Investigating the Contribution of Socio- Physical Structure of Neighborhoods on Residents’ Sense of Attachment

Öz

The progressive increase of the urban population, the construction of residential complexes, and the fact that more attention is paid to the physical aspects of design than to the social aspects have consequences such as the alienation of the individual from the place and the reduction of place attachment. In this respect, place attachment is considered an effective bond that allows people to establish deep emotional interaction with their living environment. This is a crucial factor in improving residents’ satisfaction, especially in large cities that experience a high influx of immigrants. The purpose of this article is to identify the physical and social characteristics of place attachment and how they contribute to residents’ satisfaction. To achieve the research objective, a theoretical framework based on place attachment theories was established, and 4 residential neighborhoods in the city of Karaj, Iran, were assessed. Hundred and eighty residents from 4 major neighborhoods volunteered to participate in the study. For this purpose, a mixed method was used. The results show that the differences in the degree of place attachment indicate the influence of social and physical factors. However, compared to the physical dimension, the social dimension plays a stronger role. Moreover, the results showed that factors such as social interactions and easy access to amenities directly contribute to residents’ attachment to their neighborhoods. However, other factors have an indirect effect on attachment, such as order and maintenance, attitudes toward the neighborhood, and public participation in the neighborhood.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karaj
• neighborhood
• place attachment
• residential satisfaction
• socio-physical structure

Mahallelerin Sosyo-Fiziksel Yapısının Mahalle Sakinlerinin Bağlılık Duygusuna Katkısının Araştırılması

Öz

Kentsel nüfusun giderek artması, konut komplekslerinin inşa edilmesi ve tasarımın fiziksel yönlerine sosyal yönlerinden daha fazla önem verilmesi, bireyin mekâna yabancılaşması ve mekâna bağlılığın azalması gibi sonuçlar doğurmaktadır. Bu açıdan mekâna bağlılık, insanların yaşadıkları çevre ile derin duygusal etkileşim kurmalarını sağlayan etkili bir bağ olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu, özellikle yüksek oranda göçmen akınına uğrayan büyük şehirlerde, sakinlerin memnuniyetini artırmada çok önemli bir faktördür. Bu çalışmanın amacı, yere bağlılığın fiziksel ve sosyal özelliklerini ve bunların mahalle sakinlerinin memnuniyetine nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu belirlemektir. Araştırma hedefine ulaşmak için, yere bağlılığın kuramlarına dayalı teorik bir çerçeve oluşturulmuş ve İran’ın Karaj kentindeki dört yerleşim bölgesi değerlendirilmiştir. Dört büyük mahalleden 180 mahalle sakini çalışmaya katılmak için gönüllü olmuştur. Bu amaçla karma bir yöntem kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, yere bağlılık derecesindeki farklılıkların sosyal ve fiziksel faktörlerin etkisini gösterdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ancak, fiziksel boyuta kıyasla sosyal boyut daha güçlü bir rol oynamaktadır. Ayrıca sonuçlar, sosyal etkileşimler ve olanaklara kolay erişim gibi faktörlerin mahalle sakinlerinin mahallelerine bağlılıklarına doğrudan katkıda bulunduğunu göstermiştir. Bununla birlikte, düzen ve bakım, mahalleye yönelik tutumlar ve halkın mahalleye katılımı gibi diğer faktörler bağlılık üzerinde dolaylı bir etkiye sahiptir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karaj
• mahalle
• mekana bağlılık
• konut memnuniyeti
• sosyo-fiziksel yapı

Kaynakça

1. Altman, I., & Low, S. (2012). Place attachment: Human behavior and envi- ronment. Plenum Press.
2. Anton, C. E., & Lawrence, C. (2014). Home is where the heart is: The effect of place of residence on place attachment and community partici- pation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 451–461. [CrossRef]
3. Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2012). The influence of green space on commu- nity attachment of urban and suburban residents. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11(1), 41–49. [CrossRef]
4. Brown, B. B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 259–271. [CrossRef]
5. Burchfield, K. B. (2009). Attachment as a source of informal social control in urban neighborhoods. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(1), 45–54. [CrossRef]
6. Chan, E. T. H., & Li, T. E. (2022). The effects of neighbourhood attachment and built environment on walking and life satisfaction: A case study of Shenzhen. Cities, 130, 1–12. [CrossRef]
7. Dasgupta, R., Basu, M., Hashimoto, S., Estoque, R. C., Kumar, P., Johnson,B. A., Mitra, B. K., & Mitra, P. (2022). Residents’ place attachment to urban green spaces in Greater Tokyo region: An empirical assess- ment of dimensionality and influencing socio-demographic factors. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 67, 1–11. [CrossRef]
8. Davis, A. (2016). Experiential places or places of experience? Place identity and place attachment as mechanisms for creating festival environ- ment. Tourism Management, 55, 49–61. [CrossRef]

9. Eisenhauer, B. W., Krannich, R. S., & Blahna, D. J. (2000). Attachments to special places on public lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society and Natural Resources, 13(5), 421–441. [CrossRef]
10. Fornara, F., Bonaiuto, M., & Bonnes, M. (2010). Cross-validation of abbrevi- ated perceived residential environment quality (PREQ) and neigh- borhood attachment (NA) indicators. Environment and Behavior, 42(2), 171–196. [CrossRef]
11. Galindo, M. P., & Hidalgo, M. C. (2005). Aesthetic preferences and the attri- bution of meaning: Environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes. International Journal of Psychology, 40(1), 19–27. [CrossRef]
12. Guthey, G. T., Whiteman, G., & Elmes, M. (2014). Place and sense of place: Implications for organizational studies of sustainability. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(3), 254–265. [CrossRef]
13. Hur, M., Nasar, J. L., & Chun, B. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 52–59. [CrossRef]
14. Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2006). A comparative analysis of pre- dictors of sense of place dimensions: Attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties. Journal of Environ- mental Management, 79(3), 316–327. [CrossRef]
15. Junot, A., Paquet, Y., & Fenouillet, F. (2018). Place attachment influence on human well-being and general pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 2(2), 49–57. [CrossRef]
16. Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between landscape preferences and place attachment: A study in Røros, Southern Nor- way. Landscape Research, 27(4), 381–396. [CrossRef]
17. Kearney, A. R. (2006). Residential development patterns and neighbor- hood satisfaction impacts of density and nearby nature. Environ- ment and Behavior, 38(1), 112–139. [CrossRef]
18. Łaszkiewicz, E., Kronenberg, J., & Marcińczak, S. (2018). Attached to or bound to a place? The impact of green space availability on residen- tial duration: The environmental justice perspective. Ecosystem Ser- vices, 30(B), 309–317. [CrossRef]
19. Leckman, J. F., Carter, C. S., Hennessy, S. B., Hrdy, S. B., Keverne, E. B., Klann-Delius, G., Schradin, C., Todt, D., & von Holst, D. (2006). Group report: Biobehavioural process in attachment and bonding. The MIT Press.
20. Lestari, W. M., & Sumabrata, J. (2018). The influencing factors on place attachment in neighborhood of Kampung Melayu, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, volume 126, Friendly City 4 ‘From Research to Implementation For Better Sustainability’,. Med- ical Annual, Indonesia.
21. Lewicka, M. (2008). Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. Journal of Environmental Psychol- ogy, 28(3), 209–231. [CrossRef]
22. Lewicka, M. (2010). On the varieties of people’s relationships with places Hummon’s typology revisited. Environment and Behavior, 43(5), 676–709. Li, M., & Bihu, W. (2012). Urban tourism in China. Routledge Press.
23. Lund, H. (2002). Pedestrian environments and sense of community. Jour- nal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 301–312. [CrossRef]
24. Madgin, R., Bradley, L., & Hastings, A. (2016). Connecting physical and social dimensions of place attachment: What can we learn from attachment to urban recreational spaces? Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(4), 677–693. [CrossRef]
25. Manzo, L. C., & Perkins, D. D. (2006). Finding common ground: The impor- tance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4), 335–350. [CrossRef]
26. Maricchiolo, F., Mosca, O., Paolini, D., & Fornara, F. (2021). The Mediating Role of Place Attachment Dimensions in the Relationship Between Local Social Identity and Well-Being. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–9. Mihaylov, N., & Perkins, D. D. (2013). Community place attachment and its role in social capital development. In L. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Research, Chapter: 5. Routledge.
27. Mohapatra, B., & Mohamed, A. R. (2013). Place attachment and participa- tion in management of neighbourhood green space: A place-based community management. International Journal of Sustainable Soci- ety, 5(3), 266–283. [CrossRef]
28. Rennick, K. L. (2003). A strategy for developing community life and place attachment (Master’s Thesis). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/109 19/33638/Final_Thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
29. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10. [CrossRef]
30. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2017). The experienced psychological benefits of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 256–269. [CrossRef]
31. Scannell, L., Li, Q. T., Robin, S. C., & Gifford, R. (2019). The Routledge hand- book of people and place in the 21st-century city (K. Bishop, N. Mar- shall, eds, 1st ed). Routledge. [CrossRef]
32. Shamsuddin, S., & Ujang, N. (2008). Making places: The role of attachment in creating the sense of place for traditional streets in Malaysia. Habi- tat International, 32(3), 399–409. [CrossRef]
33. Smaldone, D., Harris, C., & Sanyal, N. (2005). An exploration of place as a process: The case of Jackson Hole, WY. Journal of Environmental Psy- chology, 25(4), 397–414. [CrossRef]
34. Soini, K., Vaarala, H., & Pouta, E. (2012). Residents’ sense of place and land- scape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1), 124–134. [CrossRef]
35. Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction? The contribu- tion of the physical environment to sense of place. Society and Natu- ral Resources, 16(8), 671–685. [CrossRef]
36. Sun, Y., Ng, M. K., Chao, T. S., He, S. H., & Mok, S. H. (2022). The impact of place attachment on well-being for older people in high-density urban environments: A qualitative study. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 1–21. [CrossRef]
37. Talen, E. (2000). Bottom-up GIS; A new tool for individual and group expression in participatory planning. Journal of the American Plan- ning Association, 66(3), 279–294. [CrossRef]
38. Tezer, A., & Bingöl, B. (2021). Examination of 80 Binde Devr-I Alem Park within the scope of theme park. PLANARCH - Design and planning Research, 5(1), 1–14.
39. Toruńczyk-Ruiz, S., & Martinović, B. (2020). The bright and dark sides of length of residence in the neighbourhood: Consequences for local participation and openness to newcomers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 67, 1–12. [CrossRef]
40. Zhu, Y., & Fu, Q. (2017). Deciphering the civic virtue of communal space: Neighborhood attachment, social capital, and neighborhood partici- pation in urban China. Environment and Behavior, 49(2), 161–191. [CrossRef]