تبیین مولفه‌های موثر در احیاءگری مسکن (مورد پژوهی بالکن)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه معماری، دانشکده شهرسازی و معماری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.‌

2 'گروه معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

10.22059/jfaup.2020.303067.672461

چکیده

زندگی در نواحی شلوغ شهری و خانه‌های حداقلی، و مواجهه با استرس در طولانی مدت، سلامتی جسمی و روانی شهروندان را تهدید می‌کند. در این راستا، محیطی که با دور کردن فرد از زندگی روزمره امکان استراحت، پاک‌سازی ذهن و تمدد اعصاب را فراهم آورد، محیطی مطلوب بشمار می‌آید که علت آن برخورداری از قابلیت «احیاء» است. مطالعات بسیاری بر قابلیت احیاءگری «طبیعت» اشاره دارد چراکه تماس با طبیعت می‌تواند موجب بهبود استرس و تجدید قوای ذهن شود. پژوهش حاضر به روش کیفی، از طریق مصاحبۀ نیمه‌ساختاریافته با 100 نفر از ساکنین دو مجموعۀ مسکونی در تهران، نشان می‌دهد بالکن در عرصۀ مسکن به عنوان یک فضای نیمه‌بازِ پیونددهندۀ درون و بیرون، در صورت برخورداری از برخی کیفیت‌های فضایی ، می‌تواند از قابلیت احیاءگری بالایی برخوردار باشد. بر اساس نتایج این پژوهش وسعت بالکن -- به شرط امکان استقرار مبلمان کافی و امکان انجام فعالیت در آن، عمق بالکن -- به شرط تامین محرمیت نسبی—و موقعیت بالکن از سطح زمین—به شرط تامین دید و منظر مناسب، قابلیت احیاگری بالکن را بطور قابل توجهی افزایش می دهد نتایج این پژوهش ضمن آشنا کردن معماران و طراحان محیط با موضوع احیاءگری، آنان را نسبت به لزوم ارتباط با طبیعت از طریق تخصیص سطوح مناسب به بالکن در ساختمان‌های مسکونی حساس می‌نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigating of physical attributes on residential restorativesness (Balcony case study)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sanam Tayebikhah 1
  • Saleheh Bokharaei 2
2 Department of Architecture. Faculty of Urban Planning and Architecture. Shahid Beheshti University
چکیده [English]

Living in crowded urban areas and minimal houses, and exposure to pressure and environmental stress, threatening the physical and psychological health of citizens in the long run. In this regard, an environment that facilitates the relaxation of the mind from everyday life conditions is a preferred environment. The reason for the preference of such environments is the ability to "restoration." Such as "Restorative environments" by repairing the resources and depleted capacity of the individual, enables them to meet their needs and demands. The studies of restoration environment are concentrated on the benefits of communication with nature, and during thirty years of its existence, so far in its different socio-cultural platforms, this theory has been frequently used and tasted. According to the position of nature in Iranian culture, attention to this theory is relevant in the socio-cultural context of Iranian, especially in today's conditions that tangible communication with nature, especially in metropolitan, has been weakened.
Due to the presence of long hours of special classes such as disabled, elderly, children and women in the home, new working conditions such as teleworking and attention to the home as a place to escape from work outdoors, it is necessary to contemplate the possibility of clearing of mind and relaxation in the home context. Since this approach, like other approaches to environmental psychology, is valuable when it leads to the improvement of users' health by leading experts to planning and design, it is necessary to identify the types of restoration environments and their characteristics. The present study attempts to explore the physical and social components of the restoration in the context of daily life to recreate the restoration environment. in this regard, two questions arise: "How individuals seek refuge after dealing with the pressures and limitations of everyday life?" and "What is the specification of a restoration environment?". In this study, a semi-structured interview with 100 inhabitants of two residential complexes in Tehran, in the framework of theoretical studies, is taken to test the restoration theory in the socio-cultural context of Iran and to extract the vocabulary and phrases refer to restoration and to clarify this concept. The present study shows that it can be found restoration in residential environments on a different scale ranging from micro to macro. Despite all the benefits that are associated with the surrounding nature such as communal spaces between structural blocks and neighborhood park, the limitation of such collective spaces in many minimal residential complexes and also the necessity of frequent experience of nature and the importance of ease of access to it, the "balcony" in the housing arena as a semi-open space in and outside, in case of having some spatial qualities and the possibility of carrying out different activities in it, can be very restorative. The results of this research, while introducing the architects and the designers of the environment with the topic of restoration, make them sensitive to the experience of nature by assigning appropriate levels to the balcony in residential buildings.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • House
  • preference
  • restorative environment
  • Natural environment
  • environment psychological demands
  • balcony
Abello, R. P., & Bernaldez, F. G. (1986). Landscape preference and personality. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 19–28.
Antonson, H., Mårdh, S., Wiklund, M., Blomqvist, G. (2009). Effect of surrounding landscape on driving behaviour: A driving simulator study, Journal of Environmental Psychology. 29(4), 493-502.
Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249-259.
Berto, R. (2014). The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress. A literature review of restorativeness. Behavioral Science, special issue: Advances in Environmental Psychology, 4, 394–409.
Bourassa, S.C., (1991). The aesthetics of landscape. Belhaven Press, London.
Brannick, M.T., Chan, D., Conway, J.M., Lance, C.E. and Spector, P.E. (2010) What Is Method Variance and How Can We Cope with It? A Panel Discussion. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 407-420.
Fredrickson, B.L. and Levenson, R.W., (1998). Positive emotions speed recovery from the cardiovascular sequelae of negative emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 12 (2), 191-220.
Gatersleben B., Andrews, M. (2013). When walking in nature is not restorative–the role of prospect and refuge, Health and Place. 20, 91–101.
Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U.A. (2003). Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry.Urban Greening. 2, 1-18.
Gullone E. (2000). Biophilia hypothesis in the 21st century: Increasing mental health or increasing pathology? Journal of Happiness Studies, 1:293–321.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior. 23,3-26.
Hartig, T., Book, A., Garvill, J., Olsson, T., Garling, T. (1996). Environmental influences on psychological restoration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 37, 378–393.
Hartig,T., Staats, H. (2003). Guest Editors’ introduction:Restorative environments, Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23, 103-107.
Hartig, T. (2007). Three steps to understanding restorative environments as health resources in C. Ward Thompson and P. Travlou (Eds) Open Space, People Space, 163-180.
Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, A., Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments, Journal of Environmental Psychology. 17, 165-170.
Herzog T. R., Herbert E. J., Kaplan R., Crooks C. L. (2000). Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environment and Behavior, 32, 323–346.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York:Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S., Bardwell, L. V., Slakter, D. B. (1993). The museum as a restorative environment. Environment and Behavior, 25, 725-742.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Ryan, R. L. (1998). With people in mind. Design and management of everyday nature. Washington. DC: Island Press.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature:Toward an integrated framework, Journal of Environmental Psychology. 15, 169-182.
Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home - Psychological benefits, Environment and Behavior. 33(4), 507-542.
Karmanov, D., Hamel, R. (2008). Assessing the restorative potential of contemporary urban environment(s): Beyond the nature versus urban dichotomy. Landscape and Urban Planning. 86, 115–125.
Korpela, K. (1991). Are favorite places restorative environment?. health environment. 22, 371-377.
Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology,16, 221-233.
Korpela, K. M., Kytt.a, M., & Hartig, T. (2002). Restorative experience, self-regulation, and children’s place preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 387–398.
Korpela, K., Kinnunen, U. (2011). How is leisure time interacting with naturerelated to the need for recovery from work demands? Testing multiplemediators. Leisure Sciences. 33, 1–14.
Kuo, F. E. (2001). Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the inner city. Environment and Behavior. 33:5–34.
Lindal, P.J., Hartig, T., (2013). Architectural variation, building height, and the restor-ative quality of urban residential streetscapes. J. Environ. Psychol. 33, 26–36.
Lindal P. J., Hartig, T. (2015). Effects of urban street vegetation on judgments of restoration likelihood, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 14, 200–209.
Lipowski, Z.J. (1970). The conflict of Buridan’s ass or some dilemmas of affluence: The theory of attractive stimulus overload. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 273-279.
Martens, D., Gutscher, H., Bauer, N. (2011). Walking in "wild" and "tended" urban forests: The impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 31(1), 36-44.
Parsons, R. (1991). The potential influences of environmental perception on health. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 11, 1-23.
Pasini, M., Berto, R., Scopelliti, M., Carrus, G. (2009). Measuring the restorative value of the environment: Contribution to the validation of the Italian version of the perceived restorativeness scale. Bollettino De Psicologia Applicata. 257, 3-11.
Peron E., Purcell A.T., Staats H., Falchero S., Lamb R. J. (1998). Models of preference for outdoor scenes: Some empirical evidence. Environment & Behavior, 30, 282–305.
Purcell, T., Peron, E., Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environment and Behavior, 33, 93–106.
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.
Roe, J., Aspinall, P. (2011). The restorative benefits of walking in urban and rural settings in adults with good and poor mental health. Health and Place. 17, 103–113.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review ofresearch on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology,52, 141–166.
Sonnentag S, Zijlstra FRH. (2006). Job characteristics and off-job activities as predictors of need for recovery, well-being, and fatigue. J Appl Psychol, 91:330.
Sonnentag, S.,&Fritz,C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,12,204–221.
Staats H., Kieviet A., Hartig T. (2003). Where to recover form attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 147-157.
Stamps, A. E., & Nasar, J. L. (1997). Design review and public preferences: Effects of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 11–32.
Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 155–175.
Strumse, E. (1996). Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 17–31.
Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A., Korpela, K., Lanki, T., Tsunetsugu, Y., Kagawa, T. (2014). The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 38(0), 1-9.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.). Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research. 6, 85-125.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R., Losito, B. D. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments, Journal of Environmental Psychology. 11 (3),201-230.
Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & Van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 135-146.
Van den Berg, A.E.. (2005). Ter Heijne, M. Fear versus fascination: Emotional responses to natural threats. J. Environ. Psychol, 25, 261–272.
Van den Berg, A. E., Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2007). Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 79-96.