اقتصاد و برنامه ریزی شهری

اقتصاد و برنامه ریزی شهری

سنجش کیفیت تعاملات اجتماعی در فضاهای جمعی معاصر تهران با تأکید بر نقش مؤلفه‌های کالبدی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، گروه شهرسازی، واحد بین‌المللی ارس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران‌
2 دانشیار، گروه معماری و شهرسازی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران‌
3 دانشیار، گروه معماری و شهرسازی، واحد ایلخچی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، ایلخچی، ایران‌
چکیده
فضاهای جمعی شهری به‌ عنوان بستر تعاملات اجتماعی، نقش تعیین‌کننده‌ای در تقویت سرمایه اجتماعی و ارتقای کیفیت زندگی شهروندان دارند. این پژوهش با هدف سنجش کیفیت تعاملات اجتماعی در فضاهای جمعی معاصر تهران با تأکید بر نقش مؤلفه‌های کالبدی مطالعۀ حاضر در هشت منطقۀ منتخب شهر تهران انجام شده است. این پژوهش با هدف کاربردی و با رویکرد کمی ـ تحلیلی به بررسی تأثیر مؤلفه‌های کالبدی بر کیفیت تعاملات اجتماعی در فضاهای جمعی معاصر تهران پرداخته است. داده‌ها از طریق پرسشنامۀ محقق‌ساخته مبتنی بر طیف لیکرت پنج‌درجه‌ای جمع‌آوری شد. پرسشنامه شامل ۳۲ گویه بود. پایایی پرسشنامه با آلفای کرونباخ (بین 0/878 تا 0/896) تأیید شد. جامعۀ آماری شامل ۲,۶۹۵,۰۴۱ نفر از ساکنان مناطق منتخب بود که با استفاده از فرمول کوکران، نمونه‌ای به حجم ۳۸۴ نفر به روش تصادفی ساده انتخاب شد. تحلیل داده‌ها با مدل‌سازی معادلات ساختاری با نرم‌افزار اسمارت پی‌.ال‌.اس و اس‌.پی‌.اس‌.اس انجام گرفت. یافته‌ها نشان دادند میانگین کلی مؤلفه‌های کالبدی فضاهای جمعی 3/09 از ۵ (در حد متوسط) بود. بالاترین امتیاز مربوط به مؤلفه‌های اقتصادی با میانگین 3/23 بود. مؤلفه‌های اجتماعی با سهم 34/9 بیشترین تأثیر را بر تعاملات داشتند. کیفیت تعاملات اجتماعی با میانگین 2/98 در سطح نامطلوبی ارزیابی شد، به‌ طوری که مؤلفه‌های «اعتماد در تعاملات» (2/68) و «عمق روابط» (2/72) پایین‌ترین امتیازها را داشتند. تحلیل مدل ساختاری نشان داد 64/2 درصد از واریانس تعاملات اجتماعی توسط مؤلفه‌های کالبدی تبیین می‌شود. مؤلفه‌های اجتماعی با سهم 34/9 درصد بیشترین تأثیر را بر تعاملات داشتند. نتایج نشان دادند مؤلفه‌های کالبدی فضاهای جمعی تهران تأثیر قابل‌ توجهی بر کیفیت تعاملات اجتماعی دارند، اما این فضاها در ارتقای اعتماد و عمق روابط اجتماعی ناکام بوده‌اند. بهبود مؤلفه‌های اجتماعی، کالبدی، فرهنگی، اقتصادی و زیست‌محیطی در اولویت برنامه‌ریزی شهری قرار گیرد. توجه به تفاوت‌های منطقه‌ای و نیازهای گروه‌های مختلف اجتماعی نیز ضروری است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Measuring the quality of social interactions in contemporary public spaces in Tehran, with an emphasis on the role of physical components

نویسندگان English

Mohammad Kayed Pour 1
Arash Saghafi Asl 2
Masoud Haghlesan 3
1 PhD Candidate in Urban Planning, Department of Urban Planning, Ara.C., Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Architecture & Urban Planning, Ta.C., Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Architecture & Urban Planning, Ilk.C., Islamic Azad University, Ilkhchi, Iran
چکیده English

Urban public spaces serve as platforms for social interactions and play a decisive role in strengthening social capital and improving citizens’ quality of life. This study aims to measure the quality of social interactions in contemporary public spaces in Tehran, with an emphasis on the role of physical components. The research was conducted in eight selected districts of Tehran. It is applied in purpose and employs a quantitative-analytical approach. Data were collected using a researcher-developed questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale. The questionnaire consisted of 32 items. Cronbach’s alpha (0.878-0.896) confirmed its reliability. The statistical population comprised 2,695,041 residents of the selected districts, from which a sample of 384 individuals was selected using simple random sampling based on the Cochran formula. Data analysis was performed using structural equation modeling in SmartPLS and SPSS. The findings indicated that the overall mean score of the physical components of public spaces was 3.09 out of 5, indicating a moderate level. The highest score was related to economic components, with a mean of 3.23. The quality of social interactions was assessed as undesirable, with an overall mean of 2.98; “trust in interactions” (2.68) and “depth of relationships” (2.72) received the lowest scores. Structural model analysis revealed that physical components explained 64.2% of the variance in social interactions. Among these, social components (as mediating variables) had the greatest impact on interactions, accounting for 34.9% of the effect. The results demonstrate that physical components significantly influence the quality of social interactions in Tehran’s public spaces; however, these spaces have failed to promote trust and meaningful relationships. Therefore, improving social, physical, cultural, economic, and environmental components should be prioritized in urban planning, with due attention to regional differences and the needs of various social groups.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Collective spaces
physical components
social interactions
Tehran city
Aelbrecht, P., & Stevens, Q. (Eds.). (2019). Public space design and social cohesion: An international comparison. Routledge.‏ https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429489150
Amini M., & Khademzade M. H. (2022). Collective life and city Shiraz in the Buyid era. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 18(105): 49-60. https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2021.278822.4844. [In Persian]
Alnaim, A. A., Dano, U. L., & AlQahtany, A. (2025). Factors influencing social interaction among neighborhood residents in public open spaces: A review. Future Cities and Environment, 11.‏ DOI:10.70917/fce-2025-014
Azizi M., & Pircar R. (2023). The role of public spaces within the neighborhood in the improvement of community participation: The case of Kooy-e Nasr District, Tehran. Soffeh, 33(3): 79-98. https://doi.org/10.48308/sofeh.2023.229956.1222. [In Persian]
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. NJ: Prentice‐Hall, Inc.
Brekke, K. J., Filippidis, C., Vradis, A. (2018). Athens and the war on public space: Tracing a city in crisis. Punctum Books. DOI: 10.21983/P3.0199.1.00
Carr, S. (1992). Public space. Cambridge University Press.‏ 
Chambers, J. (2015). Urban private-public spaces: A study of their uses (Doctoral dissertation, University College London).‏ https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/sites/bartlett/files/chambers2015mres.pdf?
Dabiri H., & Zare L. (2021). Investigating the effect of effective security components on public spaces to attract citizens (case study: Student Park of Tehran). Geography and Regional Planning, 11(42): 741-753. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.22286462.1400.11.2.39.9. [In Persian]
Dehnad N., Mahdinejad J., & Karimi, B. (2021). Explaining the relationship between the components affecting the quality of collective open space in promoting the sociability of the environment. Motaleate Shahri, 10(37): 45–56. https://sid.ir/paper/413410/en. [In Persian]
El-Bardisy, N. (2024). Urban culture as a challenge of enhancing social interaction in public spaces. Discover Cities, 1(1), 27.‏ DOI:10.1007/s44327-024-00030-6
Ezzeldin, M., & Assem, A. (2019). A GIS-based spatio-temporal analysis for social events carried out in urban public space. AR-UP, Architecture & Urbanism, A Smart Outlook, Cairo, Egypt. 
Gehl, J. (2013). Cities for people. Island Press.‏ https://islandpress.org/books/cities-people#desc
Hanaei G., Mansouri B., Diba D., & Dabbagh A. (2020). Influence of the Safavid period on social issues and public space in Esfahan (case study: Allahverdi Khan and Khaju Bridges). Naqshejahan- Basic Studies and New Technologies of Architecture and Planning, 10(1): 1-9. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.23224991.1399.10.1.4.0. [In Persian]
Haghbayan R., & Shokohibidhendi M. (2019). A systematic study of public life in urban space (case study: The 17th Shahrivar pedestrian way in Tehran city). MANZAR, the Scientific Journal of Landscape, 11(46): 40-49. https://doi.org/10.22034/manzar.2019.84296. [In Persian]
Gehl, J. (2011). Public spaces, public life. Copenhagen Danish Architectural. https://placesjournal.org/assets/legacy/pdfs/public-spaces-public-life.pdf
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gathering. New York: The Free Press. 
Gruosso, S., Del Signore, M., & Di Cinzio, A. (2025). The extended mind of public space: How urban design shapes human experience. Frontiers in Built Environment, 11, 1504549.‏ doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2025.1504549
Guo, X., Yang, Y., Cheng, Z., Wu, Q., Li, C., Lo, T., & Chen, F. (2022). Spatial social interaction: An explanatory framework of urban space vitality and its preliminary verification. Cities, 121, 103487.‏ DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103487
Hall, E. T., & Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension (Vol. 609). Anchor.‏
Humphreys, L. (2010). Mobile social networks and urban public space. New Media & Society, 12(5), 763-778.
Jafari, E., Gholamalizadeh, H., & Modiri, M. (2020). Identification of factors affecting socialization in the educational environment of architecture and analyzing their interaction, via a Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision-Making approach. Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism (JIAU), 10(2), 5-18.‏ https://doi.org/10.30475/isau.2020.103673
Jennings, V., & Bamkole, O. (2019). The relationship between social cohesion and urban green space: An avenue for health promotion. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(3), 452.‏ DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16030452
LaFarge, L. (2000). Interpretation and containment. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 81(1), 67.‏ DOI: 10.1516/0020757001599537
Lai, Y., Wang, P., & Wen, K. (2024). Exploring the Impact of public spaces on social cohesion in resettlement communities from the perspective of experiential value: A case study of Fuzhou, China. Buildings, 14(10), 3141.‏ https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103141
Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design.‏ 
Lashgari F., & Soheili J. (2023). The role of social interactions in creating environmental security in residential complexes (A case study of phase one of Ekbatan Town, Tehran). Motaleate Shahri, 15(59): 69–92. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.2676783.1401.15.59.4.9. [In Persian]
Lofland, L. (1973). A world of strangers. New York: Basic Books Inc. 
Lofland, L. H. (1998). The public realm: Exploring the city’s quintessential social territory. Routledge. 
Lorenzo, M., Ríos-Rodríguez, M. L., Suárez, E., Hernández, B., & Rosales, C. (2023). Quality analysis and categorization of public space. Heliyon, 9(3).‏ DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13861
Low, S. M. (2023). Why public space matters. Oxford University Press.‏ https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197543733.001.0001
Madanipour, A. (2020). 10. Can the public space be a counterweight to social segregation? Handbook of Urban Segregation, 170.‏ https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788115605.00018
Malik, A. (2024). Psychological insights into social interaction: Unraveling human connections. Social Science Review Archives, 2(1), 20-29.‏ 
Mead, G. H., & Moris, C. W. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moskowitz, G. B. (2002). Preconscious effects of temporary goals on attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(4), 397-404.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00001-X
Mouratidis, K., & Hassan, R. (2020). Contemporary versus traditional styles in architecture and public space: A virtual reality study with 360-degree videos. Cities, 97, 102499.‏ DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2019.102499
Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: Modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 5-23.‏ https://doi.org/10.1068/b36057
Oldenburg, R. (2013). “The problem of place in America”: From the great good place (1989). In The urban design reader (pp. 285-295). Routledge.‏ https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.9561417
Oliveira, V. (2016). Urban morphology: An introduction to the study of the physical form of cities. Springer. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-32083-0
Qi, J., Mazumdar, S., & Vasconcelos, A. C. (2024). Understanding the relationship between urban public space and social cohesion: A systematic review. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 7(2), 155-212.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-024-00204-5
Sadeghi, A. R., & Jangjoo, S. (2022). Women’s preferences and urban space: Relationship between built environment and women’s presence in urban public spaces in Iran. Cities, 126, 103694.‏ DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103694
Schwartzmann, S. (2022). Public space and new urban compromises. Comparative perspectives from the Mediterranean. Méditerranée. Revue géographique des pays méditerranéens/Journal of Mediterranean Geography, (134).‏ https://doi.org/10.4000/mediterranee.12980
Shahini, A., Javidnejad, M., & Naghshineh, R. (2020). The role of architectural fabric in promoting public life in communal spaces (case study: Baharestan Square). Urban Management Studies, 11(40), 43–56. 
Sharifi, A. (2019). Resilient urban forms: A review of literature on streets and street networks. Building and Environment, 147, 171-187. 
Siramkaya, S.B. Aydin, D. (2017). The effect of spatial configuration on social interaction: A syntactic evaluation of a faculty building. Global Journal of Arts Education, 7(3), 83-92. https://doi.org/10.18844/gjae.v7i3.2893
Turgut, Y., & Lazarova-Molnar, S. (2025). Exploring urban segregation dynamics: A hub-based agent model integrating preferences, social interactions, and policy interventions. Cities, 156, 105576.‏ DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2024.105576
Van Eck, E., Watson, S., van Melik, R., Breines, M., Dahinden, J., Jónsson, G., ... & Schapendonk, J. (2022). Moving marketplaces: Understanding public space from a relational mobility perspective. Cities, 127, 103721.‏ DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103721
Veranic, K., Bayliss, A. P., Zhao, M., Stephen, I. D., & Ewing, L. (2025). Close encounters: Interpersonal proximity amplifies social appraisals. British Journal of Psychology.‏ https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12781
Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
Zurko, E. R. D. (1960). Town and square: From the Agora to the Village Green by Paul Zucker. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 19(1), 103-104.‏ https://doi.org/10.2307/427422
دوره 8، شماره 2
اردیبهشت 1406
صفحه 120-137

  • تاریخ دریافت 13 خرداد 1405
  • تاریخ بازنگری 10 مرداد 1405
  • تاریخ پذیرش 15 مرداد 1405