@2024 Afarand., IRAN
ISSN: 2538-4384 Geographical Researches 2021;36(1):63-73
ISSN: 2538-4384 Geographical Researches 2021;36(1):63-73
Evaluation of the Factors Affecting the liveliness of Mashhad’s Public Spaces Relying on Image Perception and Analysis
ARTICLE INFO
Article Type
Original ResearchAuthors
Kaviani E. (1)Afzalian Kh. (*1)
Sahaf M. (1)
Seyedolhosseini SM. (1)
(1) Department of Architecture, Fac‐ ulty of art and Architecture, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad , Iran
Correspondence
Address: Department of Urbanism, Faculty of art and Architecture, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ostad Yusofi Street, Emamieh Boulevard, Ghasem Abad, Mashhad, Iran. Postal Code: 9187147578.Phone: +98 (51) 36093772
Fax: +98 (51) 36093772
khosrow.afzalian@gmail.com
Article History
Received: September 16, 2020Accepted: October 9, 2020
ePublished: March 18, 2021
ABSTRACT
Aims & Backgrounds
Public spaces are very important to urban vitality. Due to their significant role, people ‘s presence, social interactions and liveliness, keeps the space alive. Environmental factors play a significant role in creating such interaction that affects space. The purpose of this study is to recognize and analyze the involved factors influencing the vitality of spaces and also their internal connection in Mashhad city spaces.
Methodology The following descriptive research was carried out via implementing a qualitative online image‐ based questionnaire in during a 4‐month‐ period man‐to‐man elevation (Jan‐March 2020). 200 people were selected randomly and presented a questionnaire including 12 out 40 hectic urban spots of Mashhad City. Data acquired was evaluated using Chi‐square Test.
Findings According to the gathered responses,109 distinct attributes that were extracted that were conceptually correlated and abridged into seven main. in 7 main categories: qualities of environment, elements, physical and formal features, functions, feeling, activities and neighboring uses as the most significant environmental factors in formation of social life and vitality of public spaces. Two of the aforementioned concepts were human‐ oriented features and the rest were of physical‐ natured.
Conclusion Public space affects the mentality of people through physical and human‐ oriented factors of the environment and if it will encourage them to establish social interactions and exchange in case of any pleasant feeling, which in‐itself it will lead to the formation of social vitality.
Methodology The following descriptive research was carried out via implementing a qualitative online image‐ based questionnaire in during a 4‐month‐ period man‐to‐man elevation (Jan‐March 2020). 200 people were selected randomly and presented a questionnaire including 12 out 40 hectic urban spots of Mashhad City. Data acquired was evaluated using Chi‐square Test.
Findings According to the gathered responses,109 distinct attributes that were extracted that were conceptually correlated and abridged into seven main. in 7 main categories: qualities of environment, elements, physical and formal features, functions, feeling, activities and neighboring uses as the most significant environmental factors in formation of social life and vitality of public spaces. Two of the aforementioned concepts were human‐ oriented features and the rest were of physical‐ natured.
Conclusion Public space affects the mentality of people through physical and human‐ oriented factors of the environment and if it will encourage them to establish social interactions and exchange in case of any pleasant feeling, which in‐itself it will lead to the formation of social vitality.
CITATION LINKS
[1]Amin A (2007). Re‐thinking the urban social. City. 11(1):100-114.
[2]Beck H (2009). Linking the quality of public spaces to quality of life. Journal of Place Management and Development. 2(3):240-248.
[3]Burnard P, Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B (2008). Analysing and presenting qualitative data. British Dental Journal. 204(8):429-432.
[4]Bjørnskov C (2010). How comparable are the Gallup world poll life satisfaction data?. Journal of Happiness Studies. 11(1):41-60.
[5]Carmona M (2014). The place-shaping continuum: A theory of urban design process. Journal of Urban Design. 19(1):2-36.
[6]Carmona M (2010). Contemporary public space, part two: Classification. Journal of Urban Design. 15(2):157-173.
[7]Chen W (2009). Decode the City: A methodological study responding to the new trend of city" Re-image": Montreal as a Case [dissertation]. Montreal: McGill University.
[8]Cohen YS, Shinar A (1985). Neighborhoods and friendship networks: A study of three residential neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Chicago: Committee On Geographical Studies.
[9]Da Luz Reis AT, Dias Lay MC (2010). Internal and external aesthetics of housing estates. Environment and Behavior. 42(2):271-294.
[10]Eriksen EO (2005). An emerging European public sphere. European Journal of Social Theory. 8(3):341-363.
[11]Fassihi H, Prizadi T, Karami T (2020). Investigating the role of sidewalks in the vitality of public spaces case study: Pedestrian sanctuary sidewalks. Sustainable City Quarterly. 2(4):1-15.
[12]Fidler D, Olson R, Bezold C (2011). Evaluating a long-term livable communities strategy in the US. Futures. 43(7):690-696.
[13]Golkar K (2001). Components of urban design quality. 11(32):38-65.
[14]Işiklar S (2017). Vitality of The Cities. International Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology. 4(19):18-23.
[15]Jacobs J (1992). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Publictions.
[16]Kashef M (2016). Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 5(2):239-253.
[17]Khastoo M, Saeedi Rezvani N (2010). Factors affecting the livelihoods of urban spaces, creating a lively urban space relying on concept (Shopping Mall). Hoviatshar. 4(6):63-74.
[18]Kroll C (2011). Towards a sociology of happiness: Examining social capital and subjective well-being across subgroups of society [dissertation]. Londo: The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE),
[19]Landry C (2000). Urban vitality: A new source of urban competitiveness. Prince Claus Fund Journal. (12):8-13.
[20]Lang J (1988). Symbolic aesthetics in architecture: Toward a research agenda. Nasar J, translator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 11-26.
[21]Lynch K (1995). City sense and city design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[22]Mahmoudi M, Ahmad F, Abbasi B (2015). Livable streets: The effects of physical problems on the quality and livability of Kuala Lumpur streets. Cities. 43:104-114.
[23]Montgomery J (1995). Editorial urban vitality and the culture of cities. Planning Practice & Research. 10(2):101-110.
[24]Montgomery J (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design. 3(1):93-116.
[25]Mori K, Christodoulou A (2012). Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 32(1):94-106.
[26]Okulicz-Kozaryn A (2013). City life: Rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Social Indicators Research. 110(2):433-451.
[27]Patterson G, Xu C, Su H, Hays J (2014). The sun attribute database: Beyond categories for deeper scene understanding. International Journal of Computer Vision. 108(1-2):59-81.
[28]Poor JA, Thorpe D, Goh YW (2019). A collaborative image of energy efficient housing via a photo-based approach. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis. 13(3):513-532.
[29]Rapoport A (2016). Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man-environment approach to urban form and design: Elsevier.
[30]Salesses P, Schechtner K, Hidalgo C A (2013). The collaborative image of the city: Mapping the inequality of urban perception. PloS one. 8(7).
[31]Tennakoon MMP, Kulatunga U (2019). Understanding liveability: Related concepts and definitions. Sandanayake YG, Gunatilake S, Waidyasekara A editors. Proceedings of the 8th World Construction Symposium. 2019, 8-10 November: Sri Lanka. pp. 578-587.
[32]Veenhoven R (2006). Quality-of-life in the modern society measured with happy life years. In Happiness and Public Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Pp.19-44.
[33]Xiao J, Hays J, Ehinger K A, Oliva A, Torralba A (2010). Sun database: Large-scale scene recognition from abbey to zoo. Paper presented at the 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2010, 13-18 June: San Francisco CA, USA. pp.3485-3492.
[34]Zhou B, Liu L, Oliva A, Torralba A (2014). Recognizing city identity via attribute analysis of geo-tagged images. In European conference on computer vision. 2014, 6 September: Cham. pp. 519-534.
[2]Beck H (2009). Linking the quality of public spaces to quality of life. Journal of Place Management and Development. 2(3):240-248.
[3]Burnard P, Gill P, Stewart K, Treasure E, Chadwick B (2008). Analysing and presenting qualitative data. British Dental Journal. 204(8):429-432.
[4]Bjørnskov C (2010). How comparable are the Gallup world poll life satisfaction data?. Journal of Happiness Studies. 11(1):41-60.
[5]Carmona M (2014). The place-shaping continuum: A theory of urban design process. Journal of Urban Design. 19(1):2-36.
[6]Carmona M (2010). Contemporary public space, part two: Classification. Journal of Urban Design. 15(2):157-173.
[7]Chen W (2009). Decode the City: A methodological study responding to the new trend of city" Re-image": Montreal as a Case [dissertation]. Montreal: McGill University.
[8]Cohen YS, Shinar A (1985). Neighborhoods and friendship networks: A study of three residential neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Chicago: Committee On Geographical Studies.
[9]Da Luz Reis AT, Dias Lay MC (2010). Internal and external aesthetics of housing estates. Environment and Behavior. 42(2):271-294.
[10]Eriksen EO (2005). An emerging European public sphere. European Journal of Social Theory. 8(3):341-363.
[11]Fassihi H, Prizadi T, Karami T (2020). Investigating the role of sidewalks in the vitality of public spaces case study: Pedestrian sanctuary sidewalks. Sustainable City Quarterly. 2(4):1-15.
[12]Fidler D, Olson R, Bezold C (2011). Evaluating a long-term livable communities strategy in the US. Futures. 43(7):690-696.
[13]Golkar K (2001). Components of urban design quality. 11(32):38-65.
[14]Işiklar S (2017). Vitality of The Cities. International Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology. 4(19):18-23.
[15]Jacobs J (1992). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Publictions.
[16]Kashef M (2016). Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 5(2):239-253.
[17]Khastoo M, Saeedi Rezvani N (2010). Factors affecting the livelihoods of urban spaces, creating a lively urban space relying on concept (Shopping Mall). Hoviatshar. 4(6):63-74.
[18]Kroll C (2011). Towards a sociology of happiness: Examining social capital and subjective well-being across subgroups of society [dissertation]. Londo: The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE),
[19]Landry C (2000). Urban vitality: A new source of urban competitiveness. Prince Claus Fund Journal. (12):8-13.
[20]Lang J (1988). Symbolic aesthetics in architecture: Toward a research agenda. Nasar J, translator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 11-26.
[21]Lynch K (1995). City sense and city design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[22]Mahmoudi M, Ahmad F, Abbasi B (2015). Livable streets: The effects of physical problems on the quality and livability of Kuala Lumpur streets. Cities. 43:104-114.
[23]Montgomery J (1995). Editorial urban vitality and the culture of cities. Planning Practice & Research. 10(2):101-110.
[24]Montgomery J (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design. 3(1):93-116.
[25]Mori K, Christodoulou A (2012). Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 32(1):94-106.
[26]Okulicz-Kozaryn A (2013). City life: Rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Social Indicators Research. 110(2):433-451.
[27]Patterson G, Xu C, Su H, Hays J (2014). The sun attribute database: Beyond categories for deeper scene understanding. International Journal of Computer Vision. 108(1-2):59-81.
[28]Poor JA, Thorpe D, Goh YW (2019). A collaborative image of energy efficient housing via a photo-based approach. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis. 13(3):513-532.
[29]Rapoport A (2016). Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man-environment approach to urban form and design: Elsevier.
[30]Salesses P, Schechtner K, Hidalgo C A (2013). The collaborative image of the city: Mapping the inequality of urban perception. PloS one. 8(7).
[31]Tennakoon MMP, Kulatunga U (2019). Understanding liveability: Related concepts and definitions. Sandanayake YG, Gunatilake S, Waidyasekara A editors. Proceedings of the 8th World Construction Symposium. 2019, 8-10 November: Sri Lanka. pp. 578-587.
[32]Veenhoven R (2006). Quality-of-life in the modern society measured with happy life years. In Happiness and Public Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Pp.19-44.
[33]Xiao J, Hays J, Ehinger K A, Oliva A, Torralba A (2010). Sun database: Large-scale scene recognition from abbey to zoo. Paper presented at the 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2010, 13-18 June: San Francisco CA, USA. pp.3485-3492.
[34]Zhou B, Liu L, Oliva A, Torralba A (2014). Recognizing city identity via attribute analysis of geo-tagged images. In European conference on computer vision. 2014, 6 September: Cham. pp. 519-534.