Introduction
Rapid urbanization, the physical expansion of cities, and the dominance of dense construction patterns have, in many contemporary cities, weakened the relationship between humans and nature, reduced per capita green space, intensified environmental pollution, and diminished the quality of urban living experiences. Urban quality of life is a multidimensional concept that encompasses not only economic conditions and access to services, but also physical and mental health, perceived safety, environmental satisfaction, social interaction, sense of place attachment, environmental quality, and climatic comfort. The presence of natural elements—including vegetation, water, natural light and ventilation, green views, natural materials, public open spaces, green roofs, and green walls—can improve air quality, mitigate the urban heat-island effect, moderate climatic conditions, reduce psychological stress, promote social interaction, and strengthen place attachment. Despite its valuable natural, climatic, and cultural capacities, the city of Amol has recently faced challenges such as the expansion of dense construction, unequal distribution of green spaces, declining environmental quality, and insufficient attention to human-centered and nature-oriented dimensions in urban design. Accordingly, this study investigates the effects of integrating nature into architectural and urban design on citizens’ quality of life in Amol and identifies spatial differences in these effects across the city’s districts.
Methodology
This applied study employed a descriptive–analytical quantitative approach. The statistical population consisted of residents of Amol, and the sample size was determined as 385 participants using Cochran’s formula. Simple random sampling was used, and questionnaires were distributed across different urban areas in consideration of the social, economic, and physical diversity of neighborhoods. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire containing 82 items: 42 items measured the variable of nature integration in architecture and urban design, while 40 items assessed quality of life. Nature integration was examined across five dimensions: physical–spatial, biophilic design, visual and landscape, climatic comfort, and psychological dimensions. The indicators included per capita green space and access to it, continuity of vegetation cover, use of natural light, plants in façades and balconies, views of natural landscapes, the presence of water in public spaces, natural shading, air circulation, feelings of tranquility, and reduced environmental stress. Questionnaire reliability was confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha, with a coefficient of 0.89 for the entire instrument. The alpha coefficients for nature integration and quality of life were 0.87 and 0.84, respectively. Convergent validity was also confirmed, with values exceeding 0.50. Data were analyzed using SPSS software and descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, multiple regression analysis, and indicator ranking.
Discussion and result
Descriptive results indicated that the mean quality-of-life score in Amol was 3.5 out of 5, suggesting a moderate-to-desirable level of quality of life. Among the examined dimensions, safety and security achieved the highest mean score (3.8), followed by social participation (3.6), access to services (3.5), and economic
status (3.4). In contrast, environmental quality received the lowest score (3.2). Nature integration had a mean score of 3.3, indicating a moderate condition and a meaningful gap between the current situation and the desirable level of nature-oriented architecture and urban design in Amol. Correlation analysis revealed a positive and relatively strong relationship between nature integration and quality of life. Moreover, nature integration was positively associated with environmental quality, access to services, social participation, and safety and security. These findings demonstrate that the presence of nature in the built environment is not merely an aesthetic component; rather, it is connected to the environmental, social, and functional dimensions of urban life. Multiple regression analysis confirmed the high explanatory power of the model, with an adjusted coefficient of determination of 0.60. Thus, the variables examined explained approximately 60% of the variation in quality of life. Nature integration, with a standardized coefficient of 0.41, was identified as the strongest predictor of quality of life in Amol. Environmental quality and access to urban services also had positive and significant effects. This result highlights the fundamental role of nature-oriented design in improving psychological well-being, environmental satisfaction, and urban livability. The ranking of citizens’ priorities showed that access to urban services ranked first, with a mean score of 4.2, while nature integration in design ranked second, with a score of 4.1. In addition, 89% of respondents considered the presence of natural elements in architecture and the urban environment necessary. Furthermore, 30% of citizens identified the expansion of green spaces and the integration of nature as the city’s second major need after improvements in urban infrastructure. These findings indicate that nature-oriented development in Amol has moved beyond a mere visual preference and has become a public demand closely associated with quality of life. A comparison of the city’s four districts also revealed substantial spatial inequality. District 3, with a mean quality-of-life score of 4.0, was in a highly desirable condition because of its greater access to natural elements, vegetation, and higher-quality public spaces. In contrast, District 4 recorded the lowest quality-of-life score (3.2). High building density, inadequate open spaces, and the scarcity of natural elements in this district underscore the need for nature-based urban regeneration and greater attention to spatial justice.
Conclusion
The Conclusion demonstrate that integrating nature into architectural and urban design is the most important predictor of quality of life in Amol. Therefore, urban policies should move beyond purely physical, construction-oriented, and development-driven approaches toward human-centered, biophilic, and ecological design. Nature should be understood not as a decorative feature, but as a social, psychological, environmental, and identity-forming infrastructure within Amol’s urban planning. Accordingly, the study recommends increasing per capita green space; creating small-scale neighborhood parks; developing green roofs and walls; protecting existing trees and natural corridors; using native plant species; improving pedestrian access to green spaces; designing public spaces with shade, water features, and natural light; and requiring new projects to provide natural ventilation and daylighting. District 4 should be prioritized for nature-based regeneration interventions. By reducing spatial inequalities, improving environmental quality, and increasing residents’ access to natural elements, these measures can contribute to a more balanced improvement in quality of life across the city of Amol.