تأثیر فرم‌های هندسی و غیرهندسی بر ادراک بصری و فعالیت‌های کاربران در پارک‌های شهری (مطالعه موردی: شهر تبریز، ایران)

نوع مقاله : مقاله مستخرج از پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد

نویسندگان

گروه مهندسی فضای سبز، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران

چکیده
زمینه و هدف: فضاهای سبز شهری به‌عنوان یکی از مؤلفه‌های مهم ارتقای کیفیت محیط شهری، نقش مؤثری در شکل‌گیری تجربه‌های ادراکی، روان‌شناختی و اجتماعی کاربران دارند. نحوه سازماندهی فرم و ساختار فضایی پارک‌ها، به‌ویژه تفاوت میان فرم‌های هندسی و غیرهندسی، می‌تواند بر نحوه ادراک و الگوهای استفاده شهروندان از این فضاها تأثیرگذار باشد. پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی تأثیر فرم‌های هندسی و غیرهندسی بر ادراک بصری و فعالیت‌های کاربران در پارک‌های شهری انجام شد.
روش شناسی: روش پژوهش توصیفی–تحلیلی بوده و داده‌ها با استفاده از پرسشنامه تصویری از ۳۸۴ نفر از کاربران فضاهای سبز شهری تبریز گردآوری شد. نمونه پژوهش شامل ۱۸۱ مرد (1/47 درصد) و ۲۰۳ زن (9/52 درصد) بود که بیشترین فراوانی سنی مربوط به گروه ۲۰ تا ۳۰ سال با ۱۶۹ نفر (۴۴ درصد) گزارش شد. تحلیل داده‌ها با استفاده از آزمون t زوجی، ضریب اندازه اثر کوهن و آزمون تحلیل واریانس در نرم‌افزار SPSS انجام گرفت.
یافته‌ها و نتایج: نتایج آزمون t زوجی نشان داد که در هر ۲۰ مؤلفه مورد بررسی، تفاوت ادراک کاربران بین فرم‌های هندسی و غیرهندسی در سطح 001/0 معنادار است. یافته‌ها نشان داد فرم‌های غیرهندسی در مؤلفه‌هایی مانند سلامت روانی (97/0 d=)، انسجام اجتماعی (96/0 d=)، ، جذب گردشگران (02/1 d=)، ، بازیابی روان‌شناختی و کیفیت منظر عملکرد مطلوب‌تری داشتند. در مقابل، فرم‌های هندسی در مؤلفه‌هایی مانند دسترسی ادراک‌شده، دسترسی فیزیکی، فعالیت‌های جسمانی، روشنایی و برخی ویژگی‌های عملکردی برتری نشان دادند. همچنین نتایج اندازه اثر کوهن نشان داد که تفاوت میان دو نوع فرم در تمامی مؤلفه‌ها دارای اثر متوسط تا بسیار بزرگ (47/0|d|≤ ) بوده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

The Effects of Geometric and Non-Geometric Forms on Visual Perception and User Activities in Urban Parks: Case of Tabriz City, Iran

نویسندگان English

Maryam Mousapour
Ahmad Hami
Hamed Aalipour
Saadollah Alizadeh Ajirlo
Saeid Fathi
Department of Landscape Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
چکیده English

Background and Objective: Urban green spaces, as one of the key components contributing to the improvement of urban environmental quality, play an important role in shaping users’ perceptual, psychological, and social experiences. The organization of form and spatial structure in parks, particularly the differences between geometric and non-geometric forms, can significantly influence citizens’ perceptions and patterns of use of these spaces. This study aimed to investigate the effects of geometric and non-geometric forms on users’ visual perception and activities in urban parks.
Methodology: This research employed a descriptive–analytical approach. Data were collected through a visual questionnaire administered to 384 users of urban green spaces in Tabriz, Iran. The research sample consisted of 181 males (47.1%) and 203 females (52.9%), with the highest frequency belonging to the 20–30 age group, comprising 169 participants (44%). Data analysis was conducted using paired t-tests, Cohen’s effect size coefficient, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) in SPSS software.
Results and Findings: The results of the paired t-test indicated that users’ perceptions of geometric and non-geometric forms differed significantly across all 20 investigated components at the significance level of p < 0.001. The findings demonstrated that non-geometric forms performed more effectively in components such as psychological health (d = 0.97), social cohesion (d = 0.96), tourist attraction (d = 1.02), psychological restoration, and landscape quality. In contrast, geometric forms showed greater effectiveness in components including perceived accessibility, physical accessibility, physical activities, lighting, and several functional characteristics. Furthermore, Cohen’s effect size analysis revealed that the differences between the two types of forms had moderate to very large effects across all components (|d| ≥ 0.47).

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Geometric and non-geometric forms
Visual perception
Urban green spaces
User behavior,Tabriz
1.       Abdelhamid, M. M., & Elfakharany, M. M. (2020). Improving urban park usability in developing countries: Case study of Al-Shalalat Park in Alexandria. Alexandria Engineering Journal59(1), 311-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.12.042
2.       Akkın, C., Eğrilmez, S., Afrashi, F. (2004). Renklerin İnsan Davranış ve Fizyolojisine Etkileri. Türk Oftalmoloji Derneği XXXVI. Kongresi. İzmir.
3.       Anonymous (2007). European Landscape Convention, Brussels.
4.       Asadpour, H., Montazerolhodjah, M., & SharifNejad, M. (2020). Recognizing the Factors Influencing Citizens' Visual Perception of Urban Spaces (Case Study: Hafez Historical Axis of Shiraz). Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Urban Design8(1), 49-66.  (In Persian) https://doi.org/10.22061/jsaud.2020.5818.1567
5.       Azizi Jalilian, M., & Danehkar, A. (2012). Determination and Analysis of Critical Indicator’s Standard for Urban Parks Case Study: Karaj Urban Parks. Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning, 17(2), 75-85.(In Persian) https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2012.30162
6.       Bi, X., Gan, X., Jiang, Z., Li, Z., & Li, J. (2024). How do landscape patterns in urban parks affect multiple cultural ecosystem services perceived by residents?. Science of the Total Environment946, 174255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174255
7.       Büyükağaçcı, S. B., & Arısoy, N. (2024). Social Sustainability in Urban Parks: Insights from Alaeddin Hill Park, Konya. Sustainability16(22), 9697. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229697
8.       Chen, C., Luo, W., Li, H., Zhang, D., Kang, N., Yang, X., & Xia, Y. (2020). Impact of perception of green space for health promotion on willingness to use parks and actual use among young urban residents. International journal of environmental research and public health17(15), 5560. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155560
9.       Chen, S., Ma, Z. L., & Cao, L. (2012). Analysis of Peter Walker’s Modern-Classical Landscape Design Method. Applied Mechanics and Materials209, 341-345. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.209-211.341
10.   Darnthamromgkul, W. (2023). Public response to the appearance of ecological urban park design: The battle between the ‘picturesque’and the ‘messiness’. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure8(3), 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2023.2175165
11.   Deng, L., Li, X., Luo, H., Fu, E. K., Ma, J., Sun, L. X., ... & Jia, Y. (2020). Empirical study of landscape types, landscape elements and landscape components of the urban park promoting physiological and psychological restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening48, 126488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126488
12.   Deng, L., Li, X., Luo, H., Fu, E. K., Ma, J., Sun, L. X., ... & Jia, Y. (2020). Empirical study of landscape types, landscape elements and landscape components of the urban park promoting physiological and psychological restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening48, 126488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126488
13.   Eghtedari,A , Attar Roshan,S and Babaei Morad,B . (2025). Redesign of Misagh Park in Ahvaz metropolis with the approach of improving citizens' satisfaction and integrated SWOT model. Journal of Sustainable Urban & Regional Development Studies (JSURDS), 6(1), 36-49. (In Persian). https://www.srds.ir/article_203407.html?lang=en
14.   Faizi, M., Mozaffar, F., Rayati, M., & Azimi, M. (2015). The comparison of public perception and preference between regular-geometrical and natural-organic urban parks (Case study: Laleh park and Daneshjoo park)'. Motaleate Shahri4(13), 5-16. (In Persian) https://urbstudies.uok.ac.ir/article_11720.html?lang=en
15.   Fan, P. (2022). Urban Green Space. In: The Great Urban Transition. Landscape Series, vol 34. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05957-5_6
16.   Gholipour, S., MahdiNejad, J. E. D., & Saleh Sedghpour, B. (2022). Security and urban satisfaction: developing a model based on safe urban park design components extracted from users' preferences. Security journal35(3), 863-892. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-021-00303-4
17.   Gorgij, F., Hami, A., Alizadeh Ajirlo, S., & Samadi-Todar, Z. (2026). Physical Development of Urban Spiritual Spaces for the Restoration of Civic Spirit: A Case Study of the Cemeteries of Zahedan City. Physical Social Planning13(1), 1-14. (In Persian) https://doi.org/10.30473/psp.2026.78021.2814
18.   Hami, A., Faraji, S., Emami, F., & Samadi Todar, Z. (2024). Motivational and Recreational Priorities of Visitors to the Regional Parks of Tabriz City. Physical Social Planning11(2), 79-88. (In Persian) https://doi.org/10.30473/psp.2024.71165.2727
19.   Hami, A., Ghasemzadeh, R., & Samadi-Todar, Z. (2025a). Nature-based solution to increase mental well-being in nursing home. Landscape Architecture and Sustainability, 2, 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.las.2025.100017
20.   Hami, A., Ghasemzadeh, R., & Samadi-Todar, Z. (2025b). Older Adults' Perception toward Landscaping of Nursing Homes. International Journal of Architectural Engineering & Urban Planning35(3), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.22068/ijaup.891
21.   Hami, A., Osan, S., & Samadi-Todar, Z. (2025). Investigating the Effect of Tree Planting Patterns (Evergreen and Deciduous) on the Improvement of Urban Microclimate. Geography and Environmental Sustainability15(1), 115-136. (In Persian) https://doi.org/10.22126/ges.2025.11375.2799
22.   Hou, F., Hedayati Marzbali, M., Maghsoodi Tilaki, M. J., & Abdullah, A. (2025). Rethinking urban greening: Implications of crime prevention through environmental design for enhancing perceived safety in Baitashan park, Lanzhou. Urban Science9(1), 9.  https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9010009
23.   Izhan, M. A. A. M., Azman, M. A. A., Bahari, N. A. M., Ahmad, A. L., Arip, M. S. M., & Yuserrie, F. A. H.(2024). Crime   Prevention   Through   Natural Surveillance   In   Recreational   Park Towards Safer Recreational Environment. Journal   of   Tourism Hospitality and Environment Management, 9(38), 01-12. (In Persian)https://doi.org/10.35631/JTHEM.938001
24.   Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and behavior21(5), 509-530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589215
25.   Kurt, S., & Atanda, J. (2014). The effects of green spaces and parks on people in Nicosia—Cyprus. Am. J. Soc. Sci2, 173-186.
26.   Lee, S., & Park, G. (2023). Exploring the Impact of ChatGPT Literacy on User Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of User Motivations. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 26(12), 913–918. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.0312
27.   Li, J., Huang, Z., Zhu, Z., & Ding, G. (2024). Coexistence Perspectives: Exploring the impact of landscape features on aesthetic and recreational values in urban parks. Ecological Indicators162, 112043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112043
28.   Li, J., Huang, Z., Zhu, Z., & Ding, G. (2024). Coexistence Perspectives: Exploring the impact of landscape features on aesthetic and recreational values in urban parks. Ecological Indicators162, 112043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112043
29.   Li, J., Md. Dali, M., & Nordin, N. A. (2023). Connectedness among urban parks from the users’ perspective: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health20(4), 3652. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043652
30.   Li, Z., Xie, C., Lu, H., & Che, S. (2019). Rational planning of public open space by exploring the effects of environmental factors on human recreation-a case study in Shanghai, China. Applied Ecology & Environmental Research17(1), 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1701_12471260  
31.   Lis, A., & Karolina, Z. (2024). Surveillance as a variable explaining why other people’s presence in a park setting affects sense of safety and preferences. Landscape Online, 99, 1123. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.2024.1123
32.   Mehta, D., & Gopalakrishnan, P. (2024). A user-centric CPTED-based approach to investigate physical environmental variables influencing perceived security of urban park users in Tiruchirappalli, India. Journal of Design and Built Environment24(1), 33-52.  https://doi.org/10.22452/jdbe.vol24no1.3
33.   Miller, R. W., Hauer, R. J., & Werner, L. P. (2015). Urban forestry: planning and managing urban greenspaces. Waveland press.
34.   Mohamed, N. (2009). Public preferences towards naturalistic and designed landscape pattern in park area (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Teknologi MARA).
35.   Mohan, K., & Chani, P. S. (2026). Safety-perception map: a participatory tool to explore the user’s perception of safety in urban public parks. Journal of Urban Design31(1), 82-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2024.2446814
36.   Mohsenpour Qahfarokhi,F and Fanni,Z . (2026). Evaluation of effects of ecological parks on the urban environment (Case Study: Shahmanzar Hafeshjan Shahrekord). Journal of Sustainable Urban & Regional Development Studies (JSURDS), 7(3), 215-229. (In Persian). https://www.srds.ir/article_243837.html?lang=en
37.   Mowen, A. J., & Confer, J. J. (2003). The Relationship Between Perceptions, Distance, and Socio-Demographic Characteristics Upon Public Use of an Urban “In-Fill”. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration21(3), 1-14. https://js.sagamorepub.com/index.php/jpra/article/view/1499
38.   Naroei, B., & Yal, M. (2021). Evaluation of visual and aesthetic preferences of landscape in urban parks based on public preferences (A Case study of Sayad-e-Shirazi Park in Birjand). Human & Environment, 19(2), 201-219. (In Persian) https://sanad.iau.ir/en/Article/847948
39.   Nasir, N. A. M., Manaf, M. A. A., Hashim, N. H. M., & Hashim, N. I. (2024). Place attachment and its impacts towards pro-environmental behavior intention among urban park visitors. Semarak International Journal of Applied Psychology1, 51-60. https://doi.org/10.37934/sijap/1.1.5160a
40.   OgundareA, O. M., OloyedeB, A. O., OlawuyiA, O. S., & AbimbolaA, M. P. (2024). The nexus between tourist motivation and satisfaction in lekki urban forest and animal shelter initiative (LUFASI) Lagos state,(Nigeria). Journal DGTH53(2), 110-120. http://ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1302916
41.   Paul, S., & Nagendra, H. (2017). Factors influencing perceptions and use of urban nature: Surveys of park visitors in Delhi. Land6(2), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6020027
42.   Pham-Huy, L. A., He, H., & Pham-Huy, C. (2008). Free radicals, antioxidants in disease and health. International journal of biomedical science: IJBS4(2), 89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3614697
43.   Rice, W. L., Taff, B. D., Newman, P., Miller, Z. D., D'Antonio, A. L., Baker, J. T., ... & Zipp, K. Y. (2019). Grand Expectations: Understanding Visitor Motivations and Outcome Interference in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration37(2), 1-14.  https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2019-9283
44.   Salleh, M. Z. M., Othman, N., Abd Malek, N., & Suddin, L. S. (2022). A paradoxical proposition of connectedness to nature, recycling behaviour and psychological restoration relationship in urban park context: A path analysis evidence. Planning Malaysia20, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v20i20.1082
45.   Samadi-Todar, Z., & Hami, A. (2025). Elders’ perspectives into physical activity and mental well-being in urban parks: case of golestan park in tabriz, Iran. Landscape and Ecological Engineering21(4), 703-716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-025-00666-5
46.   Samadi-Todar, Z., & Hami, A. (2026b). Gendered inequities in urban green space: a systematic review of access, safety, and daily usage. GeoJournal91(4), 105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-026-11659-8
47.   Samadi-Todar, Z., & Panahirad, S. (2025). Adolescents' perspectives on mental well-being in urban parks-Case study: El-Goli Park, Tabriz. Journal of Sustainable Urban & Regional Development Studies (JSURDS)6(3), 37-51. (In Persian) https://www.srds.ir/article_215795.html?lang=en
48.   Samadi-Todar, Z., Hami, A. (2026a). The Effect of Urban Parks on the Presence of Housewives in Nature-based Physical activities. Int. J. Architect. Eng. Urban Plan, 36(4): 1-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.22068/ijaup.946 
49.   Samadi-Todar, Z., Hami, A., & Ajirlo, S. A. (2025). Housewives’ reasons for refusing to practice physical activity in urban parks. Journal of Public Health, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-025-02432-1
50.   Samadi-Todar, Z., Shajareh, S. S., & Panahirad, S. (2024). The point of view of young girls towards the feeling of loneliness in the parks of Sanandaj city in order to improve the quality of life. Journal of Sustainable Urban & Regional Development Studies (JSURDS)5(3), 174-183. (In Persian) https://www.srds.ir/article_211437_en.html
51.   Samadi-Todar,Z , Shajareh,S S and Panahirad,S . (2024). The point of view of young girls towards the feeling of loneliness in the parks of Sanandaj city in order to improve the quality of life. (In Persian).  Journal of Sustainable Urban & Regional Development Studies (JSURDS), 5(3), 174-183. https://www.srds.ir/article_211437.html?lang=en
52.   Saremi, H., & Piri, S. (2019). Analysis The Population Spatial Structure of Tabriz Metropolitan Region (TMR). Urban Management, 17 (53), 77-92. (In Persian) http://ijurm.imo.org.ir/article-۱-2373-fa.html
53.   Semeraro, T., Scarano, A., Buccolieri, R., Santino, A., & Aarrevaara, E. (2021). Planning of urban green spaces: An ecological perspective on human benefits. Land10(2), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020105
54.   Shu, X., Mesimäki, M., Kotze, D. J., Wales, M., Xie, L., Benicke, R., & Lehvävirta, S. (2022). Needs and expectations of German and Chinese children for livable urban green spaces revealed by the method of empathy-based stories. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening68, 127476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127476
55.   Smardon, R. C. (1988). Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: Review of the role of vegetation. Landscape and Urban planning15(1-2), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(88)90018-7
56.   Steenbergen, C. M., Reh, W., & Smienk, G. (2003). Architecture and landscape: the design experiment of the great European gardens and landscapes. Berlin: Birkhäuser.
57.   Taylor, L., & Hochuli, D. F. (2017). Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landscape and urban planning158, 25-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.024
58.   Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., & Aikoh, T. (2004). Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and urban planning69(4), 403-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.11.001
59.   Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. science224(4647), 420-421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402
60.   Vafadari Komarolya,D , Nazmfar,H , Hami,A and Yazdani,M H . (2024). Analyzing and Identifying the indicators of planning and designing a happy urban landscape. Journal of Sustainable Urban & Regional Development Studies (JSURDS), 5(4), 69-86. (In Persian). https://www.srds.ir/article_211617.html?lang=en
61.   Vafadari Komarolya,D and Ramezani,A . (2025). Investigating the effect of lighting on the attractiveness of the night landscape of urban parks from the perspective of citizens. (In Persian).  Journal of Sustainable Urban & Regional Development Studies (JSURDS), 6(1), 140-158. https://www.srds.ir/article_212890.html?lang=en
62.   Van Vliet, E., Dane, G., Weijs-Perrée, M., Van Leeuwen, E., Van Dinter, M., Van Den Berg, P., ... & Chamilothori, K. (2021). The influence of urban park attributes on user preferences: Evaluation of virtual parks in an online stated-choice experiment. International journal of environmental research and public health18(1), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010212
63.   Wei, W., Wang, Y., Yan, Q., Liu, G., & Dong, N. (2024). Assessing Buffer Gradient Synergies: Comparing Objective and Subjective Evaluations of Urban Park Ecosystem Services in Century Park, Shanghai. Land13(11), 1848. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111848
64.   Wojnowska-Heciak, M., Suchocka, M., & Błaszczyk, M. (2022). Muszy nska, M. Urban parks as perceived by city residents with mobility difficulties: A qualitative study with in-depth interviews. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042018
65.   Yoon, J. I., Lee, K. J., & Larson, L. R. (2024). Place attachment mediates links between pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors among visitors to Mt. Bukhan National Park, South Korea. Frontiers in psychology, 15, 1338650. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1338650
66.   Zhan, P., Hu, G., Han, R., & Kang, Y. (2021). Factors influencing the visitation and revisitation of urban parks: A case study from Hangzhou, China. Sustainability13(18), 10450. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810450
67.   Zhan, P., Hu, G., Han, R., & Kang, Y. (2021). Factors influencing the visitation and revisitation of urban parks: A case study from Hangzhou, China. Sustainability13(18), 10450. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810450
68.   Zhao, X., Lu, Y., Huang, W., & Lin, G. (2024). Assessing and interpreting perceived park accessibility, usability and attractiveness through texts and images from social media. Sustainable Cities and Society112, 105619.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.105619
69.   Zoh, K. J., Kim, Y. G., & Kim, Y. H. (2014). A study on visitor motivation and satisfaction of urban open space-In the case of waterfront open space in Seoul. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture42(1), 27-40.
70.   Zou, Y. (2025). A study on urban park design from the perspective of environmental perception: Exploring future landscapes to enhance well-being and social inclusion for vulnerable groups. Appl. Comput. Eng122, 71-76. https://doi.org/10.54254/2755-2721/2025.19603

  • تاریخ دریافت 13 اردیبهشت 1405
  • تاریخ بازنگری 18 خرداد 1405
  • تاریخ پذیرش 16 مرداد 1405
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار 16 مرداد 1405
  • تاریخ انتشار 01 خرداد 1405