Rating of the satisfaction of elderly residents with the quality of the residential environment in the urban neighborhoods of Rasht metropolis based on the indicators of the eco-oriented city(case: Hamidian and Aynak neighborhoods)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Technical and Vocational University(TVU), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
In recent years, Rasht has experienced rapid urbanization and extensive construction operations. However, this growth has been uneven and exogenous, leading to challenges such as migration from small cities, disregard for ecological principles in settlements, unbalanced population and urban area growth, expansion of peri-urban areas, decreased road network efficiency, and increased conversion of gardens and agricultural lands. The city and its surrounding areas have experienced a transformation in land use, with residential, commercial, and service purposes becoming prominent. This has resulted in suburban and peri-urban areas becoming residential areas and satellite towns and has helped improve the quality of residential environments. However, this trend has also affected the suburbs of Hamidian and Aynak, where residential structures have gradually overtaken work centers, leading to physical overcrowding and neglect. When looking at residential areas and their overall environmental quality, it can impact how satisfied residents are with their neighborhoods. Therefore, addressing this issue is essential. Currently, there has been no study or evaluation of the environmental quality based on ecological city indicators in these areas.
Thus, conducting a basic assessment of the environmental quality in these neighborhoods seems essential. It is necessary based on these indicators. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the satisfaction of the residents with the quality of the residential environment of the peri-urban neighborhoods of Rasht metropolis based on the indicators of the eco-oriented city, and this study is to answer the general question of the level of satisfaction of the residents with the quality of the residential environment of the Hamidian and Aynak neighborhoods with an emphasis on the index How are the ecological ones?
 
Methodology
The purpose of the research is applied and descriptive-analytical in nature, and the method used is quantitative research. The data analysis was performed using the Mamdani fuzzy model and SPSS software. For the current study, the statistical population is divided into two parts. Firstly, residents from Hamidian and Aynak neighborhoods were randomly sampled using Cochran's method, resulting in a sample population 384. Secondly, 20 experts in this field were chosen through targeted sampling to make up the second part of the statistical population.
 
Results and discussion
The survey results indicate that residents were generally satisfied with all aspects except for citizen interaction and respectful communication, which received an average score of 3.15. Other areas that scored lower than the average value of 3 include public participation, social interactions in green spaces with natural elements, self-employed art markets, and local and organic markets for farmers to sell their products, all with an average score of 3.12. Additionally, the number and quality of green spaces received an average score of 3.11. The study indicated that the satisfaction of residents varies across different sub-criteria. Interaction and public communication received the highest score of 4.56, while trust in water resources received the lowest score of 2.96. The social criterion received the highest overall satisfaction score of 4.89, while the criterion of urban development and infrastructure received the lowest score of 2.32. Additionally, the spatial analysis revealed that the eco-oriented criteria in the Hamidian neighborhood were more favorable than in the Aynak neighborhood.
 
Conclusion
Creating eco-friendly city standards is crucial for improving the living conditions in the suburbs of Hamidian and Aynak in Rasht. In the long run, ignoring these standards could jeopardize these areas' sustainability and cause urban decay. Therefore, the urban management of Rasht needs to prioritize ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and implementation of eco-friendly city standards.

Keywords

Main Subjects


ارژنگی، حجت. محمدی، علیرضا. 1399. ارزیابی کیفیت محیط شهری (مطالعه موردی: منطقه چهار شهر اردبیل). فصلنامه توسعه پایدار محیط جغرافیایی. سال 2. شماره 3. صص 1-18.
افشین اخگر، رضا. شیعه، اسماعیل. رضایی، محمود. 1398. ارزیابی رویکرد شهر بوم­مبنا بر اساس توسعه پایدار به روش تحلیل ارزیابی یکپارچه محیطی (IEA). نشریه علمی باغ نظر. شماره 16. 74. صص 43-54.
برق­جلوه، شهین دخت. منصوری، مینا. اسلامی، سید یحیی. 1395. نقش شبکه­های بوم­شناختی در طرح­ریزی محیط­شناختی-هویت­بخشی منطقه شهری (مطالعه موردی: منطقه شهری پولادشهر اصفهان). محیط­شناسی. (1). صص 177-194.
تقوایی، علی­اکبر.  معروفی، سکینه. پهلوان، سمیه. 1391. ارزیابی تأثیر کیفیت محیط شهری بر روابط اجتماعی شهروندان موردمطالعه: محله آبکوه شهر مشهد. نقش‌جهان. 3 (1). صص 43-54.
سعیدی، مهدی. انصاری، مژگان. ترابی­نژاد. 1400. بررسی میزان تحقق­یافتگی شاخص­های شهر بوم گرا و ارائه چارچوب مفهومی توسعه آن مبتنی بر میزان رضایتمندی ساکنین (مطالعه موردیک محله ازگل تهران). نشریه علمی معماری و شهرسازی ایران. دوره 12. شماره 2. صص 5-23.
رفیعیان، مجتبی. مولودی، جمشید. پورطاهری،مهدی. 1389. سنجش کیفیت محیط شهری در شهر­های جدید، مطالعه موردی شهر جدید هشتگرد. برنامه­ریزی و آمایش فضا. 15 (3). صص19-37.
رنجبران، محیا. مهدی­نژاد درزی، جمال­الدین. کریمی، باقر. جمهیری، محمود. 1399. بررسی مؤلفه‌های منظر بوم­گرا در هویت بخشی به محیط در اقلیم گرم و مرطوب (موردمطالعه: بندر کنگ). جغرافیا (برنامه­ریزی منطقه­ای)، سال 10. شماره 4. صص 623-637.
علی­زاده، توحید. بابایی­اقدم، فریدون. علی­زاده، جابر.رنجبرنیا، بهزاد.  1393. ارزیابی کیفیت محیط زندگی در روستا-شهر­ها از دیدگاه ساکنین بر اساس تنکیک­های مبتنی بر منطق فازی (مطالعه موردی: روستا-شهر اصلاندوز). مسکن و محیط روستا. دوره 33. شماره 147..  صص 74-59.
علینقی­پور، مریم. پوررمضان، عیسی. مولائی هشجین، نصرالله. 1400. تبیین زیست­پذیری سکونتگاه­های روستایی پیرامون کلانشهر رشت. مجله توسعه فضا­های پیراشهری. سال سوم. شماره 2. صص 107-128.
شریفیان بارفروش، سیده شفق، مفیدی شمیرانی، سید مجید. 1393. معیار­های شاکله بوم­شهر از دیدگاه نظریه­پردازان. باغ نظر. 11 (31). صص 99-108.
طهری، فضیلت. نسترن، مهین. اجلالی، پرویز. 1400. تدوین و سنجش سنجه­های ارزیابی کیفیت محیط از دیدگاه برنامه­ریزی شهری تنوع­گرا در شهر رشت. فصلنامه جغرافیا و آمایش شهری-منطقه­ای. سال 11. شماره 40.
مشکینی، ابوالفضل. میدان، اصغر رستم. احدنژاد، محسن. محمود­زاده، حسن. تبیین الگوی بوم­شهر زیست‌پذیری کلان‌شهر تبریز با مدل فازی. دو فصلنامه علمی پژوهش­های بوم­شناسی شهری. سال 12. شماره 1. پیاپی 23. صص 85-104.
موسوی، میرسعید. 1397. بررسی سطح تحقق توسعه پایدار شهر تبریز بر اساس شاخص ردپای بوم­شناختی. فصلنامه جغرافیا و مطالعات محیطی. سال 7. شماره 27.
Botequilha L. A. & Ahern, J. 2002. Applying Landscape Ecological Concepts and Metrics in Sustainable Landscape Planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 65-93.
Briquel, V. & Collicard, J. J. 2015. Diversity in the rural hinterlands of European cities. In K. Hoggart (Ed.), The City’s
Bertrand, N. 2007. Introduction: ESDP ideals and the inheritance of rural planning failures. In N. Bertrand & V. Kreibich (Eds.), Europe’s City-Regions Competitiveness: Growth Regulation and Peri-Urban Land Management. PP. 1-35.
Barton, H. 2000.  Sustainable communities: the potential for eco-neighbourhoods. London: Earthscan
Condon, P. M. 2012.  Seven rules for sustainable communities: design strategies for the postcarbon world. Island Press.
CEMAT. 2007. Spatial development glossary. Retrived fom http://www.ectp-ceu.eu/images/stories/Glossary-CEMAT/ Glossary-English.pdf
Caruso, G. 2015. Peri-Urbanisation: the situation in Europe. A bibliographical note and survey of studies in the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Germany, Italy and the Nordic countries
Engwicht, D. 1992.  Towards an eco-city: calming the traffic. Sydney: Envirobook
Li, Y., Commenges, H., Bordignon, F., Bonhomme, C. & Deroubaix, J. 2019.  The Tianjin Eco- City model in the academic literature on urban sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 59-74.
Liao, Y., & Chern, S. 2015. Strategic ecocity development in urban-rural fringers: Analyzing Wulai District. Sustainable Cities and Society, 19, 98-108.
Kenworthy, J. R. 2006. The eco-city: ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environment and urbanization, 18(1), 67-85.
McGregor, D. & Simon, D. & Thompson, D. 2006. The Peri- Urban Interface: Approaches to Sustainable Natural and Human Resource Use. London: Earthscan
Marans, R.W., 2003. Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: the 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), p. 73-83.
Newman, P. & Jennings, I. 2009.  Ecocities as sustainable ecosystem: principles and practices. Washington: Island Press.
Pacione, M., 2003. Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social geographical perspective. Landscape and urban planning, 65(1-2), p. 19-30.
Sachs, I. 1980.  The Eco-development Strategies. London: Urban Planning Press.
Sharifian Barforoush, S., & Mofidi Shemirani, S. 2015. The morphological criteria of Ecocity from the perspective of theorists. Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 11(31), 99-108. [In Persian
Taghvaei, S., & Semiari, A. 2017.  Ecological Landscape Planning Approach, Case Study: Strategies for Development of Green Open Spaces in 19th Region of Tehran. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development, 10(19), 11-21. [In Persian]
Yigitcanlar, T. Baum, S. & Horton, S. 2007.  Attracting and   retaining knowledge workers in knowledge cities. Journal of knowledge management, (5): 6-17.