The Role of Delimiting Neighborhoods in its Social Cohesion and Integration (Case study: Mozafari and Al-Qadir Neighborhood of Kerman)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Candidate in Urban Planning, Faculty of Civil, Architecture and Arts, Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Civil, Architecture and Arts, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Civil, Architecture and Arts, Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
For urban sociology, urban neighborhoods are considered as the concept of real social units. They, to a certain extent, have 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 the cities 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. 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 is the adaptation of a new approach in neighborhood and urban division. As the current procedure is based on providing services and determining the levels of urban division, it has always been pursued, regardless of establishing adjacent neighborhoods. The separation of neighborhoods may present the principles of cohesive. Various urban units such as neighborhoods are integrated 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. With more investigation in study 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. 
Methodology
In this study, qualitative research approach has been applied using content analysis method related to neighborhood division, delimiting neighborhoods, and the concept of city as a whole. The new theory of sciences is related to philosophical views, as well. We have analyzed relevant documents such as maps and aerial photographs related to neighborhood divisions in the past and present. By reviewing valid pervasive literature covering cohesion and integration issues, 14 indicators have been explored for their evaluation. Al-Qadir and Mozafari neighborhoods in Kerman have been selected as case samples. Then, questionnaires have been designed to evaluate indicators evaluated through the likert scale. To validate the 150 questionnaires of this study, we have used 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 to analyze questionnaire data and to find the important and influential factors in each neighborhood. Finally, some suggestions and strategies have been developed to ameliorate the possibility of neighborhood cohesion using factor analysis and comparing them to each other.
Results and discussion
The findings has revealed that factors with the highest proportion in defining residential neighborhood cohesion are including access to boundary, access to communities in boundary, the quality of social interaction, dynamic and vitality condition of boundary, and appropriate pavement in boundary. The historical neighborhood of Mozafari shows the maximum integration resulted in the highest amount of cohesion. The highest and the lowest differences are referred to “access to boundary” and “having appropriate pavement”. 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 and social cohesion of neighborhoods. Actually, if boundaries got social interactions, the role of boundaries as connecting axis rather than a separation edge will be highlighted.  
Conclusion
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 been manifested. However, dividing neighborhoods has developed main activities in neighborhoods with no social factor to link the community potential. 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 delimited in separate neighborhoods. Finally, planning and designing these centers as urban environment on the scale of the neighborhood may improve social interactions. 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. اردلان، نادر و لاله بختیار، 1390، حس وحدت: سنت تصوف در معماری ایرانی، ترجمة ونداد جلیلی، علم معمار رویال (نشر اثر اصلی، 1973)، تهران.
  2. الکساندر، کریستوفر (1387)، زبان الگو: شهرها، ترجمة رضا کربلایی ‌نوری، مرکز مطالعاتی و تحقیقاتی شهرسازی و معماری (نشر اثر اصلی، 1977)، تهران.
  3. باطنی، محمدرضا . 1378. فرهنگ معاصر انگلیسی- فارسی. ویراست دوم.تهران: نشر فرهنگ معاصر.
  4. توسلی، محمود، 1388، اصل ارتباط در طراحی شهری، هنرهای زیبا، شمارة 14، صص 32-37.
  5. توسلی، محمود، 1388، طراحی شهری هنر نوکردن ساختار شهر همراه با چهار نمونة موردی، نشر محمود توسلی، تهران.
  6. توسلی، محمود، 1376، اصول و روش‌های طراحی شهری و فضاهای مسکونی در ایران، مرکز مطالعات و تحقیقات شهرسازی و معماری ایران، تهران.
  7. ثقه‌الاسلامی، عمیدالاسلام و بهناز امین‌زاده، 1388، رویکردی تحلیلی به شناخت مفهوم محله در شهرهای معاصر ایران، نشریة هنرهای زیبا، شمارة 39، صص 21-32.
  8. ثقه‌الاسلامی، عمیدالاسلام، 1387، رویکردی تحلیلی به مفهوم محله در شهرهای معاصر ایران، رسالة دکتری شهرسازی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران.
  9. حبیبی، سید محسن، 1382، چگونگی الگوپذیری و تجدید سازمان استخوان‌بندی محله، مجلة هنرهای زیبا، شمارة 13، صص 9-19.
  10. چلبی، مسعود، 1372، وفاق اجتماعی، نامة علوم اجتماعی، شمارة 6، صص 5-17.
  11. سلطان‌زاده، حسین، 1365، فضاهای شهری در بافت‌های تاریخی، انتشارات فرهنگ و معماری، تهران، 1392.
  12. شکوئی، حسین، 1365، جغرافیای اجتماعی شهرها، اکولوژی شهر، جهاد دانشگاهی، تهران.
  13. عزیزی، محمدمهدی، 1385، محلة مسکونی پایدار؛ مطالعة موردی: نارمک، نشریة هنرهای زیبای دانشگاه تهران، شمارة 27، صص 11-24.
  14. علی‌الحسابی، مهران و مریم عباسی، 1392، انسجام سیستماتیک در شهر و قوانین آن از دید نظریه‌پردازان، ماهنامة تخصصی شهر و منظر، شمارة 14، صص 14-19.
  15. فکوهی، ناصر، 1390، انسان‌شناسی شهری، نشر نی، تهران.
  16. فلامکی، محمدمنصور، 1374، باززنده‌سازی بناها و شهرهای تاریخی، چاپ سوم، دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
  17. قاسمی اصفهانی، مروارید، 1385، اهل کجا هستیم؟ هویت‌بخشی به بافت‌های مسکونی، نشر روزنه، تهران.
  18. قدمی، مصطفی، 1383، پیشنهاد روش ترکیبی در فرایند محله‌بندی شهری، همایش توسعة محله‌ای، توسعة شهر تهران، شهرداری تهران.
  19. کیانی، مصطفی و همکاران، 1394، تداوم فضایی در معماری معاصر ایران بررسی میزان تأثیرپذیری معماری معاصر ایران از معماری غرب و معماری ایرانی، مجله: نقش جهان » پاییز 1394، سال پنجم - شماره 3 علمی-پژوهشی.ISC
  20. مهاجری، ناهید، 1387، پایداری کالبدی در شهرهای سنتی ایران. فصلنامة علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست، دورة دهم، شمارة 3، صص129-121.

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.

Human Geography Research
Volume 51, Issue 3
October 2019
Pages 603-624

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 06 July 2017
  • Revise Date: 16 December 2017
  • Accept Date: 16 December 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics