An Examination of likeability Criteria in Evaluative Image of Women in Cities (Case Study: Tehran City)
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The image evaluation of environment is not just the result of impressions made by its external attributes on the mind of the observer. It is, however, created by the imagination of the observer. On one hand, the city is lodged by a wide variety of people whose evaluation of its images they form in their mind is critical. The desirability of the urban environments for various social strata, especially for women, depends on the relationship between human beings and the environment as well as their priorities and preferences. The aim of this study is to achieve women's image of urban environment and how to evaluate and identify priorities to select the desired location due to differences in values, emotions, experiences and inferential meanings of public space in Tehran.
The research method is based on techniques developed by Jack L. Nasar in his research on the Evaluative image of the city(1990) at the first step. Then, a phenomenological hermeneutic approach oriented to describe the connotations and emotions image representation of women in the experience of urban spaces desirable / undesirable and nature of development of the city of Tehran. For this purpose, 15 women in-depth interviews were targeted for sampling. Recent interviews description of what the five locations stated desirable and undesirable fifth place. Interviews were recorded and the data obtained from it written in the form of tables were analyzed. The results indicate that the optimal site selection of the women’s evaluative image, with a focus on likability, the common meanings associated with the concepts of freedom, justice, respect of (dignity) Location, beauty, with socio-cultural prestige and class, stylish and full of detail being quiet and cozy, with privacy and space while having the breadth of the definition, being more likely to have a happy mood and health.
Downloads
Article Details
Copyright owner / Copyright holder:
Authors retain unrestricted copyrights and publishing rights. The author has complete control over the work (e.g., retains the right to reuse, distribute, republish, etc.).
Copyright Notice:
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which allows others to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format;
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See: The Effect of Open Access).
References
2) Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible? American Psychologist, 51, 909–917.
3) Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1983). Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(3), 203-220.
4) Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713.
5) Cherulnik, P. D., & Wilderman, S. K. (1986). Symbols of status in urban neighborhoods: Contemporary perceptions of nineteenth-century Boston. Environment and Behavior, 18(5), 604-622.
6) Day, K. (2011). 11 Feminist Approaches to Urban Design. Companion to Urban Design.
7) Downs, R. M. (1976). Personal constructions of personal construct theory. Environmental Knowing: Theories, Research, and Methods. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchison & Ross.
8) Duncan Jr, J. S. (1973). Landscape taste as a symbol of group identity: A Westchester County village. Geographical Review, 334-355.
9) Eisler, A. D., Wester, M., Yoshida, M., & Bianchi, G. (1999). Attitudes, beliefs, and opinions about suicide: A cross-cultural comparison of Sweden, Japan, and Slovakia. In Latest contribution to cross-cultural psychology (pp. 176–191).Amsterdam: Swets &Zeitlinger.
10) Eisler, A. D., Eisler, H., & Yoshida, M. (2003). Perception of human ecology: cross-cultural and gender comparisons. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 89-101.
11) Harrison, J. A., & Sarre, P. (1975). Personal construct theory in the measurement of environmental images. Environment and Behavior, 7(1), 3.
12) Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City, Cambridge :MIT Press.
13) Lynch, K. (1993). The image of the city. Trans. Manouchehr Muzani. Tehran: The University of Tehran Publication, 17.
14) Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15) Milgram, S., Jodelet, D., PROSHANSKY, H., ITTELSON, W., & RIVLIN, L. (1976). Environmental psychology: people and their physical settings. Environmental psychology: people and their physical settings.
16) Moller, L. C., & Serbin, L. A. (1996). Antecedents of toddler gender segregation-cognitive consonance, gender-typed toy preferences and behavioral compatibility. Sex roles,35, 445–460.
17) Nasar, J. L., & Farokhpay, M. (1985). Assessment of activity priorities and design preferences of elderly residents in public housing: A case study. The Gerontologist, 25(3), 251-257.
18) Nasar, J. L. (1989b). Symbolic meanings of house styles. Environment and behavior, 21(3), 235-257.
19) Nasar, J. L., & Kang, J. (1989). A Post-Jury Evaluation The Ohio State University Design Competition for a Center for the Visual Arts. Environment and Behavior, 21(4), 464-484
20) . Nasar, J. L. (1990). The evaluative image of the city. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(1), 41-53.
21) Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. M. (1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and behavior, 29(3), 291-323.
22) Nasar, J. L. (1998). The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
23) Nasar, J. L. (2008). Assessing perceptions of environments for active living. American journal of preventive medicine, 34(4), 357-363.
24) Nasar, J. L., Banarjee, T., & Loukaitou, A. (2011). Environmental psychology and urban design. Companion to urban design. Routledge, New York, 162-171.
25) Nasar, J. L. (2013) The Evalouative Image of The City.Trans Masoud Asadi Mahalchali. Tehran, Armanshahr.
26) Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space, New York: Macmillan.
27) Pakzad, J. & H. Bozorg. (2012). The ABC of environmental psychology for urban designers. Tehran: Armanshahr Publication. Vol. 1, 13-20.
28) Partovi, P. (2008). Phenomenology of place. Tehran: The Iranian academy of art.
29) Perkins, D. D., Meeks, J. W., & Taylor, R. B. (1992). The physical environment of street blocks and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(1), 21-34.
30) Perkins, D. D., Wandersman, A., Rich, R. C., & Taylor, R. B. (1993). The physical environment of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13(1), 29-49.
31) Rapoport, A. (1970). Observations regarding man-environment studies. Man-Environment Systems, 1(70), 1-29.
32) Rakodi, C. (1991). Cities and people: Towards a gender‐aware urban planning process?. Public Administration and Development, 11(6), 541-559.
33) Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form (Vol. 3). Oxford: Pergamon.
34) Rapoport, A. (1993). Cross-cultural studies and urban form. University of Maryland at College Park, Urban Studies Program.
35) Russell, J.A., and Snodgrass, J. (1989). Emotion and Environment. In Stokols, D. and Altman, I. (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Vol. 1), New York: John Wiley.
36) Taylor, R. B., Shumaker, S. A., & Gottfredson, S. D. (1985). Neighborhood-level links between physical features and local sentiments: Deterioration, fear of crime, and confidence. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2(4), 261-275.
37) Taylor, R. B. (1987). Toward an environmental psychology of disorder: Delinquency, crime, and fear of crime. Handbook of environmental psychology, 2, 951-986.
38) Ward, L. M., & Russell, J. A. (1981). The psychological representation of molar physical environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(2), 121.
39) Warr, M. (1990). Dangerous situations: Social context and fear of victimization. Social forces, 891-907.
40) Wong, K. K., & Domroes, M. (2005). The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park, Hong Kong: likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(4), 617-632.