Components influencing promotion of social interactions in urban parks (Case Study: Zabol City)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant professor of geography and urban planning, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD student in geography and urban planning, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD student in geography and urban planning, Islamic Azad University, Zahedan, Iran

4 PhD student in geography and urban planning, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Urban parks play social, economic, and ecologic role in cities. They have some advantages including treatments of spirit problems, favorable environment for children training, social integrity, and welfare. The environment is also a factor to enhance quality of life space and development of society. Establishment of the urban parks can improve quality of urban life and achieve sustainable development. It can also have a cost for municipalities without return of investment and profit. Hence, use of the urban public spaces should be considered in the studies of daily life of citizens. It is believed that public spaces such as parks are defined as available open places. The citizens have the high traffic in the parks. The public spaces are considered as important elements in forming social interactions among the residents. In Zabol City, located in the border area with Afghanistan as the center of drug dealing, the parks are the best place for leisure time. The parks in the city can be useful in promoting social interactions among the adolescents and adults. In this study, we have investigated the components affecting promotion of social interactions in the parks of Zabol City. Therefore, we have addressed some issues; which components have the highest impacts on the social interaction among all the effective components; which park has the highest rank in promotion of social interaction among all the parks of Zabol City.
 
Methodology
This research is conducted in a descriptive analytical method. In analytical stage, the components influencing promotion of social interactions in the parks of Zabol City have been analyzed. The data have been gathered by two methods of library and field studies. In descriptive stage, document information has been gathered from books, journal articles, annuals, maps, and internet. We have used Cochran, as the most effective method to get sample volume, method to determine the volume of sample for selection of samples. Population of this study is residents of Zabol City. According to Cochran, we have selected 384 people as sample. The analysis of the data has been conducted in SPSS. We have also applied VIKOVER decision making model to determine the components affecting the promotion of social interactions in the parks of Zabol City and to make a ranking of the parks. The results of the information have been compared and integrated with those of library analyses. 
 
Results and discussion 
The parks are usually defined as open available spaces for citizens. Urban parks are the places in which people have the highest traffic and interactions. The public spaces are important components to shape social interactions among the residents. To explore the factors affecting the promotion of social interactions in the parks of Zabol City, some indicators have been extracted from the literature and incorporated in questionnaire to ask from the 384 respondents residing the Zabol City. For the analyses of the information SPSS application have been employed to test the hypotheses. To examine the components affecting social interactions, we have used some indices including distance and the access of residents to the parks, creation of social events for sense of belonging to the place, social potentials, promotion of participation opportunities in social life, social trust, social-environmental security, and sports and physical activities. The results have indicated that the index of distance and the access condition of residents to parks has the average of 3.94, creation of social events for sense of belonging to the place has average of 3.59, social potentials has average of 3.46, promotion of participation opportunities in social life has average of 3.09, social trust has the average of 3.08, social-environmental security has average of 3.00, and sports and physical activities has the average of 2.99.  In all the indices, the average obtained is higher than median level (3), except for sport and physical activities with average of 2.99. The results have also indicated that all the components are effective on promotion of social interactions in the parks of Zabol City. The results have also indicated that the highest value of Q is belonging to Yaghubleis Park with rank of 0.509. Mellat Park with Q value of 0.502, Moalem Park with Q value of 0.454, and Alghadir Park with Q value of 0.450 are ranged from the highest rank to the lowest rank in the city.
 
Conclusion
The results of average values obtained from the respondents have indicated that among the indices of this study, the indices of distance and the access of residents to the parks, creation of social events for sense of belonging to the place, social potentials, promotion of participation opportunities in social life, social trust, social-environmental security, and sports and physical activities have influenced the social interactions in the parks of the Zabol. The results have also demonstrated that all the indices have effects on the social interactions in the parks of the city. The results of this study have also presented a ranking of the parks of the Zabol City based on VIKOVER decision making model using indices affecting promotion of social interactions. The parks of Yaghubleis and Alghadir have the highest and lowest rank among the parks of the city, respectively.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. فخریان، امیر و دیگران، 1391،بررسی و تحلیل نقش کارکردهای اجتماعی پارک‌های شهری براساس موقعیت مکانی و شرایط کلی منطقه: نمونۀ مطالعاتی مناطق 1و6 شهرداری مشهد، فضای جغرافیایی، دورۀ 12، شمارۀ 40، صص 190- 211.
  2. دانشپور، سید عبدالهادی و مریم چرخچیان، 1386، فضاهایعمومیوعواملمؤثربرحیاتجمعی، نشریۀ باغ نظر، دورۀ 4، شمارۀ 7، صص 19- 28.
  3. دهخدا، علی‌اکبر، 1377، لغت‌نامۀ دهخدا، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
  4. رضایی، محمود، 1383، شهرسازی شهروندگرا؛ ارتقای عرصه‌های همگانی در شهرها و محیط‌های شهری، ترجمۀ محمد احمدی‌نژاد، چاپ اول، انتشارات خاک، اصفهان.
  5. قنبران، عبدالحمید و مرضیه جعفری، 1393، بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر ارتقای تعاملات اجتماعی در میان ساکنان محلۀ مسکونی (نمونۀ موردی: محلۀ درکه تهران)، نشریۀ علمی و پژوهشی انجمن معماری و شهرسازی ایران، دورۀ 1، شمارۀ 7، صص 57- 64.
  6. کاشانی­جو، خشایار، 1389، بازشناخت رویکردهای نظری به فضاهای عمومی شهری، نشریۀ هویت شهر، دورۀ 4، شمارۀ 6، صص. 95- 106.
  7. لنگ، جان، 1383، آفرینش نظریۀ معماری (نقش علوم رفتاری در طراحی محیط)، ترجمۀ علیرضا عینی­فر، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
  8. محمدی، جمال، ضرابی، اصغر و مهدی احمدیان، 1391، اولویت‌سنجی مکانی توسعۀ فضاهای سبز و پارک‌های شهری با استفاده از روش AHP (نمونۀ موردی: شهر میاندوآب)، فصلنامۀ نگرش‌های نو در جغرافیای انسانی، سال چهارم، شمارۀ دوم، صص 41- 62.
  9. محمدی، مهدی و پرهیزگار، علی اکبر، 1388، تحلیل توزیع فضایی و نحوة مکان­گزینی پارک‌های شهری با استفاده از GIS) مطالعۀ موردی: منطقة 2 زاهدان)، فصلنامة مدیریت شهری، دورۀ 7، شمارۀ 23، صص 17- 27.
  10. مدنی­پور، علی، 1384، طراحی فضای شهری (نگرشی بر فرآیندی اجتماعی-مکانی)، انتشارات شرکت پردازش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، تهران.
  11. مطلبی، محمد، 1383، نقدی بر پروژۀ پارک بانوان، نشریۀ پیام سبز، شمارۀ 36.
  12. مهندسین مشاور طاش، 1385، طرح منطقه‌ای سیستان.
  13. قربانی، رسول و راضیه تیموری، 1388، تحلیلی بر نقش پارک‌های شهری در ارتقای کیفیت زندگی شهری با استفاده از الگوی Escaping-Seeking نمونۀ موردی: پارک‌های شهر تبریز، پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، دورۀ 42، شمارۀ 72، صص 46- 72.

 

14.    Amir fakhrian, M. et al., 2013, Analysis of Social Implications of Urban Parks on the basis of location and general condition Region: Case Study of Zones A and Mashhad Municipality, Geographical space, Vol. 12, No. 40, PP. 190- 211. (In Persian)
 
  1. Balram, S. and Dragicevic S., 2005, Attitudes Toward Urban Green Space: Integrating Guestionnaire Survey and Collaborative GIS Techniques to Improve Attitude Measurements, Landscape and Urban Planning.
  2. Car, S. Mark, F. Leanne, R., and Andrew, S., 1992, Public Space, Cambridge University Press, Massachusetts.
  3. Chiesura, A., 2004, The role of parks for the sustainable city.Landsc, Urban Planning,, 68.
18.    Daneshpur, S. H., and Charkhchian, M., 2008, Public Spaces and Factors Affecting Collective Life, Garden view, Vol. 4, No. 7, PP. 19- 28. (In Persian)
 
19.    Dehkhoda, A., 1999, Diccionario Dehkhoda, Tehran University publicaciones, Tehran. (In Persian)

 

20.    Ghanbaran, A. H. and Jafari, M., 2015, Factors Affecting Promote Social Interaction Among Residents Residential Neighborhood (Case Study: Tehran Darake Neighborhood), Iranian Architectural Association, Vol. 1, No. 7, PP. 57- 64. (In Persian)

 

  1. Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R., 1982, Human Scape: Environments for People, Ann Arbor, Ulrich’s Books.
 
22.    Kashanijou, Kh., 2011, Recognition of Theoretical Approaches to Urban Public Spaces, Identity of the city, Vol. 4, No. 6, PP. 10- 95. (In Persian)
 
23.    Leng, J., 2005, The Creation of Architectural Theory (the Role of Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design), Translated by Alireza Ynyfr, Tehran University publicaciones, Tehran. (In Persian)
 
24.    Madanipour, A., 2006, The Design of Urban Space (Spatial Reference to the Social Process), Processing and Urban Planning publicaciones, Tehran. (In Persian)
 
  1. Manlun, Y., 2003, Suitability Analysis of Urban Green Space System Based on GIS, ITC.

 

  1. Marcus, C. and Sarkissian, W., 1986, Housing as if People Mattered, Berkeley, University of California Press.

 

27.    Matlabi, M., 2005, Cash on Projects PARKE, Publication green message, No. 36. (In Persian)

 

  1. Millward, A. and Sabir, S., 2011, Benefits of a forested urban park: What is the value of Allan Gardens to the city of Toronto, Canada? Landscape and Urban Planing, Vol. 100, PP.177- 188.
29.    Mohammadi, J., Zarabi, A. and Ahmadian, M., 2013, Place Priority Development of Green Spaces and Urban Parks Using AHP (Case Study: Miyandoaab), New approaches in human geography, Vol. 4, No. 2, PP. 41- 62. (In Persian)
 
30.    Rezai, M., 2005, Shahrvndgra Urban Development; Promotion of Public Thoroughfares in Towns and Urban Areas, Translated by Mohammad Ahmadinejad, Khak publicaciones, Isfahan. (In Persian)
 
  1. Saaty, T.L., 2008, Relative Measurment and its Generalization in Decision Making:Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central in Mathematics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors, The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process02, PP. 251- 318.
 
  1. Shi, L., 2002, Suitability Analysis and Decision Making Using GIS, Spatial Modeling.
33.  Tash Consulting Engineers, 2007, Sistan regional project. (In Persian)
 
  1. Whyte, W., 1980, Social Life of Small Urban Space, Conservation Foundation.

 

  1. Chiesura, A., 2004, The Role of Urban Parks for The Sustainable Sity, Landscape and Urban Plannig. www.elsevir.com/locate/landrob plan.
  2. Millward, A. and Sabir, s., 2011, Benefits of a Forested Urban Park: What is the Value of Allan Gardens to the City of Toronto, Canada? Landscape and Urban Planing 100(2011)177-188www.elsevir.com/locate/landrob plan Urban Planning.
Human Geography Research
Volume 49, Issue 4
January 2018
Pages 901-915

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 03 January 2017
  • Revise Date: 29 May 2017
  • Accept Date: 29 May 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics