طراحی شهری بوم آشکار: به سوی یک چارچوب مفهومی

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوى دکترى طراحى شهرى، دانشکدة معمارى و شهرسازى، دانشگاه شهید بهشتى

2 استاد دانشکدة معمارى و شهرسازى، دانشگاه شهید بهشتى

3 دانشیار دانشکدة معمارى و شهرسازى، دانشگاه شهید بهشتى

4 استادیار دانشکدة معمارى و شهرسازى، دانشگاه شهید بهشتى

چکیده

در توسعة شهری در ایران، توجه اندکی به اکوسیستم طبیعی شهر و فرآیندها و کارکردهای اکولوژیک آن شده است. این شکل از توسعه با تمامی فعالیت‌های عامدانه و غیر عامدانه در حوزة شهر، موجب از دست رفتن بسیاری از خدمات اکوسیستمی محیط طبیعی شهر و کیفیت زندگی است. این موضوع بر روی تجربة ادراکی مردم و میزان توجه آنان به ارزش‌های محیط طبیعی و نیز بر روی سیستم ارزش‌گذاری آنان تأثیر مستقیم دارد. هرچند توسعة شهری به هر طریق کارکرد اکولوژیک اکوسیستم را تغییر داده و به‌ناچار کیفیت آن را کاهش می‌دهد، ولی این کاهش کیفیت باید تا حد امکان تقلیل یابد و همچنان دسترسی به خدمات اکوسیستمی محیط طبیعی و تجربة آن توسط مردم تداوم یابد. بوم‌آشکارگی محیط شهری، از متناظرترین رویکردهایی است که در پاسخ به این مشکل و با هدف به نمایش گذاردن کیفیت‌های اکولوژیک محیط طبیعی و ارتقای خدمات اکوسیستمی مورد توجه قرار گرفته است؛ رویکردهای طراحی و برنامه‌ریزی مانند طراحی اکولوژیک، شهرسازی منظر6 یا احیای اکولوژیک شهر7 بیان‌گرتوجه به این موضوع هستند. پژوهش حاضر با استفاده از روش تحلیلی‌ـ توصیفی به دنبال ارائة چارچوبی مفهومی در سنجش میزان بوم‌آشکارگی محیط است که با استفاده از آن می‌توان کیفیت بوم‌آشکارگی محیط را در ردیف یکی از کیفیت‌های ضروری طراحی شهری مورد ارزیابی و سنجش قرار داد و مبتنی بر آن محیط را طراحی کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Eco-Revelatory Urban Design: Towards a Conceptual Framework

نویسندگان [English]

  • Aida Esmailzadeh Seilabi 1
  • Kourosh Golkar 2
  • S Hassan Taghvaei 3
  • Marjan Nematimehr 4
1 PhD Candidate, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University
2 Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University
3 Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University
4 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University
چکیده [English]

Neglecting cities’ natural environment in urban development has led to intentional or inadvertent loss of several ecosystem services in Iran. Consequently, this has directly affected the overall urban quality of life, citizens’ cognitive experience, and their value systems. Approaches to solve this problem include Landscape Urbanism, Urban Ecological Restoration, and Eco-Revelatory Urban Design. The latter approach aims at highlighting the ecological qualities of urban natural environment and improving its ecosystem services. Employing an analysis-descriptive methodology, this paper attempts to elaborate a conceptual framework for measuring the eco-revelatory dimension of urban environment as an essential quality of urban design.

مراجع

  1. Ahern, Jack. “From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world.” Landscape and Urban Planning 100.4 (2011): 341–343.
  2. —. “Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: The promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design.” Landscape Ecology (2012).
  3. Ahern, Jack, Sarel Cilliers and Jari Niemela. “The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation. .” Landscape and Urban Planning 125 (2014): 254–259.
  4. Alcamo, Joseph and Elena M Bennett. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, 2003.
  5. Bastian, O, D Hasse and K Grunewald. “Ecosystem properties, potentials and services – The EPPS conceptual frameworkand and an urban application example.” Ecological Indicators 21 (2012): 7-16.
  6. Beately, Timothy. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature Into Urban Design and Planning. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2011.
  7. Beatley, Timothy. GREEN URBANISM: Learning from European Cities. Washington, D.C.: ISLAND PRESS, 2000.
  8. Cadenasso, M.L., S T.A Pickett and K Schwarz. “Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification.” Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 5 (2007): 80–88.
  9. Charles, Cheryl and Richard Louv. “Children’s Nature Deficit:What We Know – and Don’t Know.” Children and nature network (2009).
  10. Che, Y, et al. “Assessing a riverfront rehabilitation project using the comprehensive index of public accessibility.” Ecological Engineering 40 (2012): 80– 87.
  11. Dallimer, Martin, et al. “Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness.” BioScience 62 (2012): 47-55.
  12. Daniel, Terry C and Joanne Vining. “Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality.” Behavior and the natural environment (1983): 39-84.
  13. Daniel, Terry C. “Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century.” Landscape and urban planning 54.1 (2001): 267-300.
  14. De Groot, R S, et al. “Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making.” Ecological Complexity 7.3 (2010): 260-272.
  15. Dronova, Iryna. “Environmental heterogeneity as a bridge between ecosystem service and visual quality objectives in management, planning and design.” Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017): 90–106.
  16. Forman, R T.T and M Godron. Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Son, 1986.
  17. Frank, S, et al. “A contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics.” Ecological Indicators 21 (2012): 30-38.
  18. Fry, G, et al. “The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicatores.” Ecological indicators 9 (2009): 933-947.
  19. Gagne, S A and L Fahrig. “The trade-off between housing density and urban sprawl: minimizing impacts to forest breeding birds.” Ecology and society 11 (2010): 723-733.
  20. Gobster, P H, et al. “The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?” Landscape ecology 22.7 (2007): 959-972.
  21. Gunnarsson, Bengt, et al. “Effects of biodiversity and environment-related attitude on perception of urban green space.” Urban Ecosystems (2016): 1-13.
  22. Hobb, R. “Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology.” Landscape and urban planning 37 (1997): 1-9.
  23. Hough, M. City Form and Natural Processes. NewYork: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984.
  24. Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. CUP Archive, 1989.
  25. Kellert, S R. Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Washington, D.C.: Island Press., 2005.
  26. Koh, Jusuck. “An ecological aesthetic.” Landscape Journal 7.2 (1988): 177-191.
  27. Kollmuss, A and J Agyeman. “Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?” Environmental education research 8.3 (2002): 239-260.
  28. Leitao, A B and J Ahern. “Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning.” Landscape and urban planning 59 (2002): 65-93.
  29. Lynch, Kevin. Good city form. MIT PRESS, 1984.
  30. McHarg, Ian L. Design with nature. Wiley, 1969.
  31. Moseleya, D, M Marzanoa and J Chetc. “Green networks for people: Application of a functional approach to support the planning and management of greenspace.” landscape and urban planning 16 (2013): 1– 12.
  32. Nassauer, J I, et al. “Exurban residential subdivision development: effects on water quality and public perception.” Urban Ecosyst. 7.3 (2004): 267–281.
  33. Nassauer, Joan Iverson. “Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design.” Landscape and Urban Planning 106 (2012): 221–229.
  34. —. “Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design.” Landscape and Urban Planning 106.3 (2012): 221-229.
  35. Nassauer, Joan Iverson, Zhifang Wang and Erik Dayrell. “What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design.” Landscape and urban planning 92 (2009): 282-292.
  36. Nisbet, E K, J M Zelenski and S. A Murphy. “The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior.” Environment and Behavior (2008).
  37. Ode, A, C M Hagerhall and N Sang. “Analysing Visual Landscape Complexity:Theory and Application.” Landscape research 35 (2010): 111-131.
  38. Ode, A, M S Tveit and G Fry. “Advantages of using different data sources in assessment of landscape change and its effect on visual scale.” Ecological Indicators 10 (2010): 24-31.
  39. —. “Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory.” Landscape Research 33 (2008): 89-117.
  40. Orr, David W. n.d.
  41. Paetzold, A, P H Warren and L L Maltby. “A framework for assessing ecological quality based on ecosystem services.” Ecological Complexity 7.3 (2010): 273-281.
  42. Phillips, Patricia. “Intelligible Images: The Dynamics of Disclosure.” Landscape journal 17.special issue (1998): 108-117.
  43. Pickett, S T.A and M L Cadenasso. “Linking ecological and built components of urban mosaics: an open cycle of ecological design.” Journal of ecology 96 (2007): 8-12.
  44. Plieninger, T, S Dijks and E Oteros-Rozas. “Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level.” Land use policy 33 (2013): 118-129.
  45. Saunders, W. “Designed ecologies: The landscape architecture of Kongjian Yu Basel.” 2012.
  46. Soga, M, et al. “Reducing the extinction of experence: assossiation between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace.” Landscape and urban planning 143 (2015): 69-75.
  47. Spirn, A W. The Granite Garden. New York: Basic Books, 1984.
  48. Steiner, F. “Frontiers in urban ecological design and planning research.” Landscape and urban planning 125 (2014): 304-311.
  49. Steinitz, Carl. “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 (1990): 213-250.
  50. Sullivan, W C, F E Kuo and S F Depooter. “The fruit of urban nature vital neighborhood spaces.” Environment and behavior (2004).
  51. Syrbe, R U and U Walz. “Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics.” Ecological indicators 21 (2012): 80-88.
  52. Taylor, A F, F E Kuo and W C Sullivan. “Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children.” Journal of environmental psychology (2002).
  53. Turner, Frederick. “A Cracked Case.” Landscape journal 17.special issue (1998): 130-138.
  54. Tveit, Mari, Åsa Ode, and Gary Fry. “Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character.” Landscape research31.3 (2006): 229-255.
  55. Tveit, M S and A Ode. “Landscape assessment in metropolitan areas –developing a visual indicator based approach.” SPOOL (2014).
  56. Van der Ryn, S and S Cowan. Ecological Design. Washington, DC.: Island Press, 1996.
  57. Vihervaara, P, et al. “Ecosystem services—a tool for sustainable management of human–environment systems. Case study Finnish Forest Lapland.” Ecological Complexity 7 (2010): 410-420.
  58. Wang, Z, et al. “Different Types of Open Spaces and Their Importance to Exurban Homeowners.” Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 25.4 (2012): 368-383.
  59. Wu, J. “Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes.” Landscape ecology 28 (2013): 999-1023.
  60. Yli-Pelkonen, V, K Pispa and Inari Helle. “The role of stream ecosystems in Urban planning:A case study from the stream Rekolanoja in Finland.” Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 17 (2006): 673-688.

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 11 آذر 1396
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 08 بهمن 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 11 دی 1399

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار