقشعلومرفتاریدرطراحیمحیط. (علیرضاعینیفر، مترجم). تهران:دانشگاهتهران.
مرکزآمارایران. (1395). چکیدهنتایجطرحآمارگیریهزینهودرآمدخانوارشهریوروستایی. دفتر جمعیت، نیروی کار و سرشماری. خردادماه. https://www.amar.org.ir/Portals/0/News/1396/chnhvdkhshvrs-95.pdf
مهندسینمشاورعرصه. (1384). الگویتوسعهمنطقه 4،گزارششماره 1-5. مرکزمطالعاتوبرنامه‌ریزیشهرتهران:وزارتمسکنوشهرسازی.
نیازی،محسن. (1390). روش‌هایتحقیقتلفیقی،جنبشسومروش‌شناختیدرعلوماجتماعی. مطالعاتاجتماعیایران، 5(2)، 158-181.
Ahmadi, B. (1992). From Pictorial Signs to the Text: Toward the Semiotics of Visual Communication, (1th Ed.). Tehran: Markaz Publications.
AlHalawani, S., Yang, Y. L., Liu, H., & Mitra, N. J. (2013). Interactive Facades Analysis and Synthesis of Semi‐Regular Facades. Computer Graphics Forum(Vol. 32, No. 2pt2, pp. 215-224). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Arthurson, K. (2012). Social mix, reputation and stigma: Exploring residents’ perspectives of neighbourhood effects In Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives (pp. 101-119), Springer, Dordrecht.
Burraston, B., McCutcheon, J. C., & Watts, S. J. (2018). Relative and absolute deprivation’s relationship with violent crime in the United States: Testing an interaction effect between income inequality and disadvantage. Crime & Delinquency, 64(4), 542-560.
Choo, H., Nikrahei, B., Nasar, J. L., & Walther, D. (2015). Neural decoding of architectural styles from scene-specific brain regions.Journal of vision, 15(12), 520-520.
Choo, H., Nasar, J. L., Nikrahei, B., & Walther, D. B. (2017). Neural codes of seeing architectural styles.Scientific reports, 7, 1-8.
Crawford, P., Lee, E., & Beatty, M. (2015). Aesthetic perception of urban streetscapes and the impact of form-based codes and traditional zoning codes on commercial signage.Current Urban Studies, 3(03), 199-215.
Damyar, s. (2014). Relationship between Human Perceptional Dimensions with Factors of Identity in Architecture. Journal of Housing and Rural Environment, 33(146), 91-106.
De Maio, F. G. (2014). Income Inequality Hypothesis (Ed),The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Health, Illness, Behavior, and Society(Vol.4, pp. 1223-1228).New York, US: John Wiley &Sons, Ltd.
Eckenrode, J., Smith, E. G., McCarthy, M. E., & Dineen, M. (2014). Income inequality and child maltreatment in the United States. Pediatrics, 133(3), 454-461.
Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The just city. New York, US: Cornell University Press.
Gale, S. L., Magzamen, S. L., Radke, J. D., & Tager, I. B. (2011). Crime, neighborhood deprivation, and asthma: a GIS approach to define and assess neighborhoods. Spatial and spatio-temporal epidemiology, 2(2), 59-67.
Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, US: Simon and Schuster.
Hinshaw, S. P. (2009). The mark of shame: Stigma of mental illness and an agenda for change. New York, US: Oxford University Press.
Hipp, J. R. (2007). Income inequality, race, and place: Does the distribution of race and class within neighborhoods affect crime rates? Criminology, 45(3), 665-697.
Imamoglu, C. (2000). Complexity, Liking And Familiarity: Architecture And Non-Architecture Turkish Students'assessments Of Traditional And Modern House Facades.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 5-16.
Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban planning, 59(1), 1-11.
Keene, D. E., & Padilla, M. B. (2010). Race, class and the stigma of place: Moving to “opportunity” in Eastern Iowa. Health & place, 16(6), 1216-1223.
Kelaher, M., Warr, D. J., Feldman, P., & Tacticos, T. (2010). Living in ‘Birdsville’: Exploring the impact of neighbourhood stigma on health. Health & place, 16(2), 381-388.
Khosroshahi, A. (2015). The just city: a critical discussion on Susan Fainstein's formulation. Unpublished master’s thesis, Faculty of Architecture and Society, Polytechnic University, Milan.
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (3th ed). New York. In: NY Guilford Press.
Lahdenperä, J. (2012). The Importance of Equality (Dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-14787.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual review of sociology, 27(1), 363-385.
Link, B. G., Phelan, J. C., & Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2014). Stigma and social inequality. In Handbook of the social psychology of inequality.(pp. 49-64). Springer, Dordrecht.
Moles, A. (1966). Information theory and esthetic perception. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 26 (4), 552-554
Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26(3), 377-401.
Nasar, J. L., & Hong, X. (1999). Visual preferences in urban signscapes. Environment and Behavior, 31(5), 671-691.
Nieuwenhuis, J., Van Ham, M., Yu, R., Branje, S., Meeus, W., & Hooimeijer, P. (2017). Being poorer than the rest of the neighborhood: relative deprivation and problem behavior of youth. Journal of youth and adolescence, 46(9), 1891-1904.
Pendall, R., Hendey, L., Greenberg, D., Pettit, K.L., Levy, D.K., Khare, A., Gallagher, M., Joseph, M., Curley, A., Rasheed, A. & Latham, N. (2015). Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Permentier, M., Bolt, G., & Van Ham, M. (2011). Determinants of neighbourhood satisfaction and perception of neighbourhood reputation. Urban Studies, 48(5), 977-996.
Permentier, M., Van Ham, M., & Bolt, G. (2009). Neighbourhood reputation and the intention to leave the neighbourhood. Environment and Planning A, 41(9), 2162-2180.
Pescosolido, B. A., & Martin, J. K. (2015). The stigma complex. Annual review of sociology, 41, 87-116.
Pickett, K.E., & Wilkinson, R.G. (2007). Child wellbeing and income inequality in rich societies: ecological cross sectional study. Bmj, 335(7629), 1-7.
Price, C. R. (2017). Alleviating Affordable Housing Stigma by Design.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio.
Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: towards a man—environment approach to urban form and design.England: Oxford.
Ruiz-Tagle, J. (2017). Territorial Stigmatization in Socially-Mixed Neighborhoods in Chicago and Santiago: A Comparison of Global-North and Global-South Urban Renewal Problems. In Social Housing and Urban Renewal: A Cross-National Perspective (pp. 311-349): Emerald Publishing Limited.
Sakizlioglu, N. B., & Uitermark, J. (2014). The symbolic politics of gentrification: the restructuring of stigmatized neighborhoods in Amsterdam and Istanbul. Environment and Planning A, 46(6), 1369-1385.
Salesses, P., Schechtner, K., & Hidalgo, C. A. (2013). The collaborative image of the city: mapping the inequality of urban perception.PloS one, 8(7): e68400.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(4), 319-342.
Sartorius, N. (2007). Stigma and mental health. The Lancet, 370(9590), 810-811.
Subramanian, S. (2005). Structured financial solutions for green affordable housing projects, Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.
Van den Berg, A. E., & Koole, S. L. (2006). New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban planning, 78(4), 362-372.
Wen, M., Browning, C. R., & Cagney, K. A. (2003). Poverty, affluence, and income inequality: neighborhood economic structure and its implications for health. Social science & medicine, 57(5), 843-860.
Werthman, C. S. (1970). The social meaning of the physical environment.United States: University Microfilms.
_||_