Investigating Adaptive Behaviors in Urban Spaces in Relation to the Dialectical Concepts of Isolation and Congestion

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Urban Planning, Faculty of Urban Planning, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associte Professor, Department of Art and Architecture, Science and Research branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The presence of people in urban spaces and related components is one of the most important issues in the field of behavioral sciences in urban studies. The mechanism of static presence in urban spaces is influenced by factors that generally determine the quality of social life in these spaces. The present study examines the way people are present in urban spaces in relation to each other, and in this context, focuses on the concepts of "isolation" and "congestion" in these spaces. Studying and comparing behavioral patterns in these two thresholds, and studying its changes in the daily life sequence of urban spaces, to a large extent, clarifies the environmental preferences of space users, their behavioral actions and interactions, and the factors influencing their adaptive behaviors at peak times of "isolation" and "congestion" in public spaces. In this regard, the present paper examines this relationship through applied research based on field observations in Nabovat Square in Narmak, Tehran. The results include explaining the relationship between the environmental characteristics of urban space with the patterns of pause and presence in this space on the threshold of isolation and congestion. This study has shown that factors such as the presence of active uses, the availability of comfort facilities, the use of micro-spaces, and the placement of people in the context of creating favorable social interactions have raised the thresholds of "isolation" and "congestion" and delayed the desire to leave public spaces in these thresholds.

Keywords


  1. Altman, I. (1975). The Invironment and Social Behavior. Brooks: Cole Publishing Company.
  2. Bosselman P, et.al. (1984). Sun, Wind and Con fort: A Study of Open Spaces and Sidewalks in Four Areas. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Planning, University of California.
  3. Burden, A.(1977).Greenacre Park.New York: Project for Public Spaces (p.p.s).
  4. Carmona M, Taner O, Tiesdel S. Public Places - Urban Spaces, Oxford, Architectural Press-2003
  5. Carr S, Francis M, Rivlin L, Stone A. (1995). Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Chidister, M. (1988). Reconsidering the Piazza. Landscape Architecture, 78(1), 439-40.
  7. Cohn, R. (1989). Square Deals: The Public Is Invented. Landscape Architecture, 79(6), 54-61.
  8. Cochran, W. G. (1977) Sampling Techniques (3rd edition), New York, John Wiley & Sons.
  9. Francis, M. (1987). Urban Open Spaces. In E. Z. Moore, Advances in Environment, Behaviour and Design. New York: Plenum Press.
  10. Gehl, J. (1989). A Changing Street Life in a Changing Society. Places -A Quarterly Journal of Environmental Design, 6(1), 8-17.
  11. Gehl, J. (1987). Life Between Buildings. New York: Van Nostraand Reinhold.
  12. Greenbie, B. (1981). Spaces - Dimensions of the Human Landscape. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
  13. Hall, E. (1966). The Hidden Dimension.NewYork: Doubleday.
  14. Hediger, H. (1955). Studies of the psychology and behaviour of captive animals in zoos and circuses, Butterworths Scientific Publications
  15. Herzog, T. (1992). A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Urban Spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(3), 237-48.
  16. Hillier B, Penn A, Hanson J, Grajevski T, Xu J. (1993a). Natural Movement: Or Configuration and Attraction in Urban Pedestrian Movement. Environment and Planning, 20(1), 29-66.
  17. Hillier, B. and J. Hanson. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Hillier, B. (1997) Moving Diagonally: Some Results and Some Conjunctures. Bartlett School of Graduate Studies - University College London.
  19. Im, S. (1984). Visual Preferences in Enclosed Urban Spaces. Environmental and Behaviour, 16(2), 235-62.
  20. Joardar, S & J. Neill. (1978). The Subtle Differences in Configuration of Small Public Spaces. Landscape Architecture, 68(11).
  21. Lennard, S. & Lennard, H.(1984). Public Life in Urban Places: Social and Characteristics Conducive to Public Life in European Cities.Southampton, Gondolier Press.
  22. Schwartz, B. (1968). The Social Psychology of Privacy. American Journal of Psychology, 741-752.
  23. Whyte, W. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington: The Conservation Foundation.
  24. Altman, I.(2003). The Environment and Social Behavior. Translated by Ali Namazian, Second Edition, Tehran, ShahidBeheshti University.
  25. Behzadfar, M. (2016). Theoretical Explanation of ShahidBakeri Memorial Design. Seminar of Holy Defense Museums, Tehran: Tehran Municipality.
  26. Gehl, Y. andSowar, B.(2015). How to Study Public Life?Translatedby Mostafa Behzadfar, Mohammad RezaeiNodoushan, and Ahmad RezaiNadoushan, Tehran:architecture science.
  27. Hall, E.T.(2005).Hidden dimension. Translated by ManouchehrTabibian. Second Edition, Tehran: University of Tehran.