عنوان مقاله [English]
Interface plays a significant role in issues pertaining to urban coherence as one of the utmost theme in delimiting neighborhoods. In the past, the neighborhood boundary has been one of the main factors of coherence, regarding their structure entwining with surrounding context. The present research has studied the role of delimiting concept in coherence and to explore indicators affecting that. The study has involved in the incoherence development of the neighborhoods, resulting in pure separation from each other and the emergence of independent cells of city. As the failure in formation neighborhoods interconnected with each other’s has dramatically increased, the necessity of the present research is apparent. The study purpose is to analyze components of delimiting neighborhoods with a coherent approach as well as to develop some criteria in this filed. And, by measuring neighborhood cohesion namely social cohesion of the neighborhoods, the quality of that in the boundary of Al-Qadir and Mozafari which are located in the new and historical context of Kerman city have been compared, respectively. In this study, qualitative research approach has been applied using content analysis method, and data has been gathered through fieldwork method and questionnaires.
For urban sociology, urban neighborhoods are considered as the concept of real social units, to a certain extent, has been emerged accidentally and unconsciously. These have been developed in sustainable and definite form, including certain privacy over the time. Thus, in the past, most of cities which have been developed in Iran had a certain name and specific social characteristics. Sometimes this kind of classification is referred to geographical classification of city which brings up a specific name for it (Tavasoli, 2000: 17). The present research has put forward this question: “which factors have brought about the unity and cohesion of neighborhood in delimiting boundaries of the historic neighborhoods of kerman?” the associated problem is referred to significance differences in delimiting neighborhood in the past and that of the present time. The necessity of this study and the adaptation of a new approach in neighborhood and city division is a fact which its importance is undeniable. As the current procedure based on providing services and determining the levels of urban division has always been pursued, regardless establishing adjacent neighborhoods, the separation of neighborhoods may presented and the principle of cohesive city may doom to failure. Various urban units such as neighborhoods integrate with each other through urban interfaces or boundary elements and components. In fact, the relationship between various urban neighborhoods has been underpinned by these interfaces than internal elements and components of each unit (Ben Hamuc, 2009:39). With more investigation in studied conducted on neighborhood and relevant purpose and approaches to the present study, it is obvious that few studies have been conducted on the concept of delimiting neighborhoods.
In this study, qualitative research approach has been applied using content analysis method relating to neighborhood division, delimiting neighborhoods, the concept of city as a whole, new theory of sciences and related philosophical views, as well. Additionally, analyzing relevant documents such as maps, aerial photographs related to neighborhood divisions in the past and now have been used. By reviewing valid pervasive literature covering cohesion and integration issues, 14 indicators have been explored to assay them. Al-Qadir and Mozafari neighborhoods in Kerman have been chosen as case samples. Then, questionnaires have been designed to assay indicators which assayed through the likert scale. To validate questionnaires, the number of it for assaying based on Neyman allocation has ascertained 150 using SPSS software. The sampling method is a proportional volume cluster in which the number of samples has been selected based on each neighborhood population. The first respondent has been selected accidentally using neighborhood’s map and other respondents have been selected using systematic distance. After filling in questionnaires and adding data to SPSS Software, factor analysis has been used by which analyzing questionnaires’ data and finding the important and influential factors in each neighborhood cohesion and advantage have taken place. Finally, some suggestions and strategies have been developed to ameliorate the possibility of neighborhood cohesion using analyzing factors and comparing them to each other.
Results and discussion
The findings has revealed that factors such as accessibility to boundary, the quality of accessibility to communities in boundary, the quality of social interaction, dynamic and vitality condition of boundary, appropriate pavement in boundary have the highest proportion in defining residential neighborhood cohesion. Mozafari, the historical neighborhood, shows the maximum integration resulted in the highest amount of cohesion. The highest differences and the lowest one are referred to “accessibility to boundary” and “having appropriate pavement”, respectively. Among all mentioned factors, only “appropriate pavement” shows a similar condition in both neighborhoods. In other factors, the highest degree is obtained by Mozafari neighborhood. In other words, the environment of neighborhoods boundary or their interfaces plays a significant role in promoting interconnectivity, social cohesion of neighborhoods. Actually, if boundaries become intersection of the social interactions, the role of boundaries as connecting axis rather than a separation edge will be highlighted.
In delimiting neighborhoods, social, physical, and historical factors should be determined to divide neighborhood. Some residential neighborhoods present social factors as social correlation in which specific physical-spatial structure has often manifested. However, dividing neighborhoods has developed focusing activities centers in neighborhoods lacking social factor to link the community potentiality. The center of neighborhood is a major spatial factor in recognizing it, particularly when it is to be more attuned to social needs. Therefore, centers such as mosque should be determined to delimit neighborhoods. Finally, planning and designing these centers as urban environment on the scale of the neighborhood may improve social interactions affectively.
Key words: Iranian neighborhood, delimiting boundary, cohesion, interface, Kerman
21. Alexander, C., 1965, The City Is Not a Tree, Architectural Form, 172 (April/ May).
22. Batty, M., 2007, Cities and Complexity: Understanding Cities with Cellular Automata, Agent-Based Models and 20, Fractals, USA: MIT University Press Group.
23. Barabasi, A. L., 2011, Linked: The New Science of Network, Perseus Publishing Cambridge, Massachusetts.
24. Barton, H., et al., 2003, Shaping Neighbourhoods: A Guidefor Health, Sustainability and Vitality, Spon Press, London Andnew Year.
25. Bovil, Carl ,2011, Fractal Geometry in Architecture and Design ,Boston.
26. Bucys, J., 2012, Understanding Coherence Between Functional and Compositional Structurs of the City: A Case Study of Local Centres in Vilnius, Eighth International Space Syntax Symposium, Santiago De Chile: PUC: 1-8.
27. Batty, M., 2010, Urban Modeling: Algorithms, Calibrations, Predictions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
28. Ben Hamouche, M., 2009, Can Chaos Theory Explain Complexity in Urban Fabric? Applications in Traditional Muslim Settlements, Nexus Network Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, PP. 217-242.
29. Bohm, D., 1980, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge, London.
30. Johnson, N., 2009, Chapter 1: Two`S Company, Tree Is Complexity, Simply Complexity, A Clear Guide to Complexity Theory, One World Publication, Oxford.
31. Im Sik, C., Zdravko, T., and Ivan, N., 2015, Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework For Emerging Urban. 147-168.
32. 31. Morris, D., and Hess, K., 2012, Neighborhood Power, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, U.S.A.
33. Campbell, E., Henly, J. R., Elliott. D. S., and Irwin, K., 2009, Subjective Constructions of Neighborhood Boundaries: Lessons From a Qualitative Study of Four Neighborhoods, Journal Ofurban Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 4, PP. 461-490.
34. Carmona, M., 2014, The Place-Shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 19, No. 1, P. 2.
35. Chapman, D., 2011, Engaging Places: Localizing Urban Design and Development Planning, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 16, No. 4, PP. 511–530.
36. Cowan, R., 2005, The Dictionary of Urbanism, Street Wise Press, London.
37. Guest, A. M., and Lee, B. A, 1984, How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods, Population Andenvironment, Vol. 7, No. 1, PP. 32-56.
38. Perry, C. A., 2011, The Neighborhood Unit, Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs,Vol. 7, from http://codesproject.asu.edu/node/11.
39. Lee, T., 2010, Urban Neighborhood As a Socio-Spatial Schema, Human Relations,Vol. 21, No. 3, PP. 241-267.
40. Rapoport, A., 2001,The Role of Neighborhoods in the Success of Cities, Paper Presented at Thewse Symposium Defining Success of the City in the 21 Century, Berlin.
41. Chaskin, R. J., 1995, Defining Neighborhood: History, Theory and Practice, The Chapin Hallcenter For Children at the University of Chicago, Chicago.
42. Smith, M. E., 2010, The Archaeologic...Study of Neighborhoods and Districts Inancient Cities, Journal of Anthropologicalarchaeology, Vol. 29, No. 2, PP. 137-154.
43. Salingaros, N. A., 2003, Connecting The Fractal City, University of Texas at San Antonio, USA.
44. Salingaros, N. A., 2010, Complexity and Urban Coherence, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 1, No. 23, PP.291-316
45. Salingaros, N. A., 1997, Life and Comlexity in Architecture from a Thermodynamic Analogy Physics Essay,Vol. 10. PP. 165-173.
46. Salingaros, N. A., 2012. Urbanism as Computation In J. Portugali (Ed.), Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age, Springer. Israel
47. Salingaros, N. A., 2013, Unified Architectural Theory, Sustasis Foundation, Portland.
48. Smith, C. S., 2011, A Research for Structure, Cambridge, MIT Press.