The Role of Landscape Approach in Improving Satisfaction with the Urban Environment

Document Type : Research Article


1 Department of Architecture, South branc, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, University of Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, South branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Associate Professor, Department of Urban planning, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.


Problem statement: Satisfaction is the process of positive judgment of the phenomena and is influenced by the components that rely on a studied theoretical basis. Today, the urban landscape projects have increased in quantity; however, it is yet a question why the quality of these projects cannot satisfy the citizens’ needs and leave a significant impact on their positive judgment and the tangible quality of the city. Therefore, the main question of this study asks: “what is the relationship between the components of the landscape approach and the components of satisfaction?”
Aim: The aim of this research is to increase the audience’s satisfaction from urban landscape projects, and hence the city, and to define a specific setting for urban landscape projects.
Research method: This study is conducted using qualitative and content analysis methods. Therefore, the concept of satisfaction and the influential variables are reviewed, and a new definition of satisfaction is presented in the next stage. Thereafter, the experts’ points of view about the concept of the landscape is discussed, and eventually, the relationship between the landscape approach and the effective factors of satisfaction are scrutinized.
Conclusion: The results of this study shows that satisfaction and landscape approach are common in paying attention to the audience’s subjectivity. However, the proprietary nature of landscape approach is to pay concurrent attention to both the objective and the subjective aspects of the phenomenon, which, in principle, cannot be achieved independently and separately. Therefore, the landscape approach provides a better and more favorable condition for promoting satisfaction, since objective factors are transformed according to mental interpretations. The landscape approach emphasizes on the simultaneous function of the object and subject in the presentation of a project and believes that when the urban space is recognized as a landscape, it is impossible to distinguish between its different dimensions, such as the substance and meaning.


Adelvand, P., Mousavilar, A. & Mansouri, S. A. (2016). Urban Art as a Landscape Phenomenon in Today’s Society. Bagh-e Nazar, 13(39), 39-44.
Alehashemi, A., Mansouri, S. A. & Barati, N. (2017). Urban infrastructures and the necessity of changing their definition and planning Landscape infrastructure; a new concept for urban infrastructures in 21st centur. Bagh-e Nazar, 13(43), 5-18.
Alehashemi, A. & Mansouri, S. A. (2018). Landscape; a Shifting Concept; The Evolution of the Concept of Landscape from Renaissance. Bagh-e Nazar, 14(57), 33-44.
Amérigo, M. & Argonés, J. I. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 47–57. 
Ansari, M., Sharifian, E. & Abdollahi Sabet, M.M. (2014). Unity as a Main Factor in Divine Approach to Urban Design. Hoviatshahr, 7(16), 27-38.
Antrop, M. (2006). From holistic landscape synthesis to transdisciplinary landscape management. In Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G. & Opdam, P. (Eds.), From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application, Wageningen UR Frontis Series No. 12. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bahrampour, A. & Modiri, A. (2015). Study of Relationship between Residents Satisfaction from Living Environment and their Attachment Sense in Kowsar High-Rise Residential Complex. Honar-ha-ye-Ziba Memari-va-Shahrsazi, 20(3), 85-94.
Barreira, A. P., Nunes, L. C., Guimaraes, M. H. & Panagopoulos, T. (2019). Satisfied but thinking about leaving: The reasons behind residential satisfaction and residential attractiveness in shrinking Portuguese cities. Intetnational Journal of Urban Science, 23(1), 67-87.
Berque, A. (2013). Is the Word “landscape” Changing There? Manzar, 5(23), 25-27.
Bonaiuto, M. Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M. & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), 331–352.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. & Rodgers, W. (1976). The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations and Satisfactions. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation.
Canter, D. (1983). The purposive evaluation of places: A facet approach. Environment and Behavior, 15(6), 659-698.
Canter, D. (1997). The facets of place. In E. H. Zube, G. T. Moore (Eds), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design. New York: Plenum Press.
Cao, X., Wu, X. & Yuan, Y. (2018). Examining Built Environmental Correlates of Neighborhood satisfaction: A Focus on Analysis Approach. Journal of Planning Literature, 33(4), 1-14.
Chapman, D. & Lombard, D. (2006). Determinants of neighborhood satisfaction in fee-based gated and nongated communities. Urban Affairs Review, 41(6), 769-799.
Chen, L. & Ng, E. (2012). Outdoor thermal comfort and outdoor activities: A review of research in the past decade. Cities, 29(2), 118-125.
Donadieu, P. (2013). Le paysage comme bien commun. Manzar, 5(23), 36-38.
Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K. & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3-20). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Francescato, G., Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. R. (1989). Evaluating the built environment from the users’ point of view. In W. F. E. Preiser (Ed.), Building evaluation. New York: Plenum Publishing.
Francescato, G., Weidemann, S. & Anderson, J. R. (2018). Evaluating the built environment from the users Perspective: implications of attitudinal models of satisfaction. In W. F. E. Preiser, A. E. Hardy & U. Schramm (Eds.), Building performance evaluation. Cham: springer.
Galster, G. C. & Hesser, G. W. (1981). Residential satisfaction: Compositional and Contextual correlates. Environmental and Behaviour, 13(6), 735-758.
Galster, G. C. (1985). Evaluating indicators for housing policy: Residential satisfaction vs marginal improvement priorities. Social Indicators Research, 16(4), 415-448.
Ghafourian, M. & Hesari, E. (2016). Studying the background Variables and Factors Affecting the Satisfaction of the Residents in the Residential Environment. Journal of Urban Studies, 5(18), 91-100.
Ibem, E. O., Opoko, A. P., Adeboye, A. B. & Amole, D. (2013). Performance evaluation of residential buildings in public housing estates in Ogun State, Nigeria: Users’ satisfaction perspective. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 2(2), 178-190.
Ibem, E. O., Opoko, A. P., & Aduwo, E. B. (2017). Satisfaction with neighbourhood environments in public housing: Evidence from Ogun State, Nigeria. Social Research Indicators, 130(2), 733–757.
Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World archaeology, 25(2), 152-174.
Kweon, B. S., Ellis, C. D., Leiva, P. L. & Rogers, G. O. (2010). Landscape components, Land use and neighborhood satisfaction, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(3), 500-517.
Lassus, B. (2013). A Global Approach to Territory: Landscape. Manzar, 5(23), 31-32.
Lee, S. W., Christopher, D. E., Kweon, B. S. & Hong, S. K. (2008). Relationship between Landscape Structure and Neighbourhood Satisfaction in Urbanized Areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(1), 60–70.
Lee, S. M., Conway, T. L, Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Cain, K. L. & Sallis, J. F. (2017). The Relation of Perceived and Objective Environment Attributes to Neighborhood Satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 49(2), 136–160.
Liu, Y., Wu, F., Liu, Y. & Li, Z. (2017). Changing Neighbourhood Cohesion under the Impact of Urban Redevelopment: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China. Urban Geography, 38(2), 266- 290.
Lovejoy, K., Handy, S. & Mokhtarian, P. (2010). Neighbourhood satisfaction versus traditional environments: an evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighbourhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(1), 37-48.
Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: ordered logit vs regression models. Growth and Change, 30(2), 264–287.
Mansouri, S. A. (2005). An introduction to Landscape architecture identification. Bagh-e Nazar, 1(2), 69-78.
Mansouri, S. A. (2013a). Iranian Landscape culture. Journal of MANZAR, 5(23), 56-57.
Mansouri, S. A. (2013b). Achilles Heel of Landscape Architecture in Tehran. Manzar, 5(24), 24.
Mansouri, S. A. & Farzin, M. A. (2016). A Landscape Approach in Urban Design: Methodology of Urban Design. Tehran: Nazar Research Center.
Marans, R. W. & Rodgers, W. (1975). Toward an understanding of community satisfaction, In A. Hawley & V. Rock (Eds.), Metropolitan America in Contemporary Perspective. New York: Halsted Press.
Mohit, M. A. & Al-KhanbashiRaj, A. M. M. (2014). Residential satisfaction concept theories and empirical studies. Urban Planning and Local Governance, 3(3), 47-66.
Morris, E. W. & Winter, M. (1975). A theory of Housing Adjustment Housing Norms, Housing Satisfaction and the Propensity to Move. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37(1), 88-97.
Mozafari, N., Latifi, B. & Barakpour, N. (2016). Measure and compare the level of residents satisfaction of the residential system (Case study: regions 3 and 11 in Tehran). Journal of Urban Studies, 5(17), 77-92.
Noroozitalab, A. (2010). Hermeneutics and Urban Landscape. Manzar, 2(11), 18-21.
Nussaume, Y. (2011). Urban Landscape: Quiddity and Perception; A Research on the developmpents of Urban Landscape concept. Manzar, 3(16), 16-21.
Rafieian, M., Asgari, A. & Asgarizadeh, Z. (2009). Rezayatmandi-ye shahrvandan az mohit-ha-ye sokonati-ye shahri [Citizen Satisfaction of Urban residential environment]. Environmental Sciences, 7(1), 57-67.
Rafieian, M. & Khodaee, Z. (2010). The Study of Determining Indices and Criteria of Citizen’s Satisfaction with Urban Public Spaces. Scientific Research Journal of Rahbord, 18(53), 227-248.
Rezaei, H., Keramati, GH., Dehbashi Sharif, M. & Nasir Salami, M. (2018). A Schematic Explanatory Pattern for the Psychological Process of Achieving Environmental Meaning and Actualizing Sense of Place Focusing on the Intervening Role of the Perception. Bagh-e Nazar, 15(65), 49-66.
Shin, J. (2016). Toward a theory of environmental satisfaction and human comfort: A process-oriented and contextually sensitive theoretical framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 11–21.
Sirgy, M. J. & Cornwell, T. (2002). How Neighbourhood Features Affect Quality of Life. Social Indicators Research, 59(1), 79-114.
Thompson, I. H. (2016). The role of theory. In A. Van den Brink, D. Bruns, H. Tobi & S. Bell (Eds.), Research in Landscape Architecture Methods and Methodology. London: Routledge.
Van Kamp, I., Leidelmeyer, K., Marsman, G. & De Hollander, A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being. Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 5–18.
Van Poll, R. (1997). The Perceived Quality of the Urban Residential Environment. A Multi-Attribute Evaluation. Roermond: Printing Westrom.
Zabetian Targhi, E. (2018). Explaining the relationship Between Psychological Adaptation with a Sense of Place to Achieve Thermal Comfort in Urban Public Spaces (Case study: Imam Khomeini Square and imam Hossain (AS) square in Tehran City during two warm and cold seasons). Unpublished PhD thesis. Tehran: Nazar Research Center.