Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 38, Issue 3 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(3): 381-389 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/07/25 | Accepted: 2023/08/27 | Published: 2023/09/11
Received: 2023/07/25 | Accepted: 2023/08/27 | Published: 2023/09/11
How to cite this article
Mijani M, Gharehbeiglu M, Reshad L, Nejadebrahimi A. Evaluation of Students' Cognitive Maps from an Urban Perspective as a Mental Image Output. GeoRes 2023; 38 (3) :381-389
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1509-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1509-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Islamic Art, Tabriz, Iran
Abstract (1264 Views)
Aims: The formation of mental images is a result of both direct and indirect experiences of space. These experiences involve the acquisition, processing, and interpretation of information in the human mind. Similar to internal representation, mental images serve as cognitive maps that guide the relationships and actions of individuals within a given space. The main focus of the current research is to identify the key factors that contribute to the formation of students' mental images of urban landscapes.
Methodology: The current research employs a combination of quantitative methods and graphic questionnaires. The study includes a sample population of students in their first semester of urban planning in the year 2022. The sample consists of 25 girls and 25 boys. The research model is based on theoretical studies and is designed to gather data on mental images. The collected data will be analyzed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Correlational study, utilizing Smart PLS and IBM SPSS 25.0.
Findings: According to Confirmatory Factor Analysis, as reported by the students, the most determining factors are related to the "physical structure" with an impact factor of 0.930. These factors include "geometry" with a factor load of 0.681, "direction and axis" with a factor load of 0.639, "differentiation and similarity" with a factor load of 0.596, "simplicity and diversity" with a factor load of 0.587, "scale and proportion" with a factor load of 0.499, and "visual range sequence" with a factor load of 0.425. Following closely in second place is the "functional structure" with an impact factor of 0.733. It is characterized by the components of "human activity" with a factor load of 0.815 and "functional species" with a factor load of 0.672. On the other hand, the "sense of time" factor has a negative impact factor of -0.084 and is associated with the component of "historical buildings" with a factor load of 1.000. Furthermore, the correlation results indicate that there is no significant difference in the gender factor.
Conclusion: Physical structures play the most influential role in this process. Additionally, it is worth noting that the gender factor does not seem to have any effect on this issue.
Methodology: The current research employs a combination of quantitative methods and graphic questionnaires. The study includes a sample population of students in their first semester of urban planning in the year 2022. The sample consists of 25 girls and 25 boys. The research model is based on theoretical studies and is designed to gather data on mental images. The collected data will be analyzed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Correlational study, utilizing Smart PLS and IBM SPSS 25.0.
Findings: According to Confirmatory Factor Analysis, as reported by the students, the most determining factors are related to the "physical structure" with an impact factor of 0.930. These factors include "geometry" with a factor load of 0.681, "direction and axis" with a factor load of 0.639, "differentiation and similarity" with a factor load of 0.596, "simplicity and diversity" with a factor load of 0.587, "scale and proportion" with a factor load of 0.499, and "visual range sequence" with a factor load of 0.425. Following closely in second place is the "functional structure" with an impact factor of 0.733. It is characterized by the components of "human activity" with a factor load of 0.815 and "functional species" with a factor load of 0.672. On the other hand, the "sense of time" factor has a negative impact factor of -0.084 and is associated with the component of "historical buildings" with a factor load of 1.000. Furthermore, the correlation results indicate that there is no significant difference in the gender factor.
Conclusion: Physical structures play the most influential role in this process. Additionally, it is worth noting that the gender factor does not seem to have any effect on this issue.
References
1. Al-Alwan HAS, Al-Bazzaz IA, Mohammed Ali YH (2022). The potency of architectural probabilism in shaping cognitive environments: A psychophysical approach. Ain Shams Engineering Journal. 13(1):101522. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.asej.2021.06.008]
2. Alptekin O (2017). A reading attempt of the urban memory of Eskisehir Osmangazi University Meselik campus via cognitive mapping. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 245(5):052016 .Bristol: IOP Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1088/1757-899X/245/5/052016]
3. Askarizad R, He J, Khotbehsara EM (2022). The legibility efficacy of historical neighborhoods in creating a cognitive map for citizens. Sustainability. 14(15):9010. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su14159010]
4. Bacon EN (1976). Design of cities. Revised Edition. London: Penguin books. [Link]
5. Bentley I (1985). Responsive environments: A manual for designers. Butterworth Architecture. Philadelphia: Routledge. [Link]
6. Boulding KE (1956). The image: Knowledge in life and society. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. [Link] [DOI:10.3998/mpub.6607]
7. Caffo A, Lopez A, Spano G, Serino S, Cipresso E, Stasolla S, et al (2018). Spatial reorientation decline in aging: The combination of geometry and landmarks. Aging & Mental Health. 22(10):1372-1383. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/13607863.2017.1354973]
8. Carmona M, Heath T, Tiesdell S, Oc T (2003). Public places, urban spaces: the dimensions of urban design. Oxford: Architectural Press. [Link]
9. Cullen G (1961). Concise Townscape. 1st Edition. London: Routledge. [Link]
10. De Alba M (2011). Social representations of urban spaces: A comment on mental maps of Paris. Papers on Social Representations. 20(2):29-1. [Link]
11. Filomena G, Verstegen JA, Manley ED (2019). A computational approach to 'The Image of the City'. Cities. 89:14-25. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.006]
12. Gao S, Han L, Li C, Zhao L (2021). Detecting the evolution of collective memory space using a space syntax-based analysis method in Beiyuanmen historical and cultural block. Current Urban Studies. 9(4):744-758. [Link] [DOI:10.4236/cus.2021.94044]
13. Gojnić AB (2018). The collective and the architecture of the city in postwar modernism. Histories of Postwar Architecture. (2):1968. [Link]
14. Hartanti NB, Martokusumo W, Lubis BU, Poerbo HW (2016). The quest for urban identity: Influence of urban morphological development to the imageability of Bogor city streets. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science (IJRES). 4(7):49-58. [Link]
15. Huang B, Zhao B, Song Y (2018). Urban land-use mapping using a deep convolutional neural network with high spatial resolution multispectral remote sensing imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment. 214:73-86. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.rse.2018.04.050]
16. Imani F, Tabaeian M (2012). Recreating mental image with the aid of cognitive maps and its role in environmental perception. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 32:53-62. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.010]
17. Jin X, Wang J (2021). Assessing linear urban landscape from dynamic visual perception based on urban morphology. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 10(1):202-219. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.foar.2021.01.001]
18. Kalin A, Yilmaz D (2012). A study on visibility analysis of urban landmarks: The case of Hagia Sophia (Ayasofya) in Trabzon. Journal of the Faculty of Architecture. 29(1):241-271. [Link]
19. Kaplan S, Kaplan R (1981). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. Ann Arbor: Ulrich's. [Link]
20. Kuliga S, Berwig M, Roes M (2021). Wayfinding in people with Alzheimer's disease: Perspective taking and architectural cognition-A vision paper on future dementia care research opportunities. Sustainability. 13(3):1084. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su13031084]
21. Lynch K (1959). The image of the city. Massachusetts: MIT press. [Link]
22. Lynch K (1984). Reconsidering the image of the city. In: Rodwin L, Hollister RM, editors. Cities of the Mind. Environment, development, and public policy. Boston: Springer. p. 151-161. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4757-9697-1_9]
23. Ma X, Ma C, Wu C, Xi Y, Yang R, Peng N, et al (2021). Measuring human perceptions of streetscapes to better inform urban renewal: A perspective of scene semantic parsing. Cities. 110:103086. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2020.103086]
24. Markey-Towler B (2017). How to win customers and influence people: Ameliorating the barriers to inducing behavioural change. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy. 1(S):27-32. [Link]
25. Martin M (2017). The relationship between way-finding strategies, spatial anxiety and prior experiences [dissertation]. Brescia: Brescia University. [Link]
26. Mirgholami M, Ketabollahi K, Azadi M, Oskoyi B (2021). Perception of city entrances in term of user's sexual variety (Case study: Sanandaj city's entrance-from Hamedan city). Journal of Applied Arts, 1(2):51-71. [Link]
27. Mohamed AA (2012). Evaluating way-finding ability within urban environment. Proceedings of the 8th International Space Syntax Symposium. Santiago: PUC. p.3-6. [Link]
28. Nikšič M (2006). The dimensions of urban public space in user's mental image. Urbani izziv. 17(1-2):200-204. [Link] [DOI:10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2006-17-01-02-007]
29. Nurgandarum D, Anjani CF (2020). Legibility of building facades and imageability of historical city center, case study: Bukittinggi city center. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 452:012158. Bristol: IOP Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/452/1/012158]
30. Özgece N, Edgü E, Ayıran N (2022). Assessing imageability of port cities through the visibility of public spaces: The cases of Famagusta and Limassol. Space and Culture. 25(4):535-552. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1206331220944063]
31. Relph EC (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion. [Link]
32. Sarstedt M, Cheah JH (2019). Partial least squares structural equation modeling using SmartPLS: A software review. 7(3): 196-202. [Link] [DOI:10.1057/s41270-019-00058-3]
33. Thombre L, Kapshe C (2022). Verification of connection between legibility and conviviality of public open spaces- a case of new market, Bhopal. Ecology, Environment and Conservation Paper. 28(1):219-226. [Link] [DOI:10.53550/EEC.2022.v28i01.029]
34. Qharehbaglou M, Reshad L (2021). Characterizing imageability in Gajar houses of Tabriz. Geographical Research. 36(3):233-241. [Persian] [Link]
35. Rossi A (1982). The architecture of the city. Cambridge: MIT press. [Link]
36. Shanken AM (2018). The visual culture of planning. Journal of Planning History. 17(4):300-319. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1538513218775122]
37. Steinitz C (1968). Meaning and the congruence of urban form and activity. Journal of the American Institute of planners. 34(4):233-248. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/01944366808977812]
38. Tara A, Lawson G, Renata A (2021). Measuring magnitude of change by high-rise buildings in visual amenity conflicts in Brisbane. Landscape and Urban Planning. 205:103930. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103930]
39. Topcu KD, Topcu M (2012). Visual presentation of mental images in urban design education: Cognitive maps. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 51:573-582. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.208]
40. Tolman EC, Honzik CH (1930). Introduction and removal of reward and maze performance in rats. University of California Publication in Psychology. 4:257-275. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/00221309.1930.9918318]
41. Trowbridge CC (1913). On fundamental methods of orientation and imaginary maps. Science. 38(990):888-897. [Link] [DOI:10.1126/science.38.990.888]
42. Tsagareli MG (2022). Pioneering studies of spatial behavior in animals: Ivane Beritashvili and Edward Tolman. Psychology Research. 12(8):563-574. [Link] [DOI:10.17265/2159-5542/2022.08.001]
43. Tuan YF (1975). Images and mental maps. Annals of the Association of American geographers. 65(2):205-212. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1975.tb01031.x]
44. Van den Berg AE, Joye Y, Koole SL (2016). Why viewing nature is more fascinating and restorative than viewing buildings: A closer look at perceived complexity. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 20:397-401. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.011]
45. Yu Z, Xiao Z, Liu X (2022). A data-driven perspective for sensing urban functional images: Place-based evidence in Hong Kong. Habitat International. 130:102707. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102707]
46. Zheng L, Pan H, Kong L (2022). Ripple attention for visual perception with sub-quadratic complexity. Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning. 162:26993-27010. PMLR. [Link]