Perceptual Analysis of Fast and Irregular Transformations in Historical Urban Landscape (Case Study: Historical-Religious City of Ray and Shemiran District-Tehran)

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Professor of Architecture, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 M.S Department of Environmental Design, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

In the recent century,Tehran has been confronted with urban sprawl and rapid population growth that have caused urban landscape transformation, whichis different in various parts of Tehran based on specific economic, cultural and social situations. What is important in this essay is the human perception of their landscape in this process of transformation; therefore, the purpose is analyzing landscape perception in order to answer the following questions:“What are the effective landscape elements on perception in this changing landscape?”To answer the question, two historicalparts of Tehran, Tajrish and Ray, were examinedthrough an interview. In order to analyze landscape perception in these two case studies,6 main factors includingconstructed landscape elements, rootedness, attachment to place, social relations, adaptability of use and landscape satisfaction were selected and evaluated by a questionnaire. Resultsin Tajrish have shown that elements of the past,even though destroyed or hidden, form people's perception.However, in Ray elements from recent constructions have mostly affected people's perception. Consequently, discoveringtheeffective elements, which are directly influenced by the context, is a significant factor to know how people perceive their landscape. With the consideration aboutpeople's perception in each specific context, landscape designers would be able to design valuable landscapes and enhance the quality of urban places.

Keywords


  1. Assar Khaniki, Z., Darabi, H., & Irani-Behbahani, H. (2015). Integrated Analysis of Urban Landscape Fragmentation (Case study: Historical-Religious City of Ray). International Journal of Environmental Research. 9, 511-522.
  2. Belanger, A. (2002). Urban space and collective memory: Analysing the various dimensions of the production of memory, Canadian Journal of Urban Research11. 1: 69-92
  3. Bell, S. (1996). Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape. London, E&FN Spon.
  4. Carles J, Bernaldez F, de Lucio, J. (1992) Audio visual interactions and soundscape preferences.Landscape Research, 17/2, 6-52.
  5. Chokor, B.A. (1990) Urban Landscape and Environmental Quality Preferences in Ibadan, Nigeria:An Exploration, Landscape and Urban Planning, 19 ,263-280.
  6. Coeterier, J.F. (1996). Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 34. 27-44.
  7. European Landscape Convention, ETS 176,20. X.2000.
  8. Eiter, S. (2010). Landscape as an area perceived through activity: implications for diversity management and conservation. Landscape Research, 35:3, 339-359.
  9. Fisher, Bonnie &Nasar, Jack (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features, Environment and Behavior, 24, 35-65.
  10. Francis, P. Hutchinson, P. J. (2012). Landscapes for peace: A case study of active learning about urban environments and the future, Futures 44: pp.24–35.
  11. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  12. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  13. Gosling, D. (1996). "Gordon Cullen: Visions of Urban Design", London, Academy Edition.
  14. Gohari, A. Behbahani Irani, H. Salehi, I. (2016) Methodology of urban landscape perception in relation to collective mentalities and memories: Case Study of Tajrish district, Journal of Environmental Studies, Volume, 195-210.
  15. Howard, P.J. (2011). An introduction to Landscape. Ashgate.
  16. Jessel, B. (2006). Elements, characteristics and character; Information functions of landscapes in terms of indicators. Ecological Indicators 6, 153-167.
  17. Kaplan, R. (1983). A model of person-environment compatibility, Environment and behavior, 311-332.
  18. Kaymaz, I.C. (2012). Landscape Perception. Landscape Planning, In Tech.
  19. Kaytta, M. (2002). Affordances of children's environments in the context of cities, Small towns, Suburbs and rural villages in Finland and Belarus, Journal of Environmental Psychology 22, number 1-2, 109-123.
  20. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City, The MIT Press, ISBN: 0-262-62001-4, USA.
  21. Martindale, C. (1996). How can we measure a society’s creativity? In: Dimensions of Creativity, M.A.Boden, 159-198, MIT Press.
  22. Nassauer, J. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 14 (2), 161-170.
  23. Ode, H. Tveit, M.S & Fry, G. (2008). Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory, Landscape Research, 33:1, 89-1.
  24. Philip, B., Emma, S. (2014), The power of perceptions: Exploring the role of urban design in cycling behaviours and healthy ageing, Transportation Research Procedia 4: 68 – 79.
  25. Porteous, J. W. (1996). Dominance-One hundred and fifteen years after Mendel's paper. J. Theor. Biol., 182, 223-232.
  26. Rachel, M., Rachel E. S. (2013). Stumbling upon history: collective memory and the urban landscape, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. GeoJournal78: 791-801.
  27. Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology,15 (2),121-148.
  28. Schwartz, B. (1982). "The Social Context of Commemoration: A Study in Collective Memory.
  29. Soinia, K., H. Vaaralab and E. Poutaa 2011. "Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface." Science Direct.
  30. Strang, V. (2004). The meaning of Water. Berg publisher.