طراحی الگوی شناسایی عوامل تأثیرگذار بر خلق مکان با رویکرد ویژه بر ارتقا تعاملات اجتماعی (نمونه موردی: شهر سنندج)

نوع مقاله : مقاله مستخرج از رساله دکتری

نویسندگان
حسام رسول آبادی 1
فرزین چاره جو 2
1 گروه معماری، واحد سنندج، دانشگاه ازاداسلامی، سنندج، ایران.
2 گروه شهرسازی، واحد سنندج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سنندج، ایران.
10.22034/he.2026.567561.1184
چکیده
هدف این پژوهش شناسایی و طراحی الگویی برای عوامل مؤثر بر خلق مکان با رویکرد ویژه بر ارتقای تعاملات اجتماعی در فضاهای شهری، با تمرکز بر خیابان‌های اصلی شهر سنندج است. در این راستا، تلاش شده است تا ابعاد فرهنگی، اجتماعی-اقتصادی، سیاسی و جغرافیایی که بر برداشت و استفاده مردم از فضاهای عمومی اثرگذارند، بررسی شوند. روش تحقیق مبتنی بر مرور نظام‌مند ادبیات نظری و مطالعات پیشین در حوزه خلق مکان، انسجام اجتماعی و طراحی شهری است. داده‌ها از منابع معتبر بین‌المللی و داخلی گردآوری شده و سپس با رویکرد تحلیلی-تطبیقی مورد بررسی قرار گرفته‌اند. همچنین، معیارهای طراحی و ویژگی‌های کیفی مرتبط با فعالیت‌های پیاده و تعاملات اجتماعی در خیابان‌های اصلی سنندج استخراج و تحلیل شده‌اند. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که خلق مکان به‌عنوان فرایندی اجتماعی-فضایی، زمانی موفق خواهد بود که علاوه بر دگرگونی فیزیکی، به نیازهای اجتماعی و فرهنگی جامعه نیز پاسخ دهد. ارتقای کیفیت فضاهای عمومی، افزایش ایمنی و زیبایی‌شناسی، تقویت فرصت‌های تعامل اجتماعی، و ایجاد حس تعلق و هویت مکانی از جمله دستاوردهای کلیدی این رویکرد هستند. همچنین، فضاهای باز و سبز شهری نقش مهمی در تقویت انسجام اجتماعی و ارتقای سلامت فردی و جمعی ایفا می‌کنند پیشنهاد پژوهش آن است که برنامه‌ریزان و طراحان شهری با بهره‌گیری از رویکرد خلق مکان خلاقانه، زمینه مشارکت فعال شهروندان را فراهم آورند. این امر می‌تواند از طریق طراحی خیابان‌های اصلی با تأکید بر پیاده‌مداری، ایجاد فضاهای تفریحی و فرهنگی مکمل، و احیای نقش تاریخی خیابان‌ها به‌عنوان بسترهای اجتماعی و فرهنگی محقق شود. بدین ترتیب، کیفیت زندگی شهری ارتقا یافته و حیات مدنی در سنندج گسترش خواهد یافت.
کلیدواژه‌ها
خلق مکان
تعاملات اجتماعی
فضاهای شهری
مرور نظام‌مند
سنندج
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Designing a Model for Identifying Factors Influencing Placemaking with a Special Focus on Enhancing Social Interactions (Case Study: Sanandaj City)

نویسندگان English

Hesam Rasoolabadi 1
Farzin Charehjoo 2
1 Department of Architecture, Sa.C., Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran.
2 Department of Urban Planning and Design, Sa.C., Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran.
چکیده English

This study aims to identify and model the factors influencing placemaking, with a special emphasis on enhancing social interactions in urban spaces, focusing on the main streets of Sanandaj. In this regard, cultural, socio-economic, political, and geographical dimensions that affect people’s perception and use of public spaces have been examined. The research method is based on a systematic review of theoretical literature and previous studies in the fields of placemaking, social cohesion, and urban design. Data were collected from reliable international and domestic sources and analyzed through a comparative-analytical approach. In addition, design criteria and qualitative features related to pedestrian activities and social interactions in the main streets of Sanandaj were extracted and studied. The findings indicate that placemaking, as a socio-spatial process, will be successful only when it responds not merely to physical transformation but also to the community's social and cultural needs. Improving the quality of public spaces, increasing safety and aesthetics, strengthening opportunities for social interaction, and fostering a sense of belonging and place identity are among the key outcomes of this approach. Moreover, urban open and green spaces play a crucial role in reinforcing social cohesion and promoting individual and collective health. The study suggests that urban planners and designers should adopt a creative placemaking approach to enable active citizen participation. This can be achieved through designing main streets with an emphasis on walkability, creating complementary recreational and cultural spaces, and reviving the historical role of streets as social and cultural platforms. Consequently, the urban quality of life will be enhanced, and civic vitality in Sanandaj will expand.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Placemaking
Social Interactions
Urban Spaces
Systematic Review
Sanandaj
1.      حیدری، محمدتقی، احدنژاد روشتی، محسن، محرمی، سعید، و رحمانی، مریم. (1399). تحلیلی بر اثربخشی اجتماعی توسعۀ فضاهای عمومی در بافت مرکزی شهرهای ایران (مطالعۀ موردی: پیاده‌راه سبزه‌میدان شهر زنجان). فصلنامه پژوهش های جغرافیای برنامه ریزی شهری، 8(2)، 415-443. https://doi.org/10.22059/jurbangeo.2020.294744.1210
2.      رفیعیان، مجتبی، و سیفایی، مهسا. (1384). فضاهای عمومی شهری: بازنگری و ارزیابی کیفی. هنرهای زیبا، 23، 466. 42-35. https://journals.ut.ac.ir/article_10712_e487f1f1462e80d86a8265a0034e7929.pdf
3.      کرکه‌آبادی، زینب، جوادیان، رحیمه، و زندمقدم، محمدرضا. (1399). ارزیابی قابلیت‌های بازآفرینی پیاده‌راه‌های شهری از منظر توسعه پایدار در برنامه‌ریزی شهری: مطالعه موردی بافت تاریخی شهر سمنان. فصلنامه برنامه‌ریزی توسعه شهری و منطقه‌ای (علمی)، 5(15)، 139-166. https://doi.org/10.22054/urdp.2021.57372.1271
 
1.      Aflaki, A., Mahyuddin, N., Samzadeh, M., & Mirnezhad, M. (2016). The influence of place making’s attributes on the resident’s usage and satisfaction in high-rise residential community: A case study. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 66, p. 00006). EDP Sciences.‏ https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166600006
2.      Afrin, S., Chowdhury, F. J., & Rahman, Md. M. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic: Rethinking strategies for resilient urban design, perceptions, and planning. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.668263
3.      Akbar, P. N. G., & Edelenbos, J. (2021). Positioning place-making as a social process: A systematic literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2021.1905920
4.      Alzahrani, A., Borsi, K., & Jarman, D. (2016). VALUE: A COMPARISON STUDY OF TWO URBAN SQUARES IN LONDON. Urban Regeneration & Sustainability, 392.‏ https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V12-N4-752-762/041
5.      Ameijde, van J., Yu Ma, Ch., Goepel, G., Kirsten, C., & Wong, J. (2022). Data-driven placemaking: Public space canopy design through multi-objective optimisation considering shading, structural and social performance. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 11(2), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.10.007
6.      Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2012). The influence of green space on community attachment of urban and suburban residents. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.11.003
7.      Badar, R., & Bahadure, S. (2020). Neighbourhood open spaces for social cohesion. E3S Web of Confer ences, 170. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017006019
8.      Barkhuus, L., & Wohn, D. Y. (2019). Making the city my own: Uses and practices of mobile location technologies for exploration of a new city. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 23, 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-018-01191-z
9.      Bele, A., & Wasade, N. (2018). Perception, use and experience of urban open spaces – case stud ies of neighbourhood public parks in Nagpur. International Journal of Science and Research, 7(9), 712–717. https://doi.org/10.21275/ART20191317
10.   Bertossi Urzua, C., Ruiz, M. A., Pajak, A., Kozela, M., Kubinova, R., Malyutina, S., Peasey, A., Pikhart, H., Marmot, M., & Bobak, M. (2019). The prospective relationship between social cohesion and depres sive symptoms among older adults from Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 73, 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-211063
11.   Bierwiaczonek, K., Gawron, G., Pyka, R., & Suchacka, M. (2020). Innovation places: Theoretical and methodological remarks for analysing metropolitan creativity and innovations. Creativity Studies, 13(2), 532–551. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.11992
12.   Blumer, H. (1969). Fashion: From class differentiation to collective selection. The Sociological Quarterly, 10(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1969.tb01292.x
13.   Boby, N. M., Dash, P. Sh., & Shetty, D. (2019). Exploring feasibility of incorporating vertical gardens in Indian context. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(4), 9336–9341. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.D9518.118419
14.   Bratman, G. N., Daily, G. C., Levy, B. J., & Gross, J. J. (2015). The benefits of nature experience: Im proved affect and cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005
15.   Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: advances in theory and research: Vol. 12. Place attachment (pp. 279–304). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4_13
16.   Carmona, M. (2021). Public places urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design. Routledge.‏ https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158457
17.   Carmona, M. (2021). Public places, urban spaces: The dimensions of urban design. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158457
18.   Castell, P. (2006). Space for community – the study of resident involvement in neighbourhood space management. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 93, 703–712. https://doi.org/10.2495/SC060671
19.   Chamorro-Koc, M., & Caldwell, G. (2018). Viable futures through design: Community engagement experiences in the creative industries. Creativity Studies, 11(1), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2018.857
20.   Chitgopkar, Sh., Dash, Sh., P., & Walimbe, S. (2020). Gated community living: A study of contempo rary residential development approach in Indian cities. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/ Egyptology, 17(9), 7437–7451.
21.   Clayton, S., Colléony, A., Conversy, P., Maclouf, E., Martin, L., Torres, A.-C., Truong, M.-X., & Prév ot, A.-C. (2017). Transformation of experience: Toward a new relationship with nature. Conserva tion Letters: A Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 10(5), 645–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12337
22.   Cohen, M., Quinn, J. E., Marshall, D., & Sharp, T. (2019). Sustainability assessment of a community open space vision. Sustainability Science, 14, 1565–1580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00659-y
23.   Colléony, A., White, R., & Shwartz, A. (2019). The influence of spending time outside on experience of nature and environmental attitudes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 187, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.03.010
24.   Cramm, J. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2015). Social cohesion and belonging predict the well-being of com munity-dwelling older people. BMC Geriatrics, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0027-y
25.   Cramm, J. M., Dijk, van H. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2013). The importance of neighborhood social cohe sion and social capital for the well being of older adults in the community. The Gerontologist, 53(1), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns052
26.   Cresswell, T. (2004). Short introductions to geography. Place: A short introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
27.   Dash, S. P., & Rama Devi, N. (2018). Behavioural impact of interior landscaping on human psychology. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(2), 661-674.‏
28.   Dash, Sh. P., & Jivan Pati, D. (2021). A review on exploring the characteristics of neighbourhood spaces in residential environments: Case study of Indian housing projects. Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology, 54(7), 506–523. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/48CXV
29.   Dash, Sh. P., & Thilagam, N. L. (2022). A study on inter- relationship of open space and social cohesion for wellbeing of elderly: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 9(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.11113/ijbes.v9.n1.880
30.   Dijk, van H. M., Cramm, J. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2013). Social cohesion as perceived by community dwelling older people: The role of individual and neighbourhood characteristics. International Jour nal of Ageing and Later Life, 8(2), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.3384/ijal.1652-8670.13210
31.   Dwipantara Putra, B., Horne, R., & Hurley, J. (2019). Place, space and identity through greening in Kampung Kota. Journal of Regional and City Planning, 30(3), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.5614/jpwk.2019.30.3.3
32.   Ekomadyo, A. S., Nurfadillah, A., Kartamihardja, A., & Cungwin, A. J. (2018). Becoming heritage: A place-making study of old neighbourhood marketplace in Bandung. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. The 4th PlanoCosmo International Conference, 158(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/158/1/012012
33.   Ellery, P. J., Ellery, J., & Borkowsky, M. (2021). Toward a theoretical understanding of placemaking. In ternational Journal of Community Well-Being, 4, 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-020-00078-3
34.   Elsawahli, H., Ahmad, F., & Ali, A. Sh. (2014). New urbanism design principles and young elderly active lifestyle: An analysis of TTDI neighbourhood in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Urban Design International, 19, 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2013.22
35.   Feng, Z., Cramm, J. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2021). Associations of social cohesion and socioeconomic status with health behaviours among middle-aged and older Chinese people. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094894
36.   Franz, M., Güles, O., & Prey, G. (2008). Place‐making and “green” reuses of brownfields in the Ruhr. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 99(3), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2008.00464.x
37.   Friedmann, J. (2010). Place and place-making in cities: A global perspective. Planning Theory and Pratice, 11(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649351003759573
38.   Fuller, M., & Moore, R. (2017). An analysis of Jane Jacobs's the death and life of Great American cities. Macat Library.‏ https://doi.org/10.4324/9781912282661?urlappend=%3Futm_source%3Dresearchgate.net%26utm_medium%3Darticle
39.   Furlan, R., Petruccioli, A., & Jamaleddin, M. (2019). The authenticity of place-making: Space and char acter of the regenerated historic district in Msheireb, Downtown Doha (State of Qatar). Archnet IJAR, 13(1), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-11-2018-0009
40.   Gulsrud, N. M., Hertzog, K., & Shears, I. (2018). Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne? Investigating “green placemaking” as a nature-based solution. Environmental Research, 161, 158 167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005
41.   Gwiaździński, E., Kaczorowska-Spychalska, D., & Moreira Pinto, L. (2020). Is it a smart city a creative place? Creativity Studies, 13(2), 460–476. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.12190
42.   Habibah, A., Mushrifah, I., Hamzah, J., Er, A. C., Buang, A., Toriman, M. E., Selvadurai, S., & Zaimah, R. (2013). Place-making of ecotourism in Tasik Chini: From exploratory to the contemporary bio sphere reserve. Asian Social Science, 9(6), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n6p84
43.   Haywood, B. K., Parrish, J. K., & Dolliver, J. (2016). Place-based and data-rich citizen science as a precursor for conservation action. Conservation Biology, 30(3), 476–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12702
44.   Hess, M., & Naegele, L. (2018). Germany. In P. Becker, J. Schütz, & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Popula tion Europe discussion papers series. Ageing workforce, social cohesion and sustainable development: Political challenges within the Baltic Sea Region (Discussion Paper No. 109) (pp. 17–20). A. Edel (Ed.). Newprint Blue GmbH.
45.   Hifz Ur Rahman, M., & Singh, A. (2019). Disability and social cohesion among older adults: A multi country study. International Journal of Social Economics, 46(4), 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-05-2018-0230
46.   Inishev, I. (2018). Embedded creativity: Structural interconnections between materiality, visuality, and agency in everyday perceptual settings. Creativity Studies, 11(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2018.541
47.   Iwińska, K. (2017). Towards better participatory planning: Guide to place-making [Master’s Thesis, Utrecht University, Netherlands]. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/28319
48.   Kaźmierczak, A. (2013). The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007
49.   Kenter, J. O., Raymond, Ch. M., Riper, van C. J., Azzopardi, E., Brear, M. R., Calcagni, F., Christie, I., Christie, M., Fordham, A., Gould, R. K., Ives, Ch. D., Hejnowicz, A. P., Gunton, R., Horcea-Mil cu, A.-I., Kendal, D., Kronenberg, J., Massenberg, J. R., O’Connor, S., Ravenscroft, N., Rawluk, A., Raymond, I. J., Rodríguez-Morales, J., & Thankappan, S. (2019). Loving the mess: Navigating diver sity and conflict in social values for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 14, 1439–1461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00726-4
50.   Kleinhans, R. (2009). Does social capital affect residents’ propensity to move from restructured neigh bourhoods? Housing Studies, 24(5), 629–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030903085784
51.   Knibbe, M., & Horstman, K. (2019). The making of new care spaces: How micropublic places mediate inclusion and exclusion in a Dutch city. Health and Place, 57, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.03.008
52.   Knibbe, M., & Horstman, K. (2019). The making of new care spaces: How micropublic places mediate inclusion and exclusion in a Dutch city. Health and Place, 57, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.03.008
53.   Koohsari, M. J., Karakiewicz, J. A., & Kaczynski, A. T. (2012). Public open space and walking: The role of proximity, perceptual qualities of the surrounding built environment, and street configuration. Environment and Behavior, 45(6), 706–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512440876
54.   Lachowycz, K., & Jones, A. P. (2011). Greenspace and obesity: A Systematic review of the evidence. Obesity Reviews, 12(5), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00827.x
55.   Lak, A., & Kheibari, Sh. Z. (2020). Towards a framework for facilitating the implementation of tacti cal urbanism practices: Assessment criteria in the place-making approach in Iran. Geoforum, 115, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.07.003
56.   Landry, Ch. (2008). The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. Comedia/Earthscan.
57.   Leopold, A. (1968). A Sand County Almanac, and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press. https://notes.hellbhoy.net/assets/sand-county-almanac.pdf
58.   Lepofsky, J., & Fraser, J. C. (2003). Building community citizens: Claiming the right to place-making in the city. Urban Studies, 40(1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980220080201
59.   Lew, A. A. (2017). Tourism planning and place making: Place-making or placemaking? Tourism Geog raphies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 19(3), 448–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2017.1282007
60.   Lilburne, G. R. (1989). A sense of place: A Christian theology of the land. Abingdon Press.
61.   Limburg, van B. (2019). The placemaking tube. Lambert Academic Publishing.
62.   Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city/Lynch Kevin.‏ https://www.cooldavis.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/THE_IMAGE_OF_THE_CITY_Kevin_Lynch.pdf
63.   Mishra, N. (2019). Social life on commercial street: A case of commercial markets of Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 8(7), 209–221. https://www.ijert.org/research/social-life-on-commercial-street-a-case-of-commercial-markets-of-lucknow-uttar-pradesh-IJERTV8IS070072.pdf
64.   Mowla, Q. A. (2004). Memory association in place making: Understanding an urban space. Memory, 9(52–54). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267834560_Memory_Association_in_Place_ Making_Understanding_an_Urban_Space
65.   Nikounam Nezami, H., & Asadpour, A. (2021). Social capital and the spatial quality of neighbor hoods: Parameters, indicators and strategies. ITU A/Z: Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 18(2), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2021.49374
66.   Othman, S., Nishimura, Y., & Kubota, A. (2013). Memory association in place making: A review. Pro cedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, 554–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.384
67.   Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2018). Societal integration that matters: place making experience of Macquarie Park Innovation District, Sydney. City, Culture and Society, 13, 13-21.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.09.004
68.   Platt, L. C. (2017). Crafting place: Women’s everyday creativity in placemaking processes. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 22(3), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549417722090
69.   Raymond, Ch. M., Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 422–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.08.002
70.   Roshan, G., & Moghbel, M. (2020). Rain and snow event cooling effect: A comparison on outdoor and indoor thermal comfort in Ardabil, Northwest of Iran. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 142, 1581–1594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-020-03403-0
71.   Salizzoni, E., & Pérez-Campaña, R. (2019). Design for biodiverse urban landscapes: Connecting place making to place-keeping. Ri-Vista: Research for Landscape Architecture, 17(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.13128/rv-7641
72.   Schneekloth, L. H., & Shibley, R. G. (1995). Placemaking: The art and practice of building communities. John Wiley & Sons, Inc
73.   Sepe, M. (2017a). Placemaking, livability and public spaces: Achieving sustainability through happy places. The Journal of Public Space, 2(4), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.5204/jps.v2i4.141
74.   Sepe, M. (2017b). The role of public space to achieve urban happiness. International Journal of Sus tainable Development and Planning, 12(4), 724–733. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V12-N4-724-733
75.   Sofield, T., Guia, J., & Specht, J. (2017). Organic “Folkloric” community driven place-making and tour ism. Tourism Management, 61, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.01.002
76.   Sofield, T., Guia, J., & Specht, J. (2017). Organic “Folkloric” community driven place-making and tour ism. Tourism Management, 61, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.01.002
77.   Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225
78.   Stoletov, A. (2016). Social creativity and phenomenon of success in postindustrial society. Creativity Studies, 9(2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.3846/23450479.2016.1223765
79.   Sweeney, J., Mee, K., McGuirk, P., & Ruming, K. (2018). Assembling placemaking: The making and re making of place in the regeneration of the post-industrial city. Cultural Geographies, 25(4), 571–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474018778560
80.   Thwaites, K., & Simkins, I. (2005). Experiential landscape place: Exploring experiential potential in neighbourhood settings. Urban Design International, 10, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.udi.9000134
81.   Wesener, A., Fox-Kämper, R., Sondermann, M., & Münderlein, D. (2020). Placemaking in action: Fac tors that support or obstruct the development of urban community gardens. Sustainability, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020657
82.   Williams, D. R. (2014). Making sense of “Place”: Reflections on pluralism and positionality in place research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 131, 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.002
83.   Yin, N., & Bennett, N. G. (2012). Aging societies. In H. K. Anheier & M. Juergensmeyer (Eds.), The encyclopedia of global studies (Vol. 4, pp. 308–309). SAGE Publications, Inc.
84.   Yu, K.-H., Chen, Y.-A., Jaimes, E., Wu, W.-Ch., Liao, K.-K., Liao, J.-Ch., Lu, K.-Ch., Sheu, W.-J., & Wang, Ch.-Ch. (2021). Optimization of thermal comfort, indoor quality, and energy-saving in campus classroom through deep Q learning. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2021.100842
85.   Zylstra, M. J., Knight, A. T., Esler, K. J., & Grange, le L. L. L. (2014). Connectedness as a core con servation concern: An interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice. Springer Science Reviews, 2, 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3
اکولوژی انسانی
دوره 4، شماره 13
زمستان 1404
صفحه 2017-2039