A Comparative Study of Eco-revelation in Two Residential Areas near Darakeh River Valley: Darakeh Urban Village and Shahrak Gharb

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD in Urban Design, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Urban Studies, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Landscape Architecture, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Studies, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Urban development as a new component of the existing natural ecosystem transforms the ecological function, and deteriorate its quality and ecosystem services. The negative impacts of these changes shall be minimized and accessibility and the experience of the natural environment by the people shall continue. Enhancing the experience of the natural environment by the residents of a city affects their mental, spiritual and physical health and, by influencing the environmental awareness, knowledge and attitudes, encourages the pro-environmental and protective behavior. Eco-revelation, with an emphasis on improving the quality of the natural environment, reconsidering the impacts of human activities on ecological health levels and facilitating the perception and experience of the people from it, is one of the most appropriate approaches in response to this issue.The main purpose of this paper is to measure the impacts of the built environment on eco-revelation quality of the environment. For this purpose, we have selected two residential areas with different urban forms within the city of Tehran and in the vicinity of the Darakeh River valley. The first area has been organically created over time as a village and the second area has been planned and designed based on urban planning and regulations. The location of these two areas in the vicinity of the river valley has caused research samples to have approximately similar ecological qualities. We have used a questionnaire survey to determine the eco-revelation quality, i.e. perception of the households living in these two residential areas of natural environment quality. The perception of households was measured using a Likert scale. Moreover, some questions were asked to determine the knowledge of nearby residents from living species was. In last part of the questionnaire, demographic factors such as age, sex, duration of residence, ownership, education and childhood experiences were also requested. The results indicated that the eco-revelation quality was significantly different between the two studied areas, despite their relatively similar natural and ecological characteristics. The perceptual experiences of people varied significantly for all aspects of eco-revelation, except for naturalness. The perception of changing seasons and entertainment along with the imageability of the natural environment has had the greatest impact on the difference between two studied residential areas in terms of eco-revelation. In addition, enhancing eco-revelation quality will result in increasing the awareness and knowledge of individuals. That means that people with a higher perception of eco-revelation quality have more knowledge about plants and animal species. This suggests that the organic environment versus the planned environment dramatically enhances the opportunity to experience the natural environment, and the eco-revelation quality in this kind of environment that is intertwined and connected with nature is much higher. Eco-revelation quality has to be assessed as one of the essential qualities of the environment and accordingly, the built environment shall be designed to maintain ecological functions of the natural environment and to increase ecological perceptual experience and awareness. 

Keywords

References

--  اسدپور، علی، مظفر، فرهنگ، فیضی، محسن، و بهزادفر، مصطفی (1395). کاربست شاخص‌های ادارک اجتماعی در بازآفرینی منظر رودخانه شهری (نمونه موردی رودخانه خشک شیراز). علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست، 18(3)، 395-417.
--  برق جلوه، شهیندخت، مدقالچی، نیکو، و مبرقعی دینان، نغمه (1392). ارزیابی عملکرد بوم شناختی دالان روددره شهری (تهران دالان روددره درکه). پژوهش‌های محیط زیست، 4، 91-104.
--  برق جلوه، شهیندخت، و مبرقعی دینان، نغمه (1392). توسعه شاخص‌های پایداری شبکه سبزراه ها بر اساس اصول بوم شناسی سیمای سرزمین. فصلنامه علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست، 15، 51-68.
--  برنجی، شادی، و براتی، شینا (1390). شهر و بوم؛ عیان‌سازی زیرساخت های طبیعی، راهبرد توسعه بوم شناسی شهر. مجله منظر، 16، 64-67.
--  بریس، نیکلا، کمپ، ریچارد، و سنلگر، رمزی (1393). تحلیل داده‌های روان‌شناسی با برنامه SPSS (ویرایش سوم). تهران: نشر دوران.
-   سرمد، زهره، بازرگان، عباس، و حجازی، الهه (1392). روش‌های تحقیق در علوم رفتاری. تهران: آگاه.
 
-   Ahern, J., Cilliers, S., & Niemela, J. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 254–259.
-   Asakawa, S., Yoshida, K., & Yabe, K. (2004). Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and urban planning, 68(2), 167-182.
--  Beately, T. (2011). Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature Into Urban Design and Planning. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
--  Charles, C., & Louv, R. (2009). Children’s nature deficit: What we know and don’t know. Children and Nature Network, 1-32.
--  Clark, N. E., Lovell, R., Wheeler, B. W., Higgins, S. L., Depledge, M. H., & Norris, K. (2014). Biodiversity, cultural pathways, and human health: a framework. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 29(4), 198–204.
--  Cox, D. T., Hudson, H. L., Shanahan, D. F., Fuller, R. A., & Gaston, K. J. (2017). The rarity of direct experiences of nature in an urban population. Landscape and Urban Planning, 160, 79-84.
--  De Vries, S., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2003). Natural environments—healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environment and planning, 35(10), 1717-1731.
--  Dronova, I. (2017). Environmental heterogeneity as a bridge between ecosystem service and visual quality objectives in management, planning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 163, 90–106.
--  Frank, S., Fürst, C., Koschke, L., & Makeschin, F. (2012). A contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators, 21, 30-38.
--  Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Ode, A., & Velarde, M. D. (2009). The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicatores. Ecological indicators, 9, 933-947.
--  Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape ecology, 22(7), 959-972.
--  Gunnarsson, B., Knez, I., Hedblom, M., & ode, A. (2016). Effects of biodiversity and environment-related attitude on perception of urban green space. Urban Ecosystems, 20(1), 1-13.
--  Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., De Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. AnnualReview of Public Health, 35, 207–228.
--  Junge, x., Jacot, K. A., Bosshard, A., & Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2009). Swiss people's attitudes towards field margins for biodiversity conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation, 17(3), 150-159.
--  Junge, X., Schuepbach, B., Walter, T., Schmid, B., & Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2015). Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonalstages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 133, 67–77.
--  Kuchler-Krischun, J., Nurnberg, M., Schell, C., Erdmann, K., & Mues, A. W. (2016). Indicator for public awareness of biodiversity. Federal agency for nature conservation, BFN. Berlin: Federal Ministry for Environmrnt, Nature conservation, Bilding and Nuclear Safety.
--  Leitao, A. B., & Ahern, J. (2002). Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and urban planning, 59, 65-93.
--  Lerman, S. B., & Warren, P. S. (2011). The conservation value of residential yards: linking birds and people. Ecological applications, 21(4), 1327-1339.
--  Lin, B. B., Gaston, K. J., Fuller, R. A., Wu, D., Bush, R., & Shanahan, D. F. (2017). How green is your garden?: Urban form and socio-demographic factors influence yard vegetation, visitation, and ecosystem service benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 239-246.
--  Lindemann-Matthies, P., Junge, X., & Matthies, D. (2010). The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation, 143(1), 195-202.
--  McCurdy, L. E., Winterbottom, K. E., Mehta, S. S., & Roberts, J. R. (2010). Using nature and outdoor activity to improve children's health. Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care, 40(5), 102-117.
--  Nassauer, J. I. (2012). Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106, 221–229.
--  Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715-740.
--  Ode, A., & Miller, D. (2011). Analysing the relationship between indicators of landscape complexity and preference. Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 38(1), 24–40.
--  Oliveira, S., Andrade, H., & Vaz, T. (2011). The cooling effect of green spaces as a contribution to the mitigation of urban heat: A case study in Lisbon. Building and Environment, 46(11), 2186-2194.
--  Pett, T. J., Shwartz, A., Irvine, K. N., Dallimer, M., & Davies, Z. G. (2016). Unpacking the People–Biodiversity Paradox: A Conceptual Framework. BioScience, 66(7), 576-583.
--  Phillips, P. (1998). Intelligible Images: The Dynamics of Disclosure. Landscape Journal, 17(special issue), 108-117.
--  Priego, C., Breuste, J. H., & Rojas, J. (2008). Perception and value of nature in urban landscapes: a comparative analysis of cities in Germany, Chile and Spain. Landscape Online, 7, 1-22.
--  Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42, 57-66.
--  Sang, A. O., Knez, I., Gunnarsson, B., & Hedblom, M. (2016). The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 18, 268-276.
--  Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of environmental psychology, 30(3), 289-297.
--  Schuepbach, B., Junge, X., & Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2016). Seasonality,diversity and aesthetic valuation of landscape plots: An integrative approachto assess landscape quality on different scales. Land Use Policy, 53, 27–35.
--  Shwartz, A., Turbé, A., Laurent, S., & Julliard, R. (2014). Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: An experiment. Biological Conservation, 171, 82-90.
--  Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human-natureinteractions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 94–101.
--  Soga, M., Gaston, K. J., Koyanagi, T. F., Kurisu, K., & Hanaki, K. (2016). Urban residents' perceptions of neighbourhood nature: Does the extinction of experience matter? Biological Conservation, 203, 143-150.
--  Soga, M., Yuichi, Y., Aikoh, T., Shoji, Y., Kubo, T., & Gaston, K. (2015). Reducing the extinction of experence: assossiation between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace. Landscape and urban planning, 143, 69-75.
--  Sowi´nska-´Swierkosz, B. N. (2016). Index of Landscape Disharmony (ILDH) as a newtool combining the aesthetic and ecological approach to landscape assessment. Ecological Indicators, 70, 166–180.
--  Sowi´nska-´Swierkosz, B., & Chmielewski, T. J. (2016). A new approach of theidentification of landscape quality objectives (LQOs) as a set of indicators. Journal of Environmental Management, 184, 596–608.
--  Steinitz, C. (1990). Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: the loop road in Acadia National Park, USA. Landscape and urban planning, 19(3), 213-250.
--  Syrbe, R. U., & Walz, U. (2012). Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecological indicators, 21, 80-88.
--  Turner, F. (1998). A Cracked Case. Landscape journal, 17(special issue), 130-138.
--  Tveit, M. S., & Ode, A. (2014). Landscape assessment in metropolitan areas –developing a visual indicator based approach. SPOOL.
--  van Riper, C. J., Kyle, G. T., Sherrouse, B. C., Bagstad, K. J., & Sutton, S. G. (2017). Toward an integrated understanding of perceived biodiversity values and environmental conditions in a national park. Ecological Indicators, 72, 278-287.
--  Wu, J. (2013). Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape ecology, 28, 999-1023.
--  Zheng, B., Zhang, Y., & Chen, J. (2011). Preference to home landscape: wildness or neatness? Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(1), 1-8.
Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning
Volume 11, Issue 22
May 2019
Pages 5-18

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics