10.57647/j.ccd.2025.0801.03

Qualitative content analysis: Components influencing the city structure imageability

PDF
  • Najmeh Ramezani Aghdash1,
  • Maryam Ostadi*1,
  • Fatemeh Mohammadniay Gharaei1,
  • Seyed Moslem Seyedalhosseini1,
  1. Department of urbanism, Mashhad branch, Islamic azad university, Mashhad, Iran

Received: 2023-08-05

Revised: 2023-12-20

Accepted: 2024-05-25

Published in Issue 2025-03-01

Copyright (c) -1 Najmeh Ramezani Aghdash, Maryam Ostadi, Fatemeh Mohammadniay Gharaei, Seyed Moslem Seyedalhosseini (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Ramezani Aghdash, N., Ostadi, M., Mohammadniay Gharaei, F., & Seyedalhosseini, S. M. (2025). Qualitative content analysis: Components influencing the city structure imageability. Creative City Design, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.57647/j.ccd.2025.0801.03
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 281

Abstract

Aims: The structure of the city, as one of the main components of the city, which has a significant impact on the citizens’ understanding of the city as a whole and it provided imageability of the city. The process of forming people’s mental image of the city structure is formed following how they interact with the surrounding environment. This study explores the components influencing  the imageability of city structures, emphasizing the interplay between physical, functional, and semantic dimensions in shaping citizens’ mental images of urban environments. As cities expand, the complexity of urban structures grows, making it challenging to maintain coherence and legibility.

Methodology: The current research method is “descriptive-analytical”, the research is “fundamental” in terms of nature, and its approach is “qualitative” with an inductive approach, examining 145 scientific texts (articles, books, and theses) from 1940 to 2024 to identify key factors affecting urban structure imageability. the present research is in three stages (ready creation, organization and reporting). The selection of texts was done with targeted sampling and manual coding.

Findings: The findings reveal that urban structure imageability is shaped by three primary dimensions: physical (e.g., spatial connectivity, landmarks), functional (e.g., movement patterns, activity centers), and semantic (e.g., cultural, historical meanings). The study highlights the importance of legibility, coherence, and complexity in creating a clear mental image of the city, which in turn influences citizens’ behavior and spatial cognition.
Conclusion: A conceptual model is proposed, integrating these dimensions to enhance urban design and planning practices. The research underscores the need for a balanced approach that considers both the objective physical structure and the subjective mental perceptions of citizens, offering valuable insights for creating more legible and imageable urban environments, and what is important in evaluating the visualization of the urban structure is the relationship between the elements, not the coherence of each element alone.

Keywords

  • City structure,
  • Perception,
  • Mental image,
  • Imageability,
  • Legibility
PDF

References

  1. Bahraini., H :2011, Urban design prosess, Tehran, Tehran university Publishers.
  2. Karrholm,m.,nylund,k.&Fuente,p.p.: 2014, spatial resilience and urban planning: addressing the interdependence of urban structures, Cities,(36):121-130. DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.012
  3. Liu, x,. kang, c,. gong,l.: 2016, incorporating spatial interaction patterns in classifying and understanding urban land use, international journal of geographical information science,(30):334-350. DOI:10.1080/13658816.2015.1086923
  4. Peponis,J., ross, C., Rashid, M: 1997, The structure of urban space, movment and presence: the case of atlanta, Geoforum, 28(34):341-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(97)00016
  5. Tabrizi, M : 2014, Qualitative content analysis from the perspective of analogical and inductive approaches, Social Sciences Quarterly,64,105-138. doi: 10.22054/qjss.2014.344
  6. Irvani, M., Khoda panahi, M.: 1992, Psychology of emotion and perception, samt.
  7. Pakzad, G.: 2014, The flow of thoughts in urban planning, new cities construction company.
  8. Bell, G. & Dourish, P.: 2007, The infrastructure of experience and the experience of infrastructure: meaning and structure in everyday encounters with space, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 414 – 430. DOI: 10.1068/b32035t
  9. Javadi,F., Noormohamadzad, H.: 2017, The comparison between the identity structure of the society and the physical structure of the city, Journal of Architecture and Urbanism, 41:1, 34-45. DOI:10.3846/20297955.2017.1296795
  10. Nojima, V.L.: 2000, Urban environmental language and spatial organization, Proceedings of the IEA 2000/ HFES 2000 Congress. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120004400814
  11. Koseoglu,E., Onder,D.E.: 2011,Subjective and objective dimensions of spatial legibility, Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 ,1191 – 1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.231
  12. Grütter, JK.: 2015, Basics of Perception in Architecture, W.Kohlhamme. DOI:10.1007/978-3-658-31156-8
  13. McAndrew, F. T.: 2017, Why there's no place like home for the holidays, The Chicago Tribune.
  14. Zeile P., et al.: (2015). Urban emotions: benefits and risks in using human sensory assessment for the extraction of contextual emotion information in urban planning, Planning support systems and smart cities, 12, 209-225.
  15. Lynch, K.: 1995, The image of city, mozayani, M., University of Tehran press. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_11
  16. Appleyard, D. A.: 1970, Styles and Methods of Structuring a City, Environment and Behavior, 2, 100-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657000200106
  17. Topcu, K.D. , Topcu, M .: 2012, Visual presentation of mental images in urban design ducation: cognitive maps, Social and Behavioral Sciences ,51 , 573 – 582. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.208
  18. Luque-Martinez, T., Del Barrio Garcia, S., Ibanez-Zapata, J.A. & Rodriguez Molina, M.A.: 2007 , Modeling a city’s image: The case of Granada, Cities, 24(5), 335–352, Elsevier. DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2007.01.010
  19. Li, CH., Li, P., Huang, X.: 2022, Liked and disliked streetscape imagery: relation to emotional motivation and block distribution from tourist bus visitors, SAGE Open, 13(3), 1–16. DOI: 10.1177/21582440221117129
  20. Ahmadi, V., Pileh Chian, A., Khoda Shenas, F.: 2018, Identifying the Past Urban Signs to Promote Readability (Case Study: Torbat-e Heydarieh, Iran), Creative City Design, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019, 92- 100. https://sanad.iau.ir/journal/crcd/article_677386_dc8e498e37c8db4f13c1b055bb5b63e4.pdf
  21. Tomoko,M.; 2007, Destination description in urban environment, PhD THESIS, MIT press. DOI:10.1080/13875860802427775
  22. Bahrehdara , AZ., Adamsb, B., Purvesa , R.: 2020, Streets of London: Using Flickr and OpenStreetMap to build an interactive image of the city, Environment and Urban Systems, 84 . DOI:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101524
  23. Silva, K.: 2004, Mapping meaning in the city image, PhD THESIS, MIT press. https://www.proquest.com/openview/52c599abc581117cb0552aa5bcee75a9/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
  24. Appleyard, D. A.: 1969, Why Buildings are Known, Environment and Behavior, 1, 131-156. . http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001391656900100202
  25. Faria, A., Krafta, R.: 2003, Representing urban cognitive structure through spatial
  26. differentiation, 4th International Space Syntax Symposium London. https://www.spacesyntax.net/symposia-archive/SSS4/fullpapers/53FariaKraftapaper.pdf
  27. Kaplan, R. M. (1982). Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition: Environmental Preference from an Evolutionary Perspective, Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916587191001
  28. Kaplan, R. M. (1990). Behavior as the central outcome in health care. American Psychologist, 45(11), 1211–1220. DOI: 10.1037//0003-066x.45.11.1211
  29. Rapoport, A: 1990, The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach (2nd ed.). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.
  30. Passini, R: 1992, Wayfinding in architecture, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. https://lccn.loc.gov/83027393
  31. Long , Y.: 2007, The Relationships Between Objective and Subjective Evaluations of the Urban Environment: Space Syntax, Cognitive Maps, and Urban Legibility, A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University , PhD THESIS , MIT press. http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/4411
  32. Kim, H.: 2010, The effect of place image on the uses of public space the Cheonggye atream case ,B.S in architectural engineering Yonsei university seoul, Korea , Master in City Planning at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY . http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
  33. Filomenaa ,G. , Verstegena, G.A., Manleyb, E.: 2019 , A computational approach to The Image of the City , Cities, 89 , 14–25. DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.006
  34. Gilboa, SH., D. Jaffe, E., Vianelli, D., Pastore, A., Herstein, R.: 2015, A summated rating scale for measuring city image, Cities, 44 , 50–59. DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2015.01.002
  35. R. Brunsa,C., C. Chamberlainb, B.: 2019, The influence of landmarks and urban form on cognitive maps using virtual reality, Landscape and Urban Planning , 189 , 296–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.05.006
  36. Sheynikhovich, D., Arleo, A.: 2010 , A reinforcement learning approach to model interactions between landmarks and geometric cues during spatial learning, brain research , 13, 35-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.09.091
  37. Meenar, M., Afzalan, N., Hajrasouliha, A.: 2019, Analyzing lynchs city imageability in the digital age , Journal of Planning Education and Research,42, 611-623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X19844573
  38. Ye, y., Zeng, W., Shen, Q., Zhang, x., Lu, y.:2019,The visual quality of streets: A human-centerd continuous measurement based on machine learning algorithms and street view images , Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(8),1439-1457. DOI:10.1177/2399808319828734
  39. J Gowers, S.: 2022, Mapping young childrens conceptualisations of the image they encounter their familiar environment , Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 22, 207-231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420919479
  40. Tavalayi, N., 2008 , The form of the coherent city, Amirkabir.
  41. soltani Fard,H., hataminejad,H., abbaszadegan,M., porahmad,A.: 2013, Analyzing the transformation of the physical-spatial structure of the Iranian-Islamic city, a case study: Sabzevar City, Iranian Islamic City Studies Quarterly. https://www.sid.ir/FileServer/JF/24213921402
  42. Luchinger,A. (2013). Structuralism in architecture and urban planning.
  43. Karrholm, M., Nylund, K. & Fuente, P. P.: 2014, Spatial resilience and urban planning: Addressing the interdependence of urban structures, Cities, 36, 121-130. DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.012
  44. Liu, L .: 2014, C-IMAGE : City Cognitive Mapping Through Geo-Tagged Photos , Master in City Planning . DOI 10.1007/s10708-016-9739-6
  45. Zhonga,C., Arisonaab,S.M., Huangc,X., Battyd,M., Schmitta,G.: 2014, Detecting the dynamics of urban structure through spatial network, International Journal of Geographical Information Science ,28, 2178-2199. DOI:10.1080/13658816.2014.914521
  46. Pinto, A. J., Remesar, A., Brandão, P., Nunes da Silva, F.: 2015, Planning public spaces networks towards urban cohesion, isocarp congress, lisbon. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.2759.0806
  47. Bazargar, M .: 2003, Urban development and the main construction of the city, Kushamehr
  48. Levi-Strauss. (2014). Structuralism and Sociological Theory. London: Taylor & Francis.
  49. Antipova, a.: 2018, City Structure and Spatial Patterns. Urban Environment; Travel Behavior; Health and Resident Satisfaction, 153. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74198-7
  50. Burger, M., Meijers, E.: 2012, Form follows function? Linking morphological and functional polycentricity, Urban Studies, 49(5), 1127-1149. DOI:10.1177/0042098011407095
  51. Ardalan, N., bakhtiar, L.: 2013, A sense of unity, the science of an architect.
  52. Hamidi, M., Sabri, RS.: 1997, Ossification of the city of Tehran, Technical and construction department of Tehran municipality.
  53. Lynch, K.: 1960, The image of the city, The MIT Press.
  54. Stamps, A E.: 2005, Enclosure and Safety in Urban spaces, Environment and Behavior, 37, 102 – 133. DOI:10.1177/0013916504266806
  55. Tang, Y.: 2007, an integrated GIS-spatioal analysis of tlantas urban structure and urban space. Degree of doctor of philosophy ,Athens, Georgia. http://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/tang_yanbing_200708_phd.pdf
  56. Salingaros, NA.: 2010, Complexity and Urban Coherence, Journal of Urban Design,20. https://doi.org/10.1080/713683969
  57. Omer, I., Jiang, B.:2010, Geospatial Analysis and Modelling of Urban Structure and Dynamics : Imageability and Topological Eccentricity of Urban Streets, 163-175. DOI:10.1007/978-90-481-8572-6
  58. Tomko, M., Winter, S.: 2013, Describing the functional spatial structure of urban environments, Computers; Environment and Urban Systems , 41 , 177–187 . DOI:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.05.002
  59. Nasr, JL.: 2014, evaluative mental image of the city, Utopia of the city.
  60. TONG H., SHI, P., LUO J., LIU, X.: 2020, The Structure and Pattern of Urban Network in the Lanzhou-Xining Urban Agglomeration, Chinese Geographical Science, 30(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-019-1090-7
  61. Daeenejhad, N., Afzalian, KH., Asadpour, J., Mousavi, M.: 2024, Enhancing The Sense of Place in The Open Spaces of Residential Complexes by Relying on The Evaluation of Physical Environmental Components Case Study: Sazman Ab Neighbourhood’ Residential Complexes, Creative city design , Vol 7, No 4 , 2024 , 65-93. https://sanad.iau.ir/en/Article/1188900
  62. Siegel, A. W., White S. H.: 1975, The development of spatial representation of large-scale environments, Advances in child development and behavior, 10, 9- 55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60007-5