تبیین مفاهیم و رویکردهای مرتبط با جابه‌جایی در فضاهای شهری

نوع مقاله : مروری تحلیلی

نویسندگان

1 گروه شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس تهران

2 گروه شهرسازی، دانشگاه شیراز

چکیده
بیان مسئله: بخشی از مسائل کنونی مرتبط با جابه‌­جایی در فضاهای شهری به نوع تعریف و سنجش مفهوم جابه­‌جایی برمی‌گردد. جابه­‌جایی ظرفیت متمایز متحرک بودن است و برحسب اینکه این ظرفیت با ذهن افراد یا محیط ساخته­شده مرتبط شود؛ به شیوه­های متفاوتی تعریف می­شود.

هدف: هدف از انجام این پژوهش، مرور نظریات مرتبط با جابه‌جایی و درنتیجه ارائه چارچوبی نظری و عملیاتی برای سنجش جابه‌جایی در فضاهای شهری است.

روش: در این راستا به تحلیل محتوی نظریات مرتبط با جابه‌جایی در سه مرحله آماده ­سازی، سازمان­دهی و طبقه­ بندی و خلاصه ­سازی پرداخته شده است.

یافته‌ها: تحلیل محتوی نظریات نشان­ دهنده این است که این نظریات در مجموع به سه دسته نظریات ذهن­گرا، محیط­گرا و تکثرگرا قابل تقسیم هستند؛ نظریات ذهن­گرا بر ماهیت ذهنی جابه‌جایی توجه دارند و جابه‌جایی را تابعی از عادات، نگرش­ها، انگیزه ­ها و هنجارهای افراد می­دانند؛ در مقابل، نظریات محیط­گرا به تأثیر عوامل محیطی نظیر تراکم، اختلاط کاربری و دسترسی بر جابه‌جایی افراد توجه ویژه ­ای دارند. نظریات تکثرگرا نیز تفاوت­های شهروندان را با توجه به ویژگی­های فردی و موقعیتی آنها مدنظر قرار می­دهند و از این‌رو تنوع و تفاوت را در جابه‌جایی مؤثر می­دانند و آن را در ارزیابی و سنجش دخالت می­دهند.

نتیجه­ گیری: بررسی عوامل تأثیرگذار بر جابه­‌جایی نشان­ دهنده این است که جابه­‌جایی مفهومی پیچیده و چند سطحی است که تحت تأثیر عوامل بسیاری قرار دارد؛ بنابراین چنانچه برنامه ­ریزان شهری درصدد بهبود سیستم جابه­‌جایی درون‌شهری باشند، باید به نقش مجموع این عوامل و ارتباطات بین آنها توجه ویژه ­ای داشته باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


 Aditjandra, P. T. (2008). The relationship between urban form and travel behaviour: A micro-analysis in Tyne and Wear (Doctoral dissertation, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne).
 Adjei, E , Behrens, R. (2012). Travel Behaviour Change Theories and Experiments: A Review and Synthesis, 31st Annual Southern African Transport Conference.
 Ajzen, I. , Fishbein, M. (2005) The Influence of Attitudes on Behaviour. IN ALBARRACIN, D., JOHNSON, B. T. & ZANNA, M. P. (Eds.) The Handbook of Attitudes. Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers.
 Ajzen, I. (1985) From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behaviour. In Kuhl, J. & Beckmann, J. (Eds.) Action Control: From Cognition to Behaviour. New York, Springer-Verlag.
 Axhausen, K.W. (2007). Concepts of Travel Behaviour Research", Gärling, T. and Steg, L. (Ed.) Threats from Car Traffic to the Quality of Urban Life, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 165-185. https://doi.org/10.1108/9780080481449-009.
 Bamberg, S. (2013). Applying the stage model of self-regulated behavioral change in a car use reduction intervention. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 33. 68–75. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.10.001.
 Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable transport: City transport in the new century. Unsustainable Transport: City Transport in the New Century. 1-292. 10.4324/9780203003886.
 Bateson, M. (2010) Rational Choice Behaviour: Definitions and Evidence. IN BREED, M. D. & MOORE, J. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Animal Behaviour. Oxford, Elsevier Science.
 Burkhardt, J. E., McGavock, A. T., Nelson, C. A., & Mitchell, C. G. (2002). Improving public transit options for older persons (Vol. 1). Transportation Research Board.
 Cervero, R, Radisch, C. )1996(. Travel choices in pedestrian versus automobile oriented neighborhoods, Transport Policy,Volume 3, Issue 3,1996,Pages 127-141,ISSN 0967-070X, https://doi.org/10.1016/0967-070X(96)00016-9.
 Cervero,R, Kockelman,K. (1997).Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design,Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,Volume 2, Issue 3, 1997,Pages 199-219,ISSN 1361-9209.
 Darnton, A. (2008) GSR Behaviour Change Knowledge Review: Reference Report: An Overview of Behaviour Change Models and their Uses. HMT Publishing Unit, London.
 Elo, S, Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis. Journal of advanced nursing. 62. 107-15. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
 Ewing, R. (1996). Pedestrian and transit-friendly design. Florida Department of Transportation.
 Ewing, R., Handy, S., Brownson, R. C., Clemente, O., & Winston, E. (2006). Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(s1), S223-S240.
 Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press.
 Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: Ain Introduction to Theory and Research, London, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
 Flamm, M., & Kaufmann, V. (2006). Operationalising the concept of motility: A qualitative study. Mobilities, 1(2), 167-189.
 Frasier, P. Y., Slatt, L., Kowlowitz, V. & Glowa, P. T. (2001). Using the stages of change model to counsel victims of intimate partner violence, Patient Educ Couns ;43(2):211-7. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(00)00152-x.
 Frello, Birgitta. (2008). Towards a Discursive Analytics of Movement: On the Making and Unmaking of Movement as an Object of Knowledge. Mobilities. 3. 25-50. 10.1080/17450100701797299.
 Galdames, Camila & Tudela, Alejandro & Carrasco, Juan. (2011). Exploring the Role of Psychological Factors in Mode Choice Models by a Latent Variables Approach. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2230. 68-74. 10.3141/2230-08.
 Gao, S., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Johnston, R. A. (2008). Exploring the connections among job accessibility, employment, income, and auto ownership using structural equation modeling. The Annals of Regional Science, 42(2), 341-356.
 Giuliano, G., & Small, K. A. (1993). Is the journey to work explained by urban structure? Urban studies, 30(9), 1485-1500.
 Glimcher, P. W., Dorris, M. C., & Bayer, H. M. (2005). Physiological utility theory and the neuroeconomics of choice. Games and economic behavior, 52(2), 213-256.
 Handy, S. (2005). Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: What does the research tell us? International regional science review, 28(2), 146-167.
 Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory. In E. Harmon-Jones (Ed.), Cognitive dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology ,3–24.
 J. Schmidt, D. Krüger, S. Eilmus, K. Paetzold, S. Wartzack and D. Krause.(2012).9Design For Mobility - A Methodological Approach, International Design Conference - Design , Dubrovnik – Croatia.
 Kahenman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
 Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Laidet, L. (1997). A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, 24(2), 125-158.
 Klockner, C. A. & Matthies, E. (2004). How Habits Interfere with Norm-directed Behaviour: A Normative Decision-making Model for Travel Mode Choice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 319-327.
 Litman, T. (2020). Understanding Smart Growth Savings: Evaluating Economic Savings and Benefits of Compact Development.
 Liu, Y., Sheng, H., Mundorf, N., Redding, C., & Ye, Y. (2017). Integrating norm activation model and theory of planned behavior to understand sustainable transport behavior: Evidence from China. International journal of environmental research and public health, 14(12), 1593.
 Metz,D.H, 2000, Mobility of older people and their quality of life,Transport Policy,Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 149-152,ISSN 0967-070X,https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(00)00004-4.
 Miles, Andrew & Moore, Niamh & Muir, Stewart. (2013). Mobility Biographies: Studying Transport and Travel Behaviour Through Life Histories.
 Musselwhite, C. (2016). To Keep Older People Active Pedestrian Accessibility Must Improve. The Conversation. Last modified, 24.
 Musselwhite, C., & Haddad, H. (2010). Mobility, accessibility and quality of later life. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults.
 Musselwhite, Charles & Haddad, Hebba. (2018). Older people’s travel and mobility needs: a reflection of a hierarchical model 10 years on. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults. 19. 10.1108/QAOA-12-2017-0054.
 Newman, P. G., & Kenworthy, J. R. (1989). Cities and automobile dependence: An international sourcebook.Overview of Behaviour Change Models and their Uses. HMT Publishing Unit, London.
 Nordbakke, S & Tim Schwanen .(2014). Well-being and Mobility: A Theoretical Framework and Literature Review Focusing on Older People, Mobilities, 9:1, 104-129, DOI: 10.1080/17450101.2013.784542
 Prochaska, J. O. & Diclemente, C. C. (1986) Towards a Comprehensive Model of Change. Psychology, 24, 319-327.
 Rantakokko, M., Iwarsson, S., Hirvensalo, M., Leinonen, R., Heikkinen, E., & Rantanen, T. (2010). Unmet physical activity need in old age. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 58(4), 707-712.
 Sá, D., & Elali, G. A. (2012). Pensando mobilidade, projetando acessibilidade.
 Schwanen T, Dijst M, Dieleman FM. Policies for Urban Form and their Impact on Travel: The Netherlands Experience. Urban Studies. 2004;41(3):579-60, doi:10.1080/0042098042000178690.
 Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2004). The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred residential neighborhood type. Environment and planning B: Planning and Design, 31(5), 759-784.
 Schwartz, S. H. (1977) Normative Influences on Altruism. IN BERKOWITZ, L. (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social psychology. Academic Press.
 Simon, H. A. (1957) Models of Man: Social and Rational- Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting, ‎ Wiley; 1st edition.
 Srichuae, S, Nitivattananon, V, Perera, R . (2016). Aging Society in Bangkok and the Factors Affecting Mobility of Elderly in Urban Public Spaces and Transportation Facilities, IATSS Research, 40 (1): 26–34.
 Stalvey, B. T., Owsley, C., Sloane, M. E., & Ball, K. (1999). The Life Space Questionnaire: A Measure of the Extent of Mobility of Older Adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 18(4), 460–478.
 Stead, D., & Marshall, S. (2001). The relationships between urban form and travel patterns. An international review and evaluation. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 1(2).
 Suen, S. L., & Sen, L. (2004). Mobility options for seniors. Transportation in an ageing society: A Decade of Experience, Proceedings, 27, 97-113.
 Timmermans, H. (2010). On the (Ir)relevance of Prospect Theory in Modelling Uncertainty in Travel Decisions. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 10, 368-384.
 Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal Behaviour, Monterey, California, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company University Press.
 Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2009). Introducing the lifestyle concept in travel behaviour research. In C. Macharis & L. Turcksin (Eds.), Proceedings of the BIVEC-GIBET Transport Research Day (pp. 707–725). Brussels, Belgium: VUB Pres Verlag.
 Wall, R., Devine-Wright, P. & MILL, G. A. (2008). Interactions Between Perceived Behavioural Control and Personal-Normative Motives. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 63-86
 Webber , SC, Porter MM, Menec VH. (2010). Mobility in older adults: a comprehensive framework. Gerontologist. Aug;50(4):443-50. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnq013. Epub 2010 Feb 9. PMID: 20145017.
 Webber, S. C., Porter, M. M., & Menec, V. H. (2010). Mobility in older adults: a comprehensive framework. The gerontologist, 50(4), 443-450.
 Wee, B. van, Geurs, K., & Chorus, C. (2013). Information, communication, travel behavior and accessibility. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 6(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v6i3.282
 Winston, G. C. (1989). Imperfectly Rational Choice: Rationality as the Result of a Costly Activity. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 12, 67-86.
 World Health Organization. (2002). Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. Geneva: Switzerland.