Perception of Semantic and Semiotic Indicators of Identity in the Visual System of Diplomatic Buildings
Keywords:
diplomatic buildings, identification , visual system of the environment , semiotic indicators, SemanticAbstract
This study aimed to identify and explain the semantic and semiotic indicators of the visual system and determine the contribution of each indicator to identity formation in diplomatic buildings. This developmental–applied study employed a mixed-methods design in which a qualitative phase was nested within a quantitative phase. During the qualitative phase, the research variables were identified and validated through a review of the theoretical literature, interviews with 46 professors of architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, and urban planning, and a Delphi process comprising brainstorming, factor reduction, and indicator ranking. Open and axial coding of the interviews identified 13 components: purposefulness, unity/multiplicity, explicitness, hierarchy, harmony, boundaries and privacy, natural elements, reflection, geometric patterns, mirrors, encoding, symbols, and the concept of space. During the quantitative phase, a Likert-scale questionnaire was randomly administered to 373 visitors to selected diplomatic buildings. The questionnaire demonstrated a content validity index of 0.75 and a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.78. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation and stepwise regression in SPSS version 25. Pearson correlation analysis revealed that the strongest significant relationship was between the concept of space and unity/multiplicity (r=0.954, p<0.01). A strong correlation was also found between encoding and harmony (r=0.895), while geometric patterns were significantly associated with spatial hierarchy (r=0.875, p<0.01). Regression analysis indicated that all identified components significantly contributed to explaining identity formation in the visual system of diplomatic buildings (p<0.001). The concept of space demonstrated the greatest explanatory contribution, with a coefficient of determination of 1.000, followed by encoding (0.968), explicitness (0.846), geometric patterns (0.795), and reflection (0.770). Natural elements showed the smallest explanatory contribution, with a coefficient of 0.457. The visual identity of diplomatic buildings is shaped primarily through spatial conceptualization, the encoding of cultural meanings, explicit spatial organization, and the purposeful application of symbols and geometric patterns. Accordingly, the design of diplomatic buildings should move beyond the superficial reproduction of historical forms and establish an integrated relationship among meaning, physical form, function, cultural identity, and users’ environmental perceptions.
Downloads
References
1. Ameri Siahoui HR, Ahmadi Sarkhouni F, Sayebani B, editors. Examining the performance of urban signs in people's perception of the urban environment: The case of Bandar Abbas. Conference on Architectural and Urban Research in Islamic and Historical Iran; 2017; Shiraz, Iran.
2. Kazemi A, Behzadfar M. Reconceptualizing the system of environmental meanings in historical environments with emphasis on audiences' social transformations: The case of Saighalan neighborhood in Rasht. Urban Studies. 2013(6):75-87.
3. Doulabi P, Shaeri Z, Hajebzadeh A. Re-reading the ornaments of the visual system in the historical fabric of Bushehr with emphasis on the mental approach. Urban Landscape Research. 2015(4):35-47.
4. Mousavi Sarvineh Baghi ES, Sadeghi A. Presenting a design process for urban facades to enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities of the urban landscape: The case of Ahmadabad Street in Mashhad. Urban Management. 2016(43):99-114.
5. Yousefi A, Sadeghinejad M. A critical review of Lynch's city-image theories: Semiotics of citizens' perceptual maps and the reconstruction of the city's physical identity. Urban Sociological Studies. 2017(22):47-72.
6. Kalali P, Modiri A. Explaining the role of meaning in the process of forming a sense of place. Fine Arts. 2012(50):43-52.
7. Kouhifard E. Identity in Iranian architecture. Tehran, Iran: Negah-e-Bustan Publications; 2018.
8. Lynch K. A theory of good city form. Tehran, Iran: University of Tehran Press; 2016.
9. Majedi H, Zarrabadi ZS. An inquiry into urban semiotics. Armanshahr. 2010(4):49-56.
10. Laripour N, Dadvar A. A semiotic analysis of form and meaning in Vakil Mosque of Shiraz. Islamic Art Studies. 2019(32):70-97.
11. Vahdat S, Rezaei-Rad H. Enhancing visual values in urban view corridors using QSAM: The case of Enqelab Square in Zanjan. Geographical Planning of Space. 2017(23):69-86.
12. Ghashghaei R, Movahed K, Moztarzadeh H. Developing urban landscape design criteria to stimulate a sense of place attachment. Urban Management. 2018(50):435-60.
13. Rezvani A. The spirit of the city: Redefining the city and urban space and identifying life-giving indicators. Green Architecture. 2016(4):55-79.
14. Mohammadhasani E, Toghraei A, Mirgholami M. A typological analysis of factors affecting the legibility of urban signs: The case of Valiasr Street in Tehran, from Vanak Square to Tajrish Square. Identity of the City. 2016(25):61-74.
15. Stedman R, Beckley T. A picture and photography to understand attachment to high-amenity places. Journal of Leisure Research. 2004.
16. Caduff D, Timpf S. On the assessment of landmark salience for human navigation. Cognitive Processing. 2008;9:249-67.
17. Appleyard D. Streets can kill cities: Third World beware. ABADI. 2002(39):73-83.
18. Amiri Khoshkar Vandani S. Examining the cognitive concept of sign and code in architecture and urban planning with emphasis on Islamic architecture and the Islamic city. Urban Management. 2016(43):423-44.
19. Soleimani MR, Etesam I, Habib F. Reconceptualizing the concept and principles of identity in architectural works. Identity of the City. 2016(25):15-26.
20. Foroughmand Aarabi H. The philosophical origins of methodology in architectural and urban-design semiotics. Urban Management. 2016(43):199-224.
21. Hamdjani Y, Bayazidi G, Sahabi J. A qualitative study of the semantic implications of the architecture of Hawraman Takht from a semiotic perspective. 2017(57):45-63.
22. Frank EA. Many pathways from land use to health. Journal of the American Planning Association. 2006;7.
23. Kumar R. Walkability of neighborhoods: A critical analysis of zoning codes: University of Cincinnati; 2009.
24. Shahbanian P, Golipour M, editors. Visual management of the city with emphasis on building facades. Fifth International Congress on Civil Engineering, Architecture, and Urban Development; 2017; Tehran, Iran.
25. Kamour Shalmani A, Hanaachi S. Examining the effect of visual factors in urban spaces on citizens' behavioral patterns. Identity of the City. 2015(24):65-78.
26. Zal-Nejad K, Deliri AS, Irani S. From urban symbols to urban facades: An analysis of the role and position of urban symbols in city identity. Bon. 2012(1):42-54.
27. Kalin A, Yilmaz D. A study on visibility analysis of urban landmarks. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture. 2012;29:241-71.
28. Cullen G. Selections from townscape. Tehran, Iran: University of Tehran Press; 2011.
29. Powell N. Single-minded, compelling, and unique: Visual communications, landscape, and the calculated aesthetic of place branding. Environmental Communication. 2003;7:231-54.
30. Raskin H, Smith LDG, Weiler B. Relationships between place attachment, place satisfaction, and pro-environmental behavior in an Australian national park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 1994;21:434-57.
31. Norberg-Schulz C. Selections from architecture: Meaning and place. Tehran, Iran: Parham Naghsh Publications; 2014.
32. Rapoport A. The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. Tehran, Iran: Urban Processing and Planning Company Publications; 2013.
Downloads
Publication Timeline
- Submitted
- Revised
- Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Nasim Najafgholipour Kalantari; Milad Taghizadieh (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
