Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism(JIAU)

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

News

Peer Review Process

Article Publication Charges

Submission to Acceptance Procedure

Measuring the psychological restoration of visitors in urban parks regarding their spatial configuration; Case study: Eram Park in Hamedan

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of civil engineering and architecture, University of Malayer, Malayer, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of architecture and urban planning, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: The psychological restoration is considered one of the important psychological variables among those who refer to urban parks. In Iran, this category has received less attention. Besides, the level of psychological restoration of visitors in different natural environments is not the same. In this research, the rate of psychological restoration in various areas of urban parks are compared and a valid, and indigenous tool to measure the rate of psychological restoration was introduced (Restoration Scale Localized Questionnaire: Rs) in these environments.
Methods: The strategy of this research was logical reasoning, and its tactic to evaluate the spatial configuration of urban parks was the Space Syntax method. In the space configuration analysis section, using the Space Syntax method, the parameters of connectivity, integration, depth, control, line length, entropy and intelligibility of the entire park bed (and especially in selected points) were analyzed. Moreover, in the section of measuring the mental state of citizens referring to urban parks, standardized and localized RS (restoration scale: The main output of the present research is also the introduction of this localized standard questionnaire in Persian language), and finally using statistical analysis to express the relationship between the spatial classification and psychological restoration of citizens (In fact, the park consists of two main geometric and organic parts, and in a number of points of both parts, the state of configuration variables and psychological restoration of citizens using a localized questionnaire was calculated and investigated).
Findings: The results of this research showed that the parameters of connectivity, integration, entropy, control, line length and intelligibility in geometric part are more favorable than organic part, but the depth of organic part is more than geometric part. The results of the mean comparison test also showed that the variables of depth and intelligibility have significant differences between the two geometric textures, but no significant difference was observed between the other parameters of the spatial configuration in the two textures. In addition, the results of the mean comparison test show that the depth of the geometric texture is lower than the depth of the organic range, but the intelligibility of the geometric texture is higher than the organic texture. Also, the analysis of relationship between spatial configuration and restoration due to the coefficient of determination showed that 46.8% of the changes in (psychological) restoration variable are related to spatial configuration variables and the restoration changes are mostly related to depth, control and entropy variables. The results of investigating the effect of spatial configuration variables on each dimension of mental (psychological) restoration also showed that 38.9 percent of the changes in the emotional dimension are related to spatial configuration variables, and this relationship is generally significant, more detailed analyzes of this parameter prove it that the relationship between intelligibility and line length variables was not significant and these variables did not have the ability to predict the restoration variable and the restoration changes are mostly related to connectivity, depth, control and entropy variables. Also, 38.3% of cognitive dimension changes are related to spatial configuration variables, and this relationship is significant. More detailed analysis of this parameter also revealed that the relationship between connectivity, control, intelligibility and line length variables was not significant and these variables could not predict the restoration variable, and the restoration changes are mostly related to the depth and entropy variables. In addition, 43.5 percent of the changes in the behavioral dimension are related to spatial configuration variables, and this relationship is significant, more detailed analyzes of this parameter also show that the relationship between connectivity, control, intelligibility and line length variables was not significant and these variables could not predict the restoration variable, and the restoration changes are mostly related to the depth and entropy variables.
Conclusion: Based on the findings of this research (and supplementary studies), the design of parks with secluded and uncrowded spaces, and minimal disorder in the layout (in terms of spatial aspects), which minimize visual (and motor) control and permeability, is recommended for the improvement of the spatial configuration of city parks. This is proposed to enhance the mental health of park visitors. This suggestion is directed towards researchers, decision-makers, and urban planners and designers in urban design and landscape.

Graphical Abstract

Measuring the psychological restoration of visitors in urban parks regarding their spatial configuration; Case study: Eram Park in Hamedan

Highlights

- The role of spatial configuration of parks in the psychological restoration of citizens.
- The role of variables of depth, control and entropy in Psychological restoration in parks. 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References
  1. Alitajer, S., Saadativaghar, P., Robati, M. B., & Heydari, A. (2018). The effect of Spatial Configuration on the Sociability of Informal Settlements: (Case study of Hesar and Dizaj Neighborhoods in Hamedan). Motaleate Shahri, 7(26), 57-72. doi: 10.34785/J011.2018.032. [In Persian]
  2. Appleton, J., (1975). The Experience of Place. Wiley, London.
  3. Berto, R., Barbiero, G., Barbiero, P., & Senes, G. (2018). An individual’s connection to nature can affect perceived restorativeness of natural environments. Some observations about biophilia. Behavioral Sciences, 8(3), 34
  4. Bornioli, A., Parkhurst, G. & L.Morgan, P. (2018). Psychological Wellbeing Benefits of Simulated Exposure to Five Urban Settings: an Experimental Study From the Pedestrian's Perspective. Journal of Transport & Health,  9, 105-116.
  5. Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49-59.
  6. Cackowski, JM, Nasar, JL. (2003). The Restorative Effects of Roadside Vegetation: Implications for Automobile Driver Anger and Frustration. Environment and Behavior. 35(6):736-751. doi:10.1177/0013916503256267
  7. Chang, C. Y., Hammitt, W. E., Chen, P. K., Machnik, L., & Su, W. C. (2008). Psychophysiological responses and restorative values of natural environments in Taiwan. Landscape and urban planning, 85(2), 79-84.‏
  8. Felsten, G. (2009). Where to take a study break on the college campus: an attention restoration theory perspective. J. Environ. Psychol. 29, 160–167.
  9. Felsten, G. (2014). Personality predicts perceived potential for attention restoration of natural and urban scenes / La personalidad predice el potencial percibido de restauración atencional de los paisajes naturales y urbanos, Psyecology, 5:1, 37-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2014.881663
  10. Francis, C., Cooper Marcus, C. (1991). Places people take their problems. EDRA 22, 178–184.
  11. Gatersleben, B., and Andrews, M. (2013).When walking in nature is not restorative-The role of prospect and refuge. Health & Place, 20, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.01.001
  12. Han, K. (2003). A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning 64, 209–232.
  13. Hartig, T. & Evans, G. W. (1993). Psychological Foundation of Nature Experience. In T. Garling & R.
    G. Golledge (Eds), Behavior and Environment: Psychological and Geographical Approaches (pp.427-
    457). Amsterdam: North Holland Press.
  14. Hartig, T. & Staats, H. (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 215–226.
  15. Hartig, T. (2004). Restorative environments. In C. Spielberger (Ed.). Encyclopedia of applied psychology, Vol. 3 (pp. 273-279). San Diego: Academic Press.
  16. Hartig, T. (2007). Three steps to understanding restorative environments as health resources. In C. Ward Thompson, & P. Travlou (Eds.), Open space: People space(pp. 163e179). London: Taylor & Francis.
  17. Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2006). Linking preference for environments with their restorative quality. In B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, & P. Opdam (Eds.), From landscape research to landscape planning, Vol. 12 (pp. 279-292). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  18. Hartig, T., Evans, G.W., Jamner, L.D., Davis, D.S., G¨arling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23,109–123.
  19. Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Bowler, P. A. (1997). Further development of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. Uppsala Universitet, Institute for Housing Research, Working Paper No. 5.
  20. Hartig, T., Korpela, K. M., Evans, G. W. & Ga¨rling, T. (1996). Validation of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. (Go¨teborg Psychological Reports, 26:7). Go¨teborg: Go¨teborg University, Department of Psychology.
  21. Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G.W. & GÌrling, T. (1997). A measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14, 175-194.
  22. Herzog, T. R., Maguire, C. P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 159-170.
  23. Hillier, B., & Vaughan, L. ( 2007). The city as one thing, Progress in Planning, 67(3), 205-230.
  24. Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, T. & XU, J. (1993). Natural movement: or, configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20, 29-66.
  25. Hipp, J. Aaron and Ogunseitan, Oladele A. (2011). Effect of environmental conditions on perceived psychological restorativeness of coastal parks. Journal of Environmental Psychology 31 (2011) 421-429.
  26. Hull, R.B., Michael, S.E. (1995). Nature-based recreation, mood change, and stress restoration. Leisure Sci. 17, 1–14.
  27. Ivarsson, C. T., & Hagerhall, C. M. (2008). The perceived restorativeness of gardens Assessing the restorativeness of a mixed built and natural scene type. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7(2), 107-118.‏
  28. Jafary Bahman, M.A., & Khanian, M. (2013). Comparative Study of the Existing Condition of Kababian Neighborhood with the 2005 Comprehensive Development Plan of City of Hamadan Using SpaceSyntax Software. Journal of Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 5(9), 285-295.
  29. Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural Lessons from Environmental Psychology: The Case of Biophilic Archi-
    tecture. Journal of Review of General Psychology, 11(4), 305-328.
  30. Joye, Y., van den Berg, A. (2011). Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 10, 261–268.
  31. Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior. 33, 507-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973115
  32. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21, 509-530.
  34. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
  35. Korpela, K. M., Yl_en, M., Tyrvainen, L., & Silvennoinen, H. (2008). Determinants of restorative experiences in everyday favorite places. Health & Place, 14, 636-652.
  36. Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative Qualities of Favorite places, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0018.
  37. Krenichyn, K. (2006). The only place to go and be in the city: women talk about exercise, being outdoors and the meaning of a large urban park. Health and Place 12, 631–643.
  38. Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 31–44.
  39. Lewis, C.A. (1990). Gardening as healing process. In: Francis, M., Hester, R.T. (Eds.), The Meaning of Gardens. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 244–251.
  40. Lindal, P. J. & Hartig, T. (2013). Architectural variation, building height, and the restorative quality of urban residential streetscapes, Journal of Environmental Psychology 33 (2013) 26-36.
  41. Long, Y.K., Baran, P., & Moore, R. (2007). The Role of Space Syntax in Spatial Cognition: Evidence from Urban China. Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, İstanbul.
  42. Long, Yixiang and K. Baran, Perver (2011). “Does Intelligibility Affect Place Legibility? Understanding the Relationship Between Objective and Subjective Evaluations of the Urban Environment”, Environment and behavior, 44(5): 616-640
  43. Mahan, A. (2009). Eram park. MANZAR, the Scientific Journal of landscape, 1(2), 16-17.
  44. Mariana, Yosica & Triwardhani, Arindra & Djimantoro, Michael Isnaeni. (2017). The study of a space configuration using space syntax analysis Case study: an elderly housing. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 109. 012048. 10.1088/1755-1315/109/1/012048.
  45. Milligan, Christine, Bingley, Amanda. (2007). Restorative places or scary spaces? The impact of woodland on the mental well-being of young adults, Health & Place, 13(4), 799-811.
  46. Molla Zadeh, A., Barani Pesian, V., Khosro Zadeh, M. (2012). The application of the space syntax of the Valiasr St Basht city. Urban management. 10 (29) :81-90 URL: http://ijurm.imo.org.ir/article-1-119-en.html. [In Persian]
  47. Moulay, Amine, Ujang, Norsidah Said, Ismail (2017), “Legibility of neighborhood parks as a predicator for enhanced social interaction towards social sustainability”، Cities, 61 (2017) 58–64.
  48. Negrín, F., Hernández-Fernaud, E., Hess, S. & Hernández, B. (2017). Discrimination of Urban Spaces with Different Level of Restorativeness Based on the Original and on a Shorter Version of Hartig et al.’s Perceived Restorativeness Scale, Frontiers in Psychology, 8:1735. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01735
  49. Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C. M., & Fry, G. (2009). Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8, 225-235.
  50. Oxford English Dictionary, second ed. Oxford University Press, New York, 1987.
  51. Pallant, J. (2015). A step-by-step guide to data analysis using the SPSS (4th ed, Translated by: Akbar Rezaei). Tehran: Forouzesh [In Persian]
  52. Parsons, R. (1991). The potential influences of environmental perception on human health. J. Environ. Psychol. 11, 1–23
  53. Pazhouhanfar, M. & Kamal M.S, M. (2014). Effect of predictors of visual preference as characteristics of urban natural landscapes in increasing perceived restorative potential, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13, 145–151
  54. Perkins, D. D. , & Taylor, R. B. (1996), “Ecological assessments of community disorder: their relationship to fear of crime and theoretical implications”. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24 (1), 63-107.
  55. Peron, E., Berto, R., & Purcell, T. (2002) Restorativeness, Preference and the Perceived Naturalness of Places. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 3(1):19-34.
  56. Purcell, T., Peron, E., Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environment and Behavior 33, 93–106..
  57. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, second ed. Random House, New York, 1993.
  58. Ratcliffe, E., & Korpela, K. M. (2016). Memory and place attachment as predictors of imagined restorative perceptions of favourite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 120-130.‏
  59. Rismanchian, O., & Bell, S. (2010). The Application of Space Syntax in Studying the Structure of the Cities. Journal of HONAR-HA-YE-ZIBA, 2(43), 49-56.
  60. Roe, J., & Aspinall, P. (2011). The restorative outcomes of forest school and conventional school in young people with good and poor behaviour. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(3), 205-212.‏
  61. Sajjadzadeh, H., Izadi, M. S., & Haghi, M. R. (2016). The Relationship between Spatial Configuration and Environmental Variables in Informal Settlements, Case study: Hesar Neighborhood in Hamedan. Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning, 21(3), 15-26. doi: 10.22059/jfaup.2016.61099. [In Persian]
  62. Sajjadzadeh, H., Izadi, M.S., & Haghi, M.R. (2017). The Relationship between Spatial Configuration and Environmental Variables in Informal Settlements; Case Study: Hesar Neighborhood in Hamedan. Journal of HONAR-HA-YE-ZIBA, 21(3), 15-26.
  63. Sonntag-Öström, E., Nordin, M., Lundell, Y., et al. (2014). Restorative effects of visits to urban and forest environments in patients with exhaustion disorder. Urban forestry & urban greening, 13(2):344-354.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.12.007
  64. Staats, H., Kieviet, A., & Hartig, T. (2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 147-157.
  65. Stevens, j (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science (3rd edn). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  66. Tabatabaian, M., Abbasalizadeh Rezakolai, S., & Fayaz, R. (2017). The Effect of Natural Environment on Children’s Creativity. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 9(17), 91-102. [In Persian]
  67. Tianxiang, Yang, Dong, Jing and Shoubing, Wang (2014), “Applying and exploring a new modeling approach of functional connectivity regarding ecological network: A case study on the dynamic lines of space syntax”, Ecological Modelling, 318(24): 126-137
  68. Toker, U., Baran, P. K., & Mull, M. (2005), Suburban evolution: A cross-temporal analysis of spatial configuraion in an american town (1989- 2002). 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, Delft. pp 1-7
  69. Turner, A. (2007). UCL Depthmap 7: From Isovist Analysis to Generic Spatial Network Analysis. New Developments in Space Syntax Software, Istanbul Technical University, 43-51
  70. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). New York: Plenum Press.
  71. Ulrich, R.S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224:420–421.
  72. Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Mailes, M.A., Zelson, M., (1991). Stress
    recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of
    Environmental Psychology 11, 201–230
  73. Van den Berg, A.E., Jorgensen, A. & R.Wilson,E. (2014). Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: Does setting type make a difference?, Landscape and Urban Planning 127, 173–181.
  74. Wilkie, S., & Stavridou, A. (2013). Influence of environmental preference and environment type congruence on judgments of restoration potential. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(2), 163-170.‏   
Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism(JIAU)
Volume 14, Issue 2
December 2023
Pages 39-58
Files
History
  • Receive Date: 19 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 23 September 2022
  • Accept Date: 02 January 2023
Share
How to cite
Statistics