IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i7p3589-d522931.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contribution of Design Indicators in Perception of Social Capital, and Interference of Socio-Demographic Information in the Process

Author

Listed:
  • Akbar Rahimi

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, 29 Bahman Boulevard, Tabriz 5166616471, Iran)

  • Mahsa Tarashkar

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, 29 Bahman Boulevard, Tabriz 5166616471, Iran)

  • Banafshe Jahantab

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, 29 Bahman Boulevard, Tabriz 5166616471, Iran)

Abstract

Social capital is the effective contribution of social groups through providing a context for cooperation, sense of identity, and perception of social norms. Urban parks are important components of cities, helps building the social capital within urban societies. This study examines the social capital of important urban parks of Tehran, Iran, using three main criteria: informal social control, social cohesion, and social leverage. A stratified random sample of 330 users were selected and asked to rank the social capital criteria using a questionnaire involving five-point Likert scale questions. The results show mutual relationship between informal social control and social leverage (r = 0.62, α = 0.00), and also inter-relationship between design indicators and perceived social capital. People from lower age group and higher educational level show highest perception of social capital. Perceptual difference were observed between genders. Women experience higher esthetic perception (α = 0.00), security (α = 0.01), and accessibility (α = 0.03). The study, while proving the relationship between social indicators and design features, and the impact of personal characteristics on the perception of social capital, indicates social inequality in citizens’ equal benefit of social capital. Measures must be taken to increase social capital in society and solve the significant lower perceptions of some social capital indicators among specific groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Akbar Rahimi & Mahsa Tarashkar & Banafshe Jahantab, 2021. "Contribution of Design Indicators in Perception of Social Capital, and Interference of Socio-Demographic Information in the Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3589-:d:522931
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3589/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3589/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richardson, Elizabeth A. & Mitchell, Richard, 2010. "Gender differences in relationships between urban green space and health in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 568-575, August.
    2. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    3. Fariba Bahriny & Simon Bell, 2020. "Patterns of Urban Park Use and Their Relationship to Factors of Quality: A Case Study of Tehran, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-33, February.
    4. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    5. Ying Xu & David Matarrita-Cascante & Jae Ho Lee & A.E. Luloff, 2019. "Incorporating Physical Environment-Related Factors in an Assessment of Community Attachment: Understanding Urban Park Contributions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Poortinga, Wouter, 2006. "Social relations or social capital? Individual and community health effects of bonding social capital," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 255-270, July.
    7. Chisun Yoo & Sugie Lee, 2016. "Neighborhood Built Environments Affecting Social Capital and Social Sustainability in Seoul, Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    9. David Schiefer & Jolanda Noll, 2017. "The Essentials of Social Cohesion: A Literature Review," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 132(2), pages 579-603, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Viniece Jennings & Omoshalewa Bamkole, 2019. "The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    3. Peck, Megan & Khirfan, Luna, 2021. "Improving the validity and credibility of the sociocultural valuation of ecosystem services in Amman, Jordan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    4. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    5. De Valck, Jeremy & Beames, Alistair & Liekens, Inge & Bettens, Maarten & Seuntjens, Piet & Broekx, Steven, 2019. "Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 139-149.
    6. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Remme, Roy P. & Edens, Bram & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2015. "Monetary accounting of ecosystem services: A test case for Limburg province, the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 116-128.
    8. Vaz, Ana S. & Kueffer, Christoph & Kull, Christian A. & Richardson, David M. & Vicente, Joana R. & Kühn, Ingolf & Schröter, Matthias & Hauck, Jennifer & Bonn, Aletta & Honrado, João P., 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 94-107.
    9. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    10. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    11. Primmer, Eeva & Jokinen, Pekka & Blicharska, Malgorzata & Barton, David N. & Bugter, Rob & Potschin, Marion, 2015. "Governance of Ecosystem Services: A framework for empirical analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 158-166.
    12. Jianxiong Bao & Wen Wang & Tianqing Zhao, 2023. "Spatiotemporal Changes of Ecosystem Service Values in Response to Land Cover Dynamics in China from 1992 to 2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-28, April.
    13. Lopes, Rita & Videira, Nuno, 2019. "How to articulate the multiple value dimensions of ecosystem services? Insights from implementing the PArticulatES framework in a coastal social-ecological system in Portugal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Tadaki, Marc & Allen, Will & Sinner, Jim, 2015. "Revealing ecological processes or imposing social rationalities? The politics of bounding and measuring ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 168-176.
    15. Anastasia Konstantinova & Victor Matasov & Anna Filyushkina & Viacheslav Vasenev, 2021. "Perceived Benefits and Costs of Owning a Pet in a Megapolis: An Ecosystem Services Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-15, September.
    16. Langemeyer, Johannes & Baró, Francesc & Roebeling, Peter & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, 2015. "Contrasting values of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: The case of park Montjuïc in Barcelona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 178-186.
    17. Thiele, Julia & Albert, Christian & Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina, 2020. "Assessing and quantifying offered cultural ecosystem services of German river landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    18. Malin Eriksson & Ailiana Santosa & Liv Zetterberg & Ichiro Kawachi & Nawi Ng, 2021. "Social Capital and Sustainable Social Development—How Are Changes in Neighbourhood Social Capital Associated with Neighbourhood Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-22, November.
    19. Gugulica, Madalina & Burghardt, Dirk, 2023. "Mapping indicators of cultural ecosystem services use in urban green spaces based on text classification of geosocial media data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    20. Xin Cheng & Sylvie Van Damme & Pieter Uyttenhove, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Park Renovations on Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3589-:d:522931. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.