Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 40, Issue 3 (2025)
GeoRes 2025, 40(3): 279-286 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2025/08/19 | Accepted: 2025/09/27 | Published: 2025/10/5
Received: 2025/08/19 | Accepted: 2025/09/27 | Published: 2025/10/5
How to cite this article
Pooshasb A. Effects of Physical and Social Attributes of Urban Spaces on Users’ Behavioral Patterns. GeoRes 2025; 40 (3) :279-286
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1838-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1838-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:
Authors
A. Pooshasb * 
Department of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract (540 Views)
Aims: Urban public spaces play a fundamental role in enhancing social interactions, liveliness, and the overall quality of urban life. However, in many contemporary cities, the relationship between the physical and social attributes of urban spaces and their influence on users’ behavioral patterns has not been systematically examined. This study aimed to conduct a comparative analysis of the effects of physical and social characteristics of urban spaces on users’ behavioral patterns.
Methodology: The research employed an applied-analytical approach using a survey method in three major public areas of Tehran including Mellat Park, Laleh Park, and Bamland Complex. The statistical population consisted of users of these spaces, among whom 375 participants were selected through Cochran’s formula and stratified random sampling. Data were collected via a researcher-designed questionnaire and analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Pearson correlation tests in SPSS 27 software.
Findings: There is significant differences in three spaces regarding users’ social characteristics and optional activities, while physical attributes showed no statistically significant differences. Correlation analyses revealed that physical features played the most prominent role in shaping user behavior in Mellat Park, social features in Bamland, and environmental quality in Laleh Park. These findings highlight that social dimensions of users have a more decisive influence on behavioral patterns than purely physical elements.
Conclusion: The study emphasizes the necessity of human-centered design and socially responsive management of public spaces to foster livelier, more inclusive, and behaviorally adaptive urban environments.
Methodology: The research employed an applied-analytical approach using a survey method in three major public areas of Tehran including Mellat Park, Laleh Park, and Bamland Complex. The statistical population consisted of users of these spaces, among whom 375 participants were selected through Cochran’s formula and stratified random sampling. Data were collected via a researcher-designed questionnaire and analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Pearson correlation tests in SPSS 27 software.
Findings: There is significant differences in three spaces regarding users’ social characteristics and optional activities, while physical attributes showed no statistically significant differences. Correlation analyses revealed that physical features played the most prominent role in shaping user behavior in Mellat Park, social features in Bamland, and environmental quality in Laleh Park. These findings highlight that social dimensions of users have a more decisive influence on behavioral patterns than purely physical elements.
Conclusion: The study emphasizes the necessity of human-centered design and socially responsive management of public spaces to foster livelier, more inclusive, and behaviorally adaptive urban environments.
References
1. Askarizad R, He J (2025). The role of urban furniture in promoting gender equality and static social activities in public spaces. Ain Shams Engineering Journal. 16(2):103250. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.asej.2024.103250]
2. Askarizad R, Safari H (2020). The influence of social interactions on the behavioral patterns of the people in urban spaces (case study: The pedestrian zone of Rasht Municipality Square, Iran). Cities. 101:102687. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102687]
3. Barker RG (1963). The stream of behavior: Explorations of its structure & content. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. [Link] [DOI:10.1037/11177-000]
4. Barros P, Mehta V (2024). Does restorativeness support liveliness on commercial streets?. Journal of Urban Design. 29(4):400-427. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/13574809.2023.2288625]
5. Carmona M (2019). Principles for public space design, planning to do better. Urban Design International. 24:47-59. [Link] [DOI:10.1057/s41289-018-0070-3]
6. Gehl j (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space. Washington: Island press. [Link]
7. Lei T, Hu H, Feng G, Wang L, Chen Y, Chen B, et al (2025). Evaluation and application of public space in commercial buildings based on user behaviour needs. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 125:29-41. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.aej.2025.04.028]
8. Liang S, Leng H (2025). Residents' seasonal behavior patterns and spatial preferences in public open spaces of severely cold regions: Evidence from Harbin, China. Habitat International. 156:103279. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2024.103279]
9. Luo Z, Marchi L, Gaspari J (2025). A systematic review of factors affecting user behavior in public open spaces under a changing climate. Sustainability. 17(6):2724. [Link] [DOI:10.37766/inplasy2025.1.0117]
10. Marasinghe R, Yigitcanlar T, Mayere S, Washington T, Limb M (2024). Computer vision applications for urban planning: A systematic review of opportunities and constraints. Sustainable Cities and Society. 100:105047. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2023.105047]
11. Mehta V, Nogalski S (2024). Suburban camouflage in urban neighbourhoods: New building typologies and their impact on social life of residential streets. Journal of Urban Design.1-27. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/13574809.2024.2399537]
12. Mehta V (2019). Streets and social life in cities: A taxonomy of sociability. Urban Design International. 24:16-37. [Link] [DOI:10.1057/s41289-018-0069-9]
13. Mehta V, Bosson JK (2018). Revisiting lively streets: Social interactions in public space. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 41(2):160-172. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0739456X18781453]
14. Mulyadi AM, Sihombing AVR, Hendrawan H, Vitriana A, Nugroho A (2022). Walkability and importance assessment of pedestrian facilities on central business district in capital city of Indonesia. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives. 16:100695. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.trip.2022.100695]
15. Pooshasb A, Mansori M, Khezerlou A (2025). Explaining the indicators of Life between buildings in Honarmandan park. SOFFEH. [Persian] [Link]
16. Vidal DG, Teixeira CP, Fernandes CO, Olszewska-Guizzo A, Dias RC, Vilaça H, et al (2022). Patterns of human behaviour in public urban green spaces: On the influence of users' profiles, surrounding environment, and space design. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 74:127668. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127668]
17. Wronkowski A (2025). Towards discovering human urban activity-tactics of human spatial behavior. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment. 35(4):624-642. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/10911359.2024.2323052]
18. Yıldırım ÖC, Çelik E (2023). Understanding pedestrian behavior and spatial relations: A pedestrianized area in Besiktas, Istanbul. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 12(1):67-84. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.foar.2022.06.009]