فصلنامه علمی توسعه پایدار محیط جغرافیایی

فصلنامه علمی توسعه پایدار محیط جغرافیایی

واکاوی نقش مؤلفه‌های منظر در ارتقای بازیابی روان‌شناختی کاربران بوستان‌های شهری (مورد پژوهی: بوستان‌های ائل‌گلی و باغمیشه تبریز)

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان
محمدرضا دلستانی 1
پویا جودی گل لر 1
اکبر رحیمی 2
1 گروه مهندسی فضای سبز، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران
2 گروه برنامه‌ریزی شهری و منطقه‌ای، دانشکده برنامه‌ریزی و علوم محیطی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران
10.48308/sdge.2026.245737.1331
چکیده
مقدمه: پارک‌های شهری به عنوان یکی از مهم‌ترین زیرساخت‌های سبز، نقش اساسی در ارتقای سلامت جسمی و روانی، افزایش رضایت شهروندان و بهبود کیفیت زندگی ایفا می‌کنند. سرسبزی درختان، تنوع گل‌ها، حضور عناصر آبی، شرایط اقلیمی مطلوب و غنای حسی این فضاها، آن‌ها را به محیط‌هایی مناسب برای کاهش استرس و بازیابی توان ذهنی تبدیل کرده است. بر اساس نظریه بازیابی توجه کاپلان، انسان‌ها در مواجهه با مناظر طبیعی پاسخ‌های عاطفی و شناختی مثبتی تجربه می‌کنند که به بازیابی خستگی ذهنی و بهبود سلامت روان منجر می‌شود. همچنین نظریه کاهش استرس اولریش بیان می‌کند که ارتباط با طبیعت موجب ترجیح محیط‌های طبیعی و تسریع فرآیند بازیابی روان‌شناختی پس از تجربه استرس می‌شود. با وجود شواهد فراوان درباره نقش فضای سبز در سلامت انسان، هنوز سهم نسبی عناصر مختلف منظر در ایجاد ترجیح زیبایی‌شناختی و پتانسیل ترمیمی به طور کامل مشخص نیست. ازاین‌رو، پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی تأثیر عناصر طبیعی پارک‌های شهری شامل آب، درخت، گل و پرنده بر ترجیح زیبایی‌شناختی و پتانسیل بازیابی روان‌شناختی کاربران انجام شد.
مواد و روش‌ها: این پژوهش با رویکرد کمی و با استفاده از طرح پیمایش و مطالعه موردی در پارک‌های ائل‌گلی و باغمیشه شهر تبریز انجام شد. جامعه آماری شامل کاربران این دو پارک بود که 278 نفر با استفاده از روش نمونه‌گیری میترا و لنکفورد انتخاب شدند. برای گردآوری داده‌ها، تصاویر منتخب از مناظر پارک‌های مورد مطالعه با ترکیب‌های متفاوتی از چهار عنصر طبیعی آب، درخت، گل و پرنده تهیه و به روش فتومونتاژ ارائه شد. شرکت‌کنندگان هر تصویر را از نظر ترجیح زیبایی‌شناختی و پتانسیل بازیابی روان‌شناختی ارزیابی کردند. پتانسیل بازیابی بر اساس چهار مؤلفه دوربودن، شیفتگی، فراخی و سازگاری و با استفاده از مقیاس بازیابی ادراک‌شده (PRS) سنجیده شد و امتیاز کلی بازیابی از میانگین این چهار مؤلفه محاسبه گردید. داده‌ها با استفاده از نرم‌افزارSPSS 21 تحلیل شدند. پس از بررسی توزیع داده‌ها با آزمون کولموگروف–اسمیرنوف و شاخص‌های چولگی و کشیدگی، برای بررسی تفاوت اثر ترکیب‌های مختلف عناصر منظر بر ترجیح زیبایی‌شناختی و پتانسیل بازیابی از تحلیل واریانس چندعاملی، برای شناسایی عناصر پیش‌بینی‌کننده از رگرسیون خطی چندگانه گام‌به‌گام و برای بررسی رابطه میان ترجیح زیبایی‌شناختی و ابعاد بازیابی از ضریب همبستگی پیرسون استفاده شد.
نتایج و بحث: نتایج نشان داد که حضور عناصر طبیعی موجب افزایش معنی‌دار ترجیح زیبایی‌شناختی و پتانسیل ترمیمی می‌شود. در میان عناصر مورد بررسی، آب بیشترین تأثیر را بر ترجیح زیبایی‌شناختی (میانگین=21/4) و پتانسیل ترمیمی (میانگین=01/4) داشت و پس از آن گل، درخت و پرنده قرار گرفتند. تصاویری که به طور هم‌زمان شامل آب، درخت، گل و پرنده بودند، بالاترین امتیاز را در هر دو شاخص کسب کردند، در حالی که تصاویر فاقد این عناصر کمترین امتیاز را به دست آوردند. نتایج رگرسیون نشان داد که عناصر آب، درخت، گل و پرنده، 8/91 درصد از واریانس ترجیح زیبایی‌شناختی را تبیین می‌کنند و درخت، آب و گل نیز با تبیین 7/95 درصد از واریانس، مهم‌ترین پیش‌بینی‌کننده‌های پتانسیل ترمیمی هستند.
نتیجه‌گیری: یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد که کیفیت ادراک منظر حاصل تعامل و هم‌افزایی عناصر طبیعی است و حضور هم‌زمان آب، درخت، گل و پرنده بیشترین نقش را در ارتقای زیبایی‌شناسی و بازیابی روان‌شناختی کاربران دارد. در میان این عناصر، آب مهم‌ترین عامل مؤثر بر هر دو شاخص بود. نتایج این پژوهش بر ضرورت توجه به طراحی مبتنی بر عناصر طبیعی در پارک‌های شهری تأکید دارد و نشان می‌دهد که استفاده هم‌زمان از عناصر آبی، پوشش گیاهی متنوع و زیستگاه‌های مناسب برای پرندگان می‌تواند ضمن ارتقای کیفیت بصری، ظرفیت ترمیم روانی، کاهش استرس و بهبود سلامت شهروندان را به طور قابل توجهی افزایش دهد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
مولفه منظر
بازیابی
عناصر آبی
عناصر سبز
بوستان ائل گلی و باغمیشه تبریز
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Analyzing the Role of Landscape Components in Enhancing the Psychological Restoration of Urban Park Users: A Case Study of El Goli and Baghmisheh Parks, Tabriz

نویسندگان English

Mohammad Reza Delestani 1
Pouya Joodi Gollar 1
Akbar Rahimi 2
1 Department of Landscape Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
2 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Planning and Environmental Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
چکیده English

Introduction: Urban parks, as a fundamental component of green infrastructure, play a vital role in promoting public health, psychological well-being, and life satisfaction. Natural landscape elements-including trees, flowers, water features, birds, pleasant microclimates, and diverse vegetation-provide restorative environments that help alleviate psychological stress. According to Kaplan and Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory (ART), exposure to natural settings facilitates the recovery of directed attention, while Ulrich’s Stress Recovery Theory (SRT) suggests that humans possess an innate biophilic tendency to prefer natural environments, resulting in reduced stress and improved emotional well-being. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effects of key landscape components, particularly blue and green elements, on aesthetic preference and perceived restorative potential in urban parks in Tabriz.
Materials and Methods: This study employed a quantitative approach using a survey and case study design and was conducted in El-Goli and Baghmisheh Parks in Tabriz, Iran. The statistical population consisted of users of the two parks, from whom 278 participants were selected using the Mitra and Lankford sample size formula. To collect the data, selected landscape images representing different combinations of four natural elements-water, trees, flowers, and birds-were prepared using photomontage techniques and presented to the participants. Participants evaluated each image in terms of aesthetic preference and perceived psychological restorativeness. Restorative potential was assessed using four dimensions-being away, fascination, extent, and compatibility-based on the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS), and an overall restorativeness score was calculated as the mean of these four dimensions. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 21. Following assessment of data distribution using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and skewness and kurtosis indices, factorial analysis of variance (Factorial ANOVA) was used to examine differences in the effects of different combinations of landscape elements on aesthetic preference and restorative potential. Stepwise multiple linear regression was employed to identify significant predictors, while the Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between aesthetic preference and the dimensions of psychological restoration.
Results and Discussion: The findings demonstrated that all four landscape elements significantly enhanced both aesthetic preference and perceived restorative potential (p < 0.05). Water was identified as the most influential landscape component, producing the highest mean scores for aesthetic preference (4.21) and restorative potential (4.01), followed by flowers, trees, and birds. The highest evaluations were obtained for scenes simultaneously containing all four landscape elements, whereas scenes lacking these elements received the lowest ratings. Regression analyses indicated that trees, water, flowers, and birds collectively explained 91.8% of the variance in aesthetic preference, while water, trees, and flowers explained 95.7% of the variance in overall restorative potential. Significant positive correlations were also observed between aesthetic preference and all restorative dimensions, indicating that visually preferred environments were consistently perceived as more restorative. Demographic analyses showed no significant gender differences, whereas educational level significantly influenced aesthetic evaluations, and age was associated with differences in the perception of the "being away" dimension.
Conclusion: The results confirm that natural landscape components substantially enhance both visual preference and psychological restoration in urban parks. Among all landscape elements, water exhibited the strongest restorative and aesthetic effects, emphasizing its central role in the design of health-promoting urban green spaces. Moreover, integrating multiple natural components-including water features, trees, flowering vegetation, and opportunities for experiencing birds-creates synergistic effects that maximize restorative experiences. These findings support the theoretical foundations of Attention Restoration Theory and Stress Recovery Theory and provide empirical evidence for incorporating blue and green infrastructure into urban park planning and landscape design.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Landscape components
Psychological restoration
Blue elements
Green elements
El Goli and Baghmisheh parks
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1207–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x
Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001
Berto, R. (2014). The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: A literature review on restorativeness. Behavioral Sciences, 4(4), 394–409. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs4040394
Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F., Agrimi, M., Portoghesi, L., Semenzato, P., & Sanesi, G. (2015). Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
Farvardin, M., & Babakhani, M. (2024). Comparative study of the effects of urban green spaces on children’s mental health with an emphasis on the child-friendly city approach (Case study: Districts 4 and 5 of Karaj). Scientific Journal of Sustainable Development of Geographical Environment, 6(11). https://doi.org/10.48308/sdge.2024.234037.1191. (in Persian).
Garrett, J. K., Clitherow, T. J., White, M. P., Wheeler, B. W., Fleming, L. E., & Depledge, M. H. (2019). Coastal proximity and mental health among urban adults in England. Health & Place, 58, 102170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102170
Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2015). Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(4), 4354–4379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120404354
Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2003). Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00019
Hami, A., Ghazali, R., & Mohamad, M. (2011). The association between neighborhood open space attributes and quality of life for urban residents. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.02.120
Han, K. T. (2003). A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(4), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00063-9
Hartig, T. (2004). Restorative environments. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 273–279). Elsevier.
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3
Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14(4), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02815739708730435
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591231001
Hedayatian, M., & Einifar, A. (2026). Analysis of the direct and reciprocal effects of perceptual constructs influencing social interactions in urban open spaces (Case study: Borujerd urban park). Scientific Journal of Sustainable Development of Geographical Environment, e107225. https://doi.org/10.48308/sdge.2026.244316.1313. (in Persian).
Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5(3), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(85)80024-4
Herzog, T. R., Maguire, C. P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00113-5
Hoyle, H., Hitchmough, J., & Jorgensen, A. (2017). All about the "wow factor"? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landscape and Urban Planning, 164, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.011
Jo, H. I., & Jeon, J. Y. (2020). The influence of human behavioral characteristics on soundscape perception in urban parks: Subjective and observational approaches. Landscape and Urban Planning, 203, 103890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103890
Joodi Gollar, P., & Farshforoush Imani, A. (2025). Morphological drivers of urban heat islands: A spatially explicit analysis of Tabriz, Iran. Sustainable Cities and Society, 135: 107009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2025.107009
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1982). Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. Praeger.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
Marcus, C. C., & Barnes, M. (Eds.). (1999). Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits and Design Recommendations. John Wiley & Sons.
Markevych, I., Schoierer, J., Hartig, T., Chudnovsky, A., Hystad, P., Dzhambov, A. M., de Vries, S., Triguero-Mas, M., Brauer, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., & Fuertes, E. (2017). Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environmental Research, 158, 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.001
McPherson, E. G., Simpson, J. R., Xiao, Q., & Wu, C. (2011). Million trees Los Angeles canopy cover and benefit assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.011
Naghibi, M., Farrokhi, A., & Faizi, M. (2024). Small urban green spaces: Insights into perception, preference, and psychological well-being in a densely populated area of Tehran, Iran. Environmental Health Insights, 18, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241248314 . (in Persian).
Nordh, H., & Østby, K. (2013). Pocket parks for people—A study of park design and use. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.11.003
Nordh, H., Alalouch, C., & Hartig, T. (2011). Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2010.12.003
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(4), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.06.003
Peschardt, K. K., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2013). Associations between park characteristics and perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 112, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.013
Raza, W., Bojke, L., Coventry, P. A., Murphy, P. J., Fulbright, H., & White, P. C. L. (2024). A systematic review of the impact of changes to urban green spaces on health and education outcomes, and a critique of their applicability to inform economic evaluation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(11), 1452. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21111452
Shahmiri, M. S., Boujari, P., Fazeli Dehkordi, Z. S., & Khatami, S. M. (2025). Do green spaces mitigate mental health disorders in Tehran? Evidence from 358 neighborhoods. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 18(2), 480–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867241304004
Staats, H., Jahncke, H., Herzog, T. R., & Hartig, T. (2016). Urban options for psychological restoration: Common strategies in everyday situations. PLoS ONE, 11(1), e0146213. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146213
Stigsdotter, U. K., Corazon, S. S., Sidenius, U., Refshauge, A. D., & Grahn, P. (2017). Forest design for mental health promotion—Using perceived sensory dimensions to elicit restorative responses. Landscape and Urban Planning, 160, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.11.014
Twohig-Bennett, C., & Jones, A. (2018). The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environmental Research, 166, 628–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.030
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). Springer.
Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420–421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402
Ulrich, R. S. (1991). Effects of interior design on wellness: Theory and recent scientific research. Journal of Health Care Interior Design, 3, 97–109.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2022). World urbanization prospects 2022: Summary of results. United Nations.
United Nations. (2014). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Van den Berg, A. E., & Koole, S. L. (2006). New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00144-5
van den Berg, M., van Poppel, M., van Kamp, I., Ruijsbroek, A., Triguero-Mas, M., Gidlow, C., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Gražulevičienė, R., van Mechelen, W., Kruize, H., & Maas, J. (2019). Do physical activity, social cohesion, and loneliness mediate the association between greenspace and health? A cross-sectional analysis in 4 European cities. Health & Place, 57, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.02.006
Velarde, M. D., Fry, G., & Tveit, M. (2007). Health effects of viewing landscapes: Landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.07.001
Völker, S., & Kistemann, T. (2011). The impact of blue space on human health and well-being – Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 214(6), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.05.001
Wang, R., & Zhao, J. (2019). A good sound in the right place: Exploring the effects of auditory–visual combinations on aesthetic preference. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 43, 126356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.05.018
Wang, R., Zhao, J., & Meitner, M. J. (2017). Urban woodland understory characteristics in relation to aesthetic and recreational preference. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 24, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.019
Wang, R., Zhao, J., Meitner, M. J., Hu, Y., & Xu, X. (2019). Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 41, 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.005
Wang, X., Rodiek, S., Wu, C., Chen, Y., & Li, Y. (2016). Stress recovery and restorative effects of viewing different urban park scenes in Shanghai, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 15, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.003
White, M. P., Elliott, L. R., Grellier, J., Economou, T., Bell, S., Bratman, G. N., ... & Fleming, L. E. (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports, 11, 7730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87675-0
White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D., & Depledge, M. (2010). Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004
World Health Organization. (2021). Green and blue spaces and mental health: New evidence and perspectives for action. WHO Regional Office for Europe. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/342931
World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. (2023). Assessing the value of urban green and blue spaces for health and well-being. WHO Regional Office for Europe. https://doi.org/10.26719/2023.7508
Zhao, J., Xu, W., & Li, R. (2017). Visual preference of trees: The effects of tree attributes and seasons. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 25, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.04.015
فصلنامه علمی توسعه پایدار محیط جغرافیایی

مقالات آماده انتشار، اصلاح شده برای چاپ
انتشار آنلاین از 03 مهر 1405