Developing an Applied Model for Explaining the Mental Structure of Cognitive Maps of People through Spatial-Morphological Analysis of Existing Urban Textures, Case Study: Historical Texture of Kerman

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University

2 null

Abstract

Theories of urban development have mentioned many advantages for using a structural approach. However, intuitive (and not objective) methods have been used to determine the main structure, which is essentially considered equivalent to the main passage network and public utilities. Since the mental conceptual structure is considered in a way that its components are combined to gether as a whole, the present study aims to develop an objective mechanism for extracting the mental structure of people about texture. Accordingly, this research seeks to answer the question that which elements and objective analysis have a greater impact on the explanation of the existing structures in the cognitive maps. In this regard, cognitive maps of people were collected through drawings and interviews, and the structure was extracted in three physical, functional and semantic dimensions. The analysis of the spatial values ​​associated with the network of passages and land use in the geographic information system as well as the spatial qualities and relationships were carried out using spatial analysis. Spatial integration between the mental structures of cognitive maps, on the one hand, and the objective analysis of passages, land uses and spatial layout, on the other hand,showed that "axial depth" analysis explains the physical dimension of mental structure (Correlation = 0.72361, Sig. <0.001), "mean depth of convex space" analysis explains the functional dimension (Correlation = 0.66973, Sig. <0.001) and "Convex Space Integration1" analysis explains the semantic dimension (Correlation = 0.44744, Sig. <0.001). Accordingly, it is concluded that objective analyses of the existing urban textures can be used to explore people’s cognitive maps. Contrary to existing theories, this paper showed that the segmentation and land use models could not significantly explain the structure of cognitive maps while spatial analysis has the highest degree of explanation of the structure of cognitive maps. The main network of passages, in accordance with the existing theory, is still an appropriate explanation for all three dimensions of mental structures of the cognitive maps.

Keywords

References

• Abubakar, I. R. & Aina, Y.A. (2006). GIS and space layout: An analysis of accessibility to urban green areas in Doha district of Dammam Metropolitan Area, Saudi Arabia. Proceedings of Map Middle East Conference, Dubai, UAE, March 26-29.
• Ahari, Z. (2012). Isfahan School in Urbanism. Tehran: Tehran Art University Publication.
• Azad Armaki, T. (2004). Sociology Theories. Tehran: Soroush Publication.
• Andrade, GI. Remolina, F. & Wiesner, D. (2013). Assembling the pieces: a framework for the integration of multifunctional main structure in the emerging urban regions, Urban Ecosystems. New York: Springer.
• Al-Sayed K., et al. (2014). Space layout methodology, Architecture & Cities. UCL, London: Bartlett School of Architecture.
• Bahrainy, H. & Khosravi, H. (2013). The impact of urban design features and qualities on walkability and health in under-structure environments: The case of Hashtgerd New Town in Iran. Cities, (2): 17-28.
• Badita, A. & Popescu, L. (2012). Urban image analysis through Visual Surveys. Craiova City (Romania) as a study case. Forum geographic, 4 (2): 223-228.
• Balcan D., et al. (2009). Multiscale mobility networks and the spatial spreading of infectious diseases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (324): 1557–1561.
• Bart, R. (1997). Empire of Signs. Translation by Fokohei, N. Tehran: Ney Publication.
• Bahraini, S. H. (2011). Urban Design Process. Tehran: University of Tehran.
• Daggitt, ML., Noulas, A. & Shaw, B. (2016). Tracking urban activity growth globally with big location data. Royal Society Open Science.
• Dehghani, M. & Alikaei, S. (2013). Analysis of the Effect of Levi Strauss Structuralism on Urban tructuralistTheories. National Conference on Architecture, Culture and Urban Management.
• Dias P. & Ramadier, T. (2015). Social trajectory and socio-spatial representation of urban space: the relation between social and cognitive structures. Journal of Environmental Psychology, (41): 135-144.
• Gartner, G. (2010). Emotional response to space as an additional concept of supporting way-finding in ubiquitous cartography. In Mapping Different Geographies, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Germany.
• Ghoraba, N. & Tabibian, M. (2017). Recognition of the role of subjective perception in the definition of city structure. Urban Management Publication, No. 49, Winter 2013.
• Grichting, W. L. (1984). The meaning of social policy and social structure. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 4 (4): 16-37.
• Hafez Nia, M. R. (2006). An Introduction to Research Methodology in Human Sciences. Tehran: SAMT.
• Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the Machine: A Configurational Theory of Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hillier, B. (1999). The hidden geometry of deformed grids: or, why space layout works, when it looks as though it shouldn’t, Environment and Planning B. Planning and Design, (26): 169-191.
• Jiang, B. (2008). A space layout approach to spatial cognition inurban environments, Position paper for NSF-funded researchworkshop Cognitive Models of Dynamic Phenomena and Their Representations. Pittsburgh: University Pittsburgh.
• Kaplan, S, (2016). Cognitive maps, human needs and the designed environment. Chicago: Aldine.
• Karrholm, M., Nylund, K. & Fuente, P. P. (2014). Spatial resilience and urban planning: Addressing the interdependence of urban structures. Cities, (36): 121-130.
• Levi-Strauss. (2014). Structuralism and Sociological Theory. London: Taylor & Francis.
• Liu X, Kang C. & Gong, L. (2016). Incorporating spatial interaction patterns in classifying and understanding urban land use, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, (30): 334-350
• Lichfield, N. (2011). Settlement planning and development: a strategy for land policy. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia.
• Luchsinger, A. (2013). Structuralism in Urban Architecture and Planning. Translated by Izadi, M. S. & Ghoraba, N. Tehran: Yadavaran Publication.
• Lynch, K. (1981). A Good City Form. Translated by Bahreini, S. H. Tehran: University of Tehran.
• Mansouri, S. A. (2007). Two periods of space organization in the Iranian city: before and after Islam, with the use of evidences of developments in Kerman city. Bagh- e-Nazar, (7): 49-60.
• Marcus, L. & Giusti, M. & Barthel, S. (2016). Cognitive affordances in sustainable urbanism: contributions of space layout and spatial cognition. Journal of Urban Design, (21): 439-452.
• Moughtin, C. (1999). Urban Design: Method and Techniques. London: Routledge.
• Neacsu, M. C. & Negut, S. (2012). City Image Operational Instrument in Urban Space Management. Romanian Sample, In: J. Burian (ed.) Advances in Spatial Planning, Rijeka: InTech. (13): 247-274.
• Nold, C. (2009). Emotional Cartography- technologies of the self. Available from: http://emotionalcartography.net/EmotionalCartography.pdf, 2009.
• Oranje, M. (2014). The language game of South African urban and regional planning: A cognitive mapping from the past into the future. institutional Repository. London: Routledge.
• Pakzad, J. (2011). Articles on Urban Design. Tehran: ShahidiPublication.
• Panther, J. (2001). Sense of Place, Authenticity and Character. Journal of Urban Design, 6(1): 73–86.
• Paz, A. (2016). Introduction to “Teleologies of Structuralism”. Journal of Ethnographic Theory, (8): 29-31.
• Peponis, J., & Ross, C. & Rashid, M. (2014). The structure of urban space, movement and presence: The case of Atlanta. Geoforum, 28 (34): 341-358.
• Pour Jafar, M. R. (2008). Phenomenology of Urban Environment: A Reflection on The Promotion of Space to Urban Place. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 10 (4): 282-297.
• Quercia, D., Schifanella, R. & Aiello, L. M. (2015). Smelly maps: the digital life of urban smells capes. Journal of Social and Information Networks, (8): 39-50.
• Raford, N. & Ragland, D. (2003). Space Layout: an innovative pedestrian volume modeling tool for pedestrian safety. UC Berkeley: Safe Transportation Research.
• Roth, C., Kang, S. M. & Batty, M. (2011). Structure of urban movements: polycentric activity and entangled hierarchical flows. PLOS One, 6(1): 15923.
• Sadovsky, V. (1982). The methodology of science and system approach, Translation by Periani, K. The scientific journal of Haddad.
• Sheriff, JK. (2014). The fate of meaning: Charles Peirce, structuralism, and literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Tannis, F. (2011). Space, City and Social Theory, Social Relationships and Urban Forms. Translation: Parsi, H. R. & Aflatouni, A. Tehran: University of Tehran.
• Tavalayi, N. (2007). Integrated City Form. Tehran: Amir KabirPublication.
• Wilson, R. C. & Takahashi, Y. K. & Schoenbaum, G. (2014). Orbitofrontal cortex as a cognitive map of task space. Neuron, 81(2): 267-279.
• Zebardast, E. (2001). Application of Hierarchical Analytic Process (AHP) in Urban and Regional Planning. Honarha-Ye- Ziba, (10): 13-21.
• Zeile P., et al. (2015). Urban emotions: benefits and risks in using human sensory assessment for the extraction of contextual emotion information in urban planning. Planning support systems and smart cities, (12): 209-225.
• Zhong, C., et al. (2014). Detecting the dynamics of urban structure through spatial network analysis. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 28 (11): 1-21.
• Zhu, X. & Ghahramani, Z. (2002). Learning from labeled and unlabeled data with label propagation. Technical Report CMU-CALD 02-107. Pittsburgh, USA: Carnegie Mellon University.
The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar
Volume 14, Issue 54
December 2017
Pages 33-46

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics