از فضای کالبدی تا کنش رفتاری: تحلیل کتاب‌سنجی رفتارهای طرفدار محیط‌زیست در برنامه‌ریزی فضایی

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسنده

گروه برنامه ریزی آمایش سرزمین، دانشگاه بین المللی چابهار، چابهار، سیستان و بلوچستان، ایران

چکیده

این پژوهش به بازخوانی جایگاه بعد رفتاری، با تأکید بر رفتارهای حامی محیط‌زیست، در ادبیات برنامه‌ریزی فضایی می‌پردازد و نشان می‌دهد که این حوزه چگونه از رویکردهای کالبدی و ساختار محور به‌سوی درکی انسان‌محور، زمینه‌مند و میان‌رشته‌ای در حال گذار است. به‌منظور دستیابی به این هدف، از یک رویکرد روش‌شناختی ترکیبی استفاده‌شده است؛ ابتدا با استفاده از تحلیل کتاب‌سنجی، ۱۱۰۵ سند نمایه شده در پایگاه اسکوپوس برای ترسیم ساختار دانش، خوشه‌های فکری و شبکه‌های استنادی واکاوی گردید. سپس، در فاز دوم، با تحلیل محتوای کیفی مقالات هسته مرکزی هر خوشه، پتانسیل‌های نظری برای تبیین چگونگی تأثیرگذاری برنامه‌ریزی فضایی بر رفتار استخراج شد. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که طی دهه‌های اخیر توجه به مفاهیمی چون رفتار فضایی، تصمیم‌گیری، پایداری، محیط ساخته‌شده و رفتارهای حامی محیط‌زیست به‌طور چشمگیری افزایش‌یافته و بعد رفتاری از یک مؤلفه حاشیه‌ای به یکی از محورهای اصلی بازاندیشی در برنامه‌ریزی فضایی تبدیل‌شده است. همچنین نتایج بیانگر آن است که محیط ساخته‌شده نه‌تنها بازتاب سیاست‌ها و تصمیمات برنامه‌ریزی است، بلکه به‌عنوان عاملی فعال در شکل‌دهی، تسهیل یا تضعیف رفتارهای حامی محیط‌زیست عمل می‌کند. از این منظر، برنامه‌ریزی فضایی معاصر دیگر نمی‌تواند صرفاً بر سامان‌دهی کالبدی فضا تکیه کند، بلکه باید سازوکارهای ادراک، معنا، انتخاب و کنش انسانی را نیز در کانون تحلیل و مداخله قرار دهد. در مجموع، این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که توجه به بعد رفتاری، به‌ویژه در پیوند با تقویت رفتارهای حامی محیط‌زیست، صرفاً یک گرایش نوظهور نیست، بلکه بخشی از یک تحول پارادایمی بنیادین و میان‌رشته‌ای در بنیان‌های نظری برنامه‌ریزی فضایی به شمار می‌رود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

From Physical Space to Behavioral Action: A Bibliometric Analysis of Pro-environmental Behaviors in Spatial Planning

نویسنده [English]

  • Ali Mokhtari Karchegani
Department of Land Use Planning, International University of Chabahar, Chabahar, Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran
چکیده [English]

A B S T R A C T
This research revisits the role of the behavioral dimension — with emphasis on pro-environmental behaviors — in spatial planning literature, demonstrating how this field is transitioning from physical and structure-oriented approaches toward a human-centered, context-sensitive, and interdisciplinary understanding within spatial systems. To achieve this aim, a mixed methods approach was employed. Initially, using bibliometric analysis, 1,105 documents indexed in the Scopus database were examined to map the knowledge structure, intellectual clusters, and citation networks. Subsequently, in the second phase, through qualitative content analysis of the core articles within each cluster was conducted to extract theoretical potentials for explaining how spatial planning influences behavior. The findings indicate that over recent decades, attention to concepts such as spatial behavior, decision-making, sustainability, the built environment, and pro-environmental behaviors has grown, and the behavioral dimension has shifted from a peripheral component to one of the central axes of rethinking in spatial planning. The results also suggest that the built environment is not a reflection of planning policies and decisions, but acts as an active agent in shaping, facilitating, or undermining pro-environmental behaviors. From this perspective, contemporary spatial planning can no longer rely solely on the physical organization of space; rather, it must place the mechanisms of perception, meaning, choice, and human action at the center of analysis and intervention. Overall, this research demonstrates that attention to the behavioral dimension particularly in connection with strengthening pro-environmental behaviors is not merely an emerging trend, but constitutes part of a paradigmatic shift in the theoretical foundations of spatial planning.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Spatial planning has traditionally focused on physical, structural, and economic dimensions, treating space as a neutral container for the allocation of activities. However, the emergence of complex environmental challenges, climate change, and urban instability in recent decades has demonstrated that purely physical patterns are ineffective without an understanding of human behavior in space. Recent developments in this field indicate a behavioral and epistemological turn in which the analysis of the reciprocal relationship between the built environment and human spatial behavior has become a priority. Despite the growing importance of this issue, the global literature still lacks a comprehensive and systematic picture of how spatial planning is connected to behavioral approaches. To fill this gap, this study seeks to map and analyze the knowledge structure, evolutionary trends, major research foci, and the driving role of pro-environmental behaviors in redefining the behavioral dimension of spatial planning through a combined approach of bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Furthermore, this study contributes to the ongoing theoretical transition in spatial planning by examining how behavioral perspectives have expanded the scope of planning beyond physical interventions. By identifying emerging concepts, intellectual connections, and research trajectories, the study provides insights into the integration of behavioral knowledge for developing more adaptive, sustainable, and human-centered spatial planning frameworks.
 
Methodology
This study adopted a combined approach of bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review to map the knowledge structure of the field and trace its conceptual evolution. Data were collected from the Scopus database, selected for its thematic breadth, indexing quality, and citation retrieval capacity. The search strategy combined topic-related keywords — including spatial planning, territorial management, spatial behavior, and pro-environmental behavior — to capture a broad spectrum of studies at the intersection of spatial planning and human behavior. The integration of these methods was intended to overcome the limitations of single-method approaches by combining quantitative mapping of scientific knowledge with qualitative interpretation of theoretical developments. This methodological framework allowed the study to examine both the measurable patterns of knowledge production and the underlying conceptual shifts that have shaped the relationship between spatial planning and behavioral research.
The retrieved documents were then filtered through defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion was restricted to English-language research articles, review articles, and book chapters indexed under the subject areas of environmental sciences, social sciences, and agricultural and biological sciences. Open-access availability was applied as an additional criterion to ensure full-text accessibility and analytical transparency, yielding a final sample of 1,015 valid documents.
At the analysis stage, bibliometric data were examined to identify temporal trends, geographical distribution of scientific output, author collaboration networks, keyword co-occurrence patterns, and intellectual clusters. Bibliometric techniques - including co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and clustering analyses - were performed. In parallel, the systematic literature review provided qualitative interpretation of the findings, extracted dominant themes, and explained the field’s gradual shift from physical toward behavioral perspectives. Together, these two methods enabled not only a comprehensive mapping of the field’s scientific structure, but also a clarification of its theoretical transformations, knowledge gaps, and prospective research directions.
 
Results and discussion
The structural analysis of keywords indicates a deep interconnection between urban planning, sustainable development, and land-use management on the one hand, and behavioral patterns on the other. The keywords with the highest frequency and strongest link included, first, urban planning and land use, which, due to their highest level of connectivity, reflect the continued concentration of spatial interventions on physical structure; second, sustainable development and sustainability, which appear as the ultimate objective of integrating the behavioral dimension into spatial planning; third, travel behavior and walking, which indicate a strong emphasis on mobility-related behaviors and spatial dynamics; and fourth, decision-making, which highlights the importance of human choice processes in response to spatial interventions.
From a geographical perspective, the United States, with 183 documents and 7,223 citations, and the United Kingdom, with 131 documents and 5,425 citations, are the leading contributors to scientific production in this field, followed by China, Germany, and Spain. Findings from the intellectual clustering and trend analysis further show that pro-environmental behaviors have played an accelerating role in the theoretical transition of this field. The literature reveals that research has moved from simple and linear models of behavior explanation toward interactive models based on the relationship between the built environment and psychological characteristics. Within this framework, the built environment and urban green spaces are no longer viewed merely as decorative or ecological elements; rather, they function as enabling or constraining settings for green behaviors such as reducing energy consumption, walking, and recycling.
 
Conclusion
Rethinking the behavioral dimension in spatial planning reflects a paradigmatic shift from physical-spatial planning toward human-centered and context-sensitive planning. The results revealed that without understanding citizens’ perceptual mechanisms, preferences, and spatial behaviors, spatial policies are unlikely to succeed in accomplishing sustainable development goals. In this context, pro-environmental behaviors have served as an epistemological bridge, linking the psychological dimensions of human action with the objective structures of spatial planning. Contemporary spatial planning should therefore move beyond an exclusive focus on physical change and instead concentrate on creating appropriate spatial settings that encourage and facilitate sustainable behaviors. This study provides a pathway for planners, policymakers, and urban designers to adopt behavior-oriented spatial policies and thereby enhance the effectiveness of sustainable development interventions.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
The author solely performed all aspects of this research, including study design, data collection, statistical analysis, and manuscript preparation.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Spatial Planning
  • Pro-environmental Behaviors
  • Built Environment
  • Sustainability
  • Bibliometric Analysis
  1. باقری، دانیال؛ محسنی، رضاعلی و مهدوی، سید محمدصادق. (1397). ارتباط مؤلفه‌های اجتماعی-اقتصادی با رفتار حامی محیط‌زیست شهروندان شهر گرگان. فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی زیست پزشکی جرجانی، 6 (1)، 43-33.
  2. شیخ بیگلو، رعنا و سلطانی، زهرا. (1399). تعلق مکانی و رفتارهای حامی محیط‌زیست: تبیین ابعاد و اثرات (مطالعه موردی: بازدیدکنندگان پارک کوهستانی صفه شهر اصفهان). جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی محیطی، 31 (4)، 42-25. https://doi:10.22108/gep.2021.125479.1364
  3. عابدی سروستانی، احمد و شهرکی، محمدرضا. (1401). رفتارهای حامی محیط‌زیست در بین شهروندان و ارتباط آن با ارزش‌های اخلاقی مطالعه موردی: شهر گرگان. مجله شهر پایدار، 5 (4)، 91-106. https://doi:10.22034/jsc.2022.285043.1466
  4. مختاری کرچگانی، علی؛ توکلی، مرتضی و احمدی پور، زهرا. (1399). تحلیل معرفت‌شناسی طرح‌های آمایش سرزمین ایران. مجله برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا، 24 (3)، 27-63. DOI:20.1001.1.16059689.1399.24.3.3.5
  5. مختاری کرچگانی، علی؛ توکلی، مرتضی و احمدی پور، زهرا. (1399). مقایسه دستگاه‌های معرفت‌شناسی با محک روش‌شناسی در برنامه‌ریزی فضایی. مجله جغرافیا و توسعه، 18 (59)، 185-210. https://doi:10.22111/gdij.2020.5470
  6. Abedi Sarvestani, A., & Shahraki, M. (2023). Environmentally-friendly behaviors among citizens and the relationship with moral values: The case study of Gorgan City. Journal of Sustainable City, 5(4), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.22034/jsc.2022.285043.1466 [In Persian]
  7. Ahn, A., Mori, K., Matsushita, K., Hori, J., & Fukamachi, K. (2025). Impacts of urban park use on pro-environmental behaviors. Sustainability, 17(24), 11267. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172411267
  8. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  9. Alcock, I., White, M. P., Pahl, S., Duarte-Davidson, R., & Fleming, L. E. (2020). Associations between pro-environmental behaviour and neighbourhood nature, nature visit frequency and nature appreciation: Evidence from a nationally representative survey in England. Environment International, 136, 105441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105441
  10. Andersson, E., Haase, D., Anderson, P., Cortinovis, C., Goodness, J., Kendal, D., & Wellmann, T. (2021). What are the traits of a social-ecological system: Towards a framework in support of urban sustainability. NPJ Urban Sustainability, 1(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-020-00008-4
  11. Badri, B., & Chiranthanut, C. (2024). Bibliometric analysis of publications related to sociopetal and sociofugal spaces. Journal of Architectural/Planning Research and Studies, 21(1), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.56261/jars.v21.257992
  12. Bagheri, D., Mohseni, R. A., & Mahdavi, S. M. S. (2017). Association of socioeconomic status and pro-environmental behaviors in the citizens of Gorgan, Iran. Jorjani Biomed, 6(1), 33–43.  [In Persian]
  13. Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A UK case study of household waste management. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 435–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505283421
  14. Batty, M. (2013). The new science of cities. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9399.001.0001
  15. Chen, C., Zhang, Y., & Li, W. (2022). The influence of neighborhood built environment on residents' pro-environmental behavior: Evidence from urban China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 76, 103476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103476
  16. Colding, J., Giusti, M., Haga, A., Wallhagen, M., & Barthel, S. (2020). Enabling relationships with nature in cities. Sustainability, 12(11), 4394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114394
  17. Dikken, J., Kazak, J. K., Ivan, L., Ayalon, L., Pavlovski, D., Perek-Białas, J. M., & van Hoof, J. (2024). Perspectives of older people on environmental sustainability: A cross-cultural validation study between five countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 447, Article 141317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141317
  18. Ferreira, L. J., & Liu, J. (2023). Social determinants, motivation, and communication: How people perceive and choose sustainable mobility at a local level in Portugal. Sustainability, 15(18), Article 13294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813294
  19. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
  20. Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002
  21. Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T., & Sorrell, S. (2017). Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science, 357(6357), 1242–1244. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao3760
  22. Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034
  23. Jayakody, D. Y., Adams, V. M., Pecl, G., & Lester, E. (2024). What makes a place special? Understanding drivers and the nature of place attachment. Applied Geography, 163, Article 103177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103177
  24. John, P., Smith, G., & Stoker, G. (2009). Nudge nudge, think think: Two strategies for changing civic behaviour. The Political Quarterly, 80(3), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02001.x
  25. Kaaronen, R. O., & Strelkovskii, N. (2020). Cultural evolution of sustainable behaviors: Pro-environmental tipping points in an agent-based model. One Earth, 2(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.01.003
  26. Karchegani, A. M., Tavakoli, M., Pourtaheri, M., & Valverde, F. A. N. (2025). Navigating paradigmatic boundaries: A critical analysis of rural development models in Iran's spatial planning projects. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202502.2297.v1
  27. Karchegani, A. M., Tavakoli, M., Pourtaheri, M., & Valverde, F. N. (2024). Rethinking rural development: Analyzing paradigmatic intersections in Iran's spatial planning projects. Journal of Research & Rural Planning, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.22067/jrrp.v13i4.2410-1111
  28. Khogali, M. M., Mohamed Ali, E. A., & Ramdani, A. (2025). Integrating behavioral science into urban planning: A framework for human-centered spatial design. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1632523. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1632523
  29. Krchegani, A. M., & Savari, M. (2025). Integrating the protection motivation model with place attachment theory to examine rural residents' intentions toward low-carbon behaviors: Empirical evidence from Iran. Results in Engineering, 107180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.107180
  30. Lahoti, S. A., Dhyani, S., Sahle, M., Kumar, P., & Saito, O. (2024). Exploring the nexus between green space availability, connection with nature, and pro-environmental behavior in the urban landscape. Sustainability, 16(13), Article 5435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135435
  31. Lange, F., & Dewitte, S. (2019). Measuring pro-environmental behavior: Review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 63, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.009
  32. Mkhtari Karchegani, A., Tavakoli, M., & Ahmadipour, Z. (2020). Comparison of epistemological system's with methodological benchmarks in spatial planning. Geography and Development, 18(59), 185–210. https://doi.org/10.22111/GDIJ.2020.5470 [In Persian]
  33. Mokhtari Karchegani, A., Tavakoli, M., & Ahmadipour, Z. (2020). Epistemological analysis of spatial planning plan in Iran's. The Journal of Spatial Planning and Geomatics, 24(3), 27–63. https://doi.org/10.22111/gdij.2020.5470 [In Persian]
  34. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748
  35. Oreskovic, L., & Gupta, R. (2022). Enabling sustainable lifestyles in new urban areas: Evaluation of an eco-development case study in the UK. Sustainability, 14(7), Article 4143. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074143
  36. Parida, S., Chan, C., Ananthram, S., & Brown, K. (2023). In the search for greener buildings: The role of green human resource management. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(8), 5952–5968. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3467
  37. Rajapaksa, D., Islam, M., & Managi, S. (2018). Pro-environmental behavior: The role of public perception in infrastructure and the social factors for sustainable development. Sustainability, 10(4), Article 937. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040937
  38. Richardson, M. (2025). Modelling nature connectedness within environmental systems: Human-nature relationships from 1800 to 2020 and beyond. Earth, 6(3), Article 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030082
  39. Sheikh Beiglou, R., & Soltani, Z. (2021). Place attachment and pro-environmental behaviors: Explaining dimensions and effects (Case study: Visitors to Sofeh Mountain Park in Isfahan City). Geography and Environmental Planning, 31(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.22108/gep.2021.125479.1364 [In Persian]
  40. Simpson, J., & Uttley, J. (2025). Designing for pro-environmental behaviour change: The aspiration–reality gap. Buildings and Cities, 6(1), 1117–1134. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.684
  41. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
  42. Tavakoli, M., & Mokhtari Karchegani, A. (2024). Analysis of the effectiveness of indigenous knowledge in the coastal villages of Chabahar County in reducing flood risk. International Journal of Coastal, Offshore and Environmental Engineering (IJCOE), 9(3), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijcoe.2024.459937.1084
  43. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin. https://openlibrary.org/works/OL8993487W
  44. van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006
  45. Van Hoof, J., & Dikken, J. (2024). Revealing sustainable mindsets among older adults concerning the built environment: The identification of six typologies through a comprehensive survey. Building and Environment, 256, Article 111496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111496
  46. Wang, C., & Yin, L. (2023). Defining urban big data in urban planning: Literature review. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 149(1), 04022044. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000896
  47. Whitburn, J., Linklater, W., & Abrahamse, W. (2020). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and pro-environmental behavior. Conservation Biology, 34(1), 180–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13381
  48. Zhao, R., Li, Y., & Sun, C. (2023). Urban built environment and residents' environmental behavior: The mediating role of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Management, 344, Article 118503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118503
  49. Zhou, Y., Wang, R., & Li, F. (2022). Urban green infrastructure and pro-environmental behavior: Pathways through environmental awareness and place attachment. Sustainable Cities and Society, 83, Article 103944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103944
  50. Zhu, Y., Zhang, H., & Wu, J. (2023). Neighborhood environment and pro-environmental behavior: Evidence from a multi-city survey. Environment and Behavior, 55(7), 1154–1178. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165221123456