Reading Usears’ Preferences in the Experience of Public Commercial Spaces in Isfahan

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

The urban environment is a physical space with social and psychological dimensions for the aim of finding daily life and the basis for diverse experiences. Meanwhile, the public spaces provide us the possibility to comprehend and experience the presence of people and lead us to identify the viewpoints. The analysis of the users’ preferences of the urban spaces is an approach to achieve the urban experiences. The aim of this study was to find out the preferences of the users of the commercial spaces of the city of Esfahan. Following the response to this aim, an adaptive comparison was done between the preference of the users of the traditional commercial spaces and the newly built commercial spaces based the evolutionary theory. This evolutionary perspective of the users’ preferences is influenced by the environmental qualities, and the preferred space is to some extent equivalent to the subjective evaluating image of the environment in the most prominent level of the location experience. The methodology of this study, as a qualitative method, includes expressing and completing the indicators of experiencing and preferences assessment of the users. Moreover, the phenomenological approach is the considered interpretation and using the semantic differentiation technique has been evaluated in five urban spaces (urban – extramural) with similar scale to Esfahan with the commercial uses (Naghsh-e Jahan Sq., Imam Ali Sq., City Center Complex, Jahan Nama Building, Park Complex).In this study, the three main dimensions of experience are considered in the location preference model (i.e. the objective perspective, the subjective perspective, and the evaluation perspective), and the obtained results from investigating the triple indices of the citizens’ preferences can ultimately be measured in the location experience dimensions, and based on that, the urban spaces can be analyzed in an adaptive comparison.  Conclusion from the results and comparing the factors in each space and comparing with other spaces shows that, the considered factors in the space evaluation among the whole regarded dimensions (including the factor of security) lead to space preference, although the subjective perspective factors (including  readability factor) and objective perspective factors (such as the factor of natural and green elements) are also essential for the preference of the urban space.

Keywords

References

پورتئوس، داگلاس جی. )1391). زیبایی‌شناسی محیط‌زیست و معماری منظر. ترجمۀ لیلا آقاداداشی، تهران: انتشارات کلهر.
ثقه‌الاسلامی عمید الاسلام؛ کلاته رحمانی اسماعیل. (1393). ترجیح یک فضای پیاده‌مدار الگویی جدید در توسعۀ فضاهای شهری پیاده. کنفرانس بین‌المللی پژوهش‌های نوین در عمران، معماری و شهرسازی. https://www.civilica.com/Paper-CONFUCIAN01-CONFUCIAN01_152.htm
خمر، غلامعلی؛ میرشکاری، محمدعلی؛ امیری‌نژاد، مینا؛ کیانی، اکبر. (1393). ارزیابی ترجیحی شهروندان نسبت‌به پارک‌های شهری نورآباد براساس رویکردهای جغرافیایی (اقتصادی، اجتماعی و زیست‌محیطی). جغرافیا و آمایش شهری-منطقه‌ای، شمارۀ 12 ، 113-134.  https://gaij.usb.ac.ir/article_1670.html?lang=fa
رفیعیان، مجتبی؛ عسگری، علی؛ عسگری‌زاده، زهرا. (1388). عـلـوم محـیـطی، سال هفتـم، شمـارۀ 1.  https://envs.sbu.ac.ir/article_94480.html
رفیعیان، مجتبی؛ نسترن، مهین؛ عزیزپور، سولماز. (1392). ارزیابی رضایت‌مندی از کیفیت فضای شهری با توجه به متغیر جنسیت. مجلۀ مطالعات زنان، سال یازدهم. شمارۀ 4. https://dx.doi.org/10.22051/jwsps.2014.1466
رفیعیان، مجتبی؛ مسعودی‌راد، ماندانا؛ رضائی، مریم. مسعودی‌راد، مونا. (1393). جغرافیا و آمایش شهری-منطقه‌ای، شمارۀ 12، 135-150.  doi: 10.22111/gaij.2014.1671
رلف، ادوارد. (1389). مکان و بی‌مکانی. ترجمۀ زهیر متکی، محمدرضا نقصان‌محمدی، کاظم مندگاری، تهران: انتشارات آرمان‌شهر.
ﺳﺎﺭﻭﺧﺎﻧﻲ، ﺑﺎﻗﺮ. (1385). ﺭﻭﺵﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ.  ﻬﺮﺍﻥ: ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ.
شاهین‌راد، مهنوش؛ رفیعیان، مجتبی؛ پورجعفر، محمدرضا. (1394). ارزیابی ترجیحات بصری زنان از فضاهای شهری تهران. فصلنامۀ تازه‌های علوم‌شناختی، سال هفدهم، شمارۀ 1. magiran.com/p1402592
کاظمی، عباس.(1394). پرسه‌زنی و زندگی روزمره ایرانی: تاملی بر مصرف مراکز خرید. انتشارات فرهنگ جاوید.
گلچین، پیمان؛ ناروئی، بهروز؛ مثنوی، محمدرضا. (1391). ارزیابی کیفیت بصری فضاهای آموزشی براساس ترجیحات استفاده‌کنندگان (مطالعة موردی: دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان). محیط‌شناسی، سال سی‌و‌هشتم، شمارة ۶۲، صص ۱۳۵-150.  doi: 10.22059/jes.2012.29109
 
نسر، جک‌.ال. (1393). تصویر ذهنی ارزیابانه از شهر (1998). ترجمۀ مسعود اسدی محل‌چالی. تهران: نشر ثمین.
 
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268001320_Evolutionary_psychology_Conceptual_foundations
Bernaldez, F. G. Abello R. P. & Gallardo, D. (1989). Environmental challenge and environmental preference: age and sex effects. Journal of environmental management, 28(1), 53-70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279901188_Environmental_challenge_and_environmental_preference_age_and_sex_effects
Bourassa s c. (1990), a Paradigm for Landscape Aesthetics, Environment and Behavior, 22, 6787-812. , First Published Nov 1, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916590226004
Bitar, h. (2004), public aesthetic preferences and efficient water use in urban. The University of Melbourne, faculty of architecture, building and planning. https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/38880/66072_00000783_02_thesis.pdf?sequence=1
Colombo, b. Laddaga, s. Antonietti, a. (2015). Psychology and design. The influence of the environment’s representation over emotion and cognition. An ET study on Ikea design, 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conferences, AHFE 2015, Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Dearden P. (1984), Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation. Landscape Planning, 11: 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924 (84)90026-1
Falk J. H, Balling, J. D. (2010), Evolutionary Influence on Human Landscape Preference, Environment and Behavior 42 (4): 479-493. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916509341244
Green R. (1999), Meaning and Form in Community Perception of Town Character. Journal of Environmental Psychology; 19-29: 311. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0143
Hanyu K. (2000), Visual Properties and Affective Appraisals in Residential Areas Daylight. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20:273-84. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/VISUAL-PROPERTIES-AND-AFFECTIVE-APPRAISALS-IN-AREASHanyu/1e4051d63b6945faf0907cbf4a2b8a1fb10cd66f
Herzog TR, Kaplan S, Kaplan R. (1976), the Prediction of Preference for Familiar Urban Places. Environment and Behavior, 8(4):627-45. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/67003
Herzog TR, Kaplan S, Kaplan R. (1982), the Prediction of Preference for Unfamiliar Urban Places. Environment and Behavior, 5(1):43-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01359051
Herzog T. RA. (1992), A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Urban Spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12:237-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944 (89)80024-6
Ikemi M. (2005), the effects of mystery on preference for residential facades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25-73:167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.04.001
Im, s. (1984). Visual preference in enclosed urban space. An exploration of a scientificapproach to environmental design, environment and behavior, 16(2): 235- 262. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916584162005
Kaplan R, Kaplan S. (1989), the Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://willsull.net/resources/270-Readings/ExpNature1to5.pdf
Kaplan S. (1987), Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition: Environmental Preference from an Evolutionary Perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1):3-32. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916587191001
Lyons, E. (1983), Demographic Correlates of Landscape Preference, Environment and Behavior, 15 (4):487-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916583154005
Norton. B, Costanza R, Bishop RC (1998). The evolution of preferences; why ‘sovereign’ preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it. Ecological Economics, 24:193_211. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:24:y:1998:i:2-3:p:193-211
McKechnie, G. E. (1977). Simulation techniques in environmental psychology. In D. Stokols (Ed.), Perspectives on environment and behavior: theory, research, and applications (pp. 169-189). New York: Plenum Press. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-2277-1_7
Özsoyو Malike. (2010). User preferences on transformations of shopping centers into private urban public spaces: The case of Izmir, Turkey, African Journal of Business Management Vol. 4(10), pp. 1990-2005. http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM

Pazhouhanfara, M. Kamal M.S, M (2014), Effect of predictors of visual preference as characteristics of urban natural landscapes in increasing perceived restorative potential. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13:145-151. http://www.academicjournals.org/app/webroot/article/article1380795624_Pazhouhanfar%20et%20al.pdf

Tveit M, Ode A, Fry G. (2006), Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3):229 –55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248993938_Key_concepts_in_a_framework_for_analysing_visual_landscape_character
YU, K. (1995), Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32(2):107–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)00188-9
Wilkie, S. Stavridou, A. (2013). Influence of environmental preference and environment type congruence on judgments of restoration potential, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12:163-170. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257669115_Influence_of_environmental_preference_and_environment_type_congruence_on_judgments_of_restoration_potential
Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., & Evans, G. W. (1983). A lifespan developmental study of landscape assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(2), 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80151-3
Van den berg, A. E. vlek, C. A. J. coeterier, J. F. (1998). Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. Journal of environmental psychology, 18(2): 141- 157. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0080
Van Dongenو Robert P Timmermans و. Harry J.P. (2019). Preference for different urban greenscape designs: A choice experimentusing virtual environments, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126435.
 
 
Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement
Volume 11, Issue 38
March 2021
Pages 209-242

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 13 June 2021
  • Accept Date: 13 June 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics