Pathology of urban livability in Tehran's suburban

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Roudhen Branch, Islamic Azad University, Roudhen, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction
Urban management is facing a challenge in suburban Tehran due to the rapid growth of peripheral settlements and their physical expansion. This is causing functional instability and complexity in these areas, negatively impacting the quality of urban livability in the city-suburban. To address this issue, urban administrators and planners can develop a strategy to preserve the suburban Tehran metropolitan area and improve its livability. This article examines the challenges facing urban livability in Tehran's metropolitan area. It utilizes a descriptive-analytical and applied approach, and the findings are analyzed using PLS structural equations. The study incorporates 46 indicators and five key components. Research has shown a clear correlation between several factors and overall livability in Tehran's metropolitan area. The social-cultural, service infrastructure, and environmental-ecological indicators were found to have the most significant impact, while economic and management indicators had the least impact. Service infrastructure, social-cultural, and management indicators had the highest structural performance. In contrast, economic and environmental-ecological indicators had the lowest structural performance in terms of livability in the metropolitan area of Tehran.
During the planning and managing of urban areas, it is crucial to identify any damages or issues that may affect the livability of city suburbs. This allows for appropriate solutions to be adopted, minimizing any adverse effects on the livability of these areas through control and preventive measures. The topic of urban-suburban livability is receiving much attention, and the comprehensive plan of Tehran reflects this by considering environmental requirements and the need for integrated protection and management of the surrounding area. Tehran occupies an area of approximately 5,900 square kilometers, with the city taking up around 5,300 square kilometers. Twenty-six cities are situated within the suburbs of Tehran, including Islamshahr, Andishe, Baghestan, Baqershahr, Bomhen, Pardis, Parand, Chahardangeh, Hassanabad, Robat Karim, Shahedshahr, Shahryar, Salehabad, Safadasht, Ferdowsia, Fasham, Qods, Kahrizak, Golestan, Lavasan, Nasimshahr, Nasirabad, Vahidiya, Parand, Sabashahr, Jajroud, and Shaemshak.
 
Methodology
This research aims to apply scientific sources and documents to gather data through a questionnaire and expert opinions. The method used is both descriptive and analytical. The opinions were collected on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from very high to very low. One hundred people were selected as experts in this field to participate in the study. The statistical population included administrative and scientific experts and elites working in scientific societies and executive institutions. This questionnaire used five factors (social-cultural, economic, physical-infrastructural, urban, and administrative environment) and 46 indicators. The PLS structural equation was used to analyze the studied factors and indicators.
 
Results and discussion
SmartPLS identified the performance significance map of the research variables in the pathology of the livability of the metropolitan area of Tehran. Table (6) and Figure (5) show the importance of the impacts of the entire structure and its functions for the pathology of the livability of the metropolitan area of Tehran. Accordingly, social-cultural indicators, with a score of 0.182, service-infrastructure indicators, with a score of 0.145 and environmental-ecological indicators, with a score of 0.1, had the highest total impacts, and economic indicators, with a score of 0.016 and management indicators with the score of 0.076 had the lowest total impacts in the pathology of the livability of the suburban of Tehran metropolis. The indicators for service infrastructure scored 40.061, making it the highest-performing aspect in the livability of the suburban area of Tehran metropolis. Social and cultural indicators followed closely with a score of 39.267, while management indicators scored 31.537. The economic indicators scored 24.981, and the environmental and ecological indicators scored 30.684, indicating the lowest performance in the area's livability.
 
Conclusion
Through structural analysis, this study evaluated 46 indicators based on five criteria. The results indicated that social indicators had the highest total impacts with a score of 0.182, while economic indicators had the lowest total impacts with a score of 0.016. The study also found that service-infrastructure, social, and environmental-ecological indicators had the highest total impacts, while economic and management indicators had the lowest total impacts on the livability of suburban Tehran. Furthermore, service-infrastructural, social-cultural, and administrative indicators had the highest structural performance, scoring 40.061, 39.267, and 31.537, respectively. On the other hand, economic and environmental-ecological indicators had the lowest structural performance, scoring 24.981 and 30.684, respectively. Overall, the findings suggest that Tehran is facing numerous livability issues that require proper management and policy-making, consistent with the findings of previous studies by Ziyari et al. (2019) and Momeni et al. (2020).
The study recommends investing in infrastructure and repairing and strengthening it to address current issues. It is also important to involve the community in urban development plans, improve the management of public services, enhance public transportation, adapt roads and sidewalks, increase public spaces, and develop better facilities for education, health, sports, and more. Additionally, we should improve the quality of existing city facilities.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

احدنژاد روشنی، محسن، صادقی، ژیلا و یاری قلی، وحید. 1397.  بررسی جایگاه مفهوم زیست‌پذیری شهری در طرح توسعه شهری(نمونه مطالعاتی: طرح جامع شهر زنجان). مجله جغرافیا (فصلنامه علمی  پژوهشی و بین‌المللی انجمن جغرافیای ایران). سال شانزدهم، شماره 59.
احمدی پور، زهرا و کرمی، قاسم. 1395 . تحلیل نابسامانی تداخل حریم شهر تهران با محدوده‌های اداری-سیاسی و حریم شهرهای هم‌جوار. فصلنامه تحقیقات جغرافیایی، سال 31 ، شماره 3، صص 32-42.
آذر، عادل (1391). مدل‌سازی مسیری-ساختاری در مدیریت: کاربرد نرم‌افزار اسمارت پی ال اس. تهران: نگاه دانش.
الوندی پور، نینا، داداش پور، هاشم. 1397 .فراروش پژوهش‌های مرتبط با عدالت فضایی در ایران با مقیاس شهری در بازه زمانی. 1383-1394 ، بوم‌شناسی شهری، سال نهم، شماره 2.
بحیرایی، حمید، سرور، رحیم، کارگر، بهمن و فرجی راد، عبدالرضا. 1395 .تحلیل راهبردی تحولات فضایی- کارکردی در پهنه حریم جنوبی کلانشهر تهران(مطالعه موردی: شهرستان‌های ری و اسلامشهر)، فصلنامه سپهر، دوره 25 ، ش 98.
بندرآباد، علیرضا و فرشته احمدی‌نژاد،  1393 ، ارزیابی شاخص‌های کیفیت زندگی با تأکید بر اصول شهر زیست پذیر در منطقه 22 تهران، مجله پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، سال پنجم، شماره شانزدهم، بهار
پریزادی، طاهر؛ مرادی، مهدی؛ ساکی، فاطمه. 1398.تحلیل زیست‌پذیری در محله‌های بخش مرکزی شهرها(مطالعه موردی: بخش مرکزی شهر بروجرد).نشریه مطالعات شهری، دوره 8 (31).صص 3-16.
حاجی پور خلیل . 1387. تبیین فرایند شکل‌گیری و دگرگونی فضایی کلان‌شهر تهران. رساله دکتری دانشگاه تهران.
حیدری، محمدتقی، حقی، یعقوب، نصیری، ثریا، محرمی، سعید. 1400. تبیینی بر پیشران‌های باززایشی تولید فضای زیست در متن زیست غیررسمی شهر زنجان. مجله جغرافیا و توسعه، زمستان.
خراسانی، محمدامین، رضوانی، محمدرضا، مطیعی لنگرودی، رفیعیان، مجتبی، 1391، سنجش و ارزیابی زیست­پذیری روستاهای پیرامون شهری شهرستان ورامین، مجله پژوهش­های روستایی، سال سوم، شماره چهارم، صص 79-104.
خندان، مینا. سبحانی، نوبخت. 1400 . تحلیلی بر وضعیت حریم و چالش­های آن در نواحی پیراشهری تهران. مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری. 1(5)،صص 97-112.
داوودی، محمد، خادم­الحسینی، احمد، صابری، حمیدگندمکار، امیر، مهکوبی، حجت. 1400 . ارزیابی و تحلیل مؤلفه‌های زیست‌پذیری مناطق هشتگانه شهر اهواز . فصلنامه جغرافیا و مطالعات محیطی، شماره 37 ، صص 173-152 .
زیاری، کرامت اله؛ پوراحمد، احمد؛ حاتمی نژاد، حسین؛ باستین، علی. 1397 . سنجش و ارزیابی اثرات حکمروایی خوب شهری بر زیست‌پذیری شهرها (مطالعه موردی: شهر بوشهر). نشریه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، سال 9، شماره 34 ، صص 1-18.
سبحانی، نوبخت؛ سلمانزاده، سینا؛ بهنام مقدم،مریم؛فرجی، احمد. 1399. آسیب‌شناسی حریم کلان‌شهر تهران، جغرافیا و توسعه، شماره 60، پاییز.
طرح و کاوش. 1391 .مرکز مطالعات و برنامه‌ریزی شهر تهران.
فروتن، منوچهر؛ صنعتگر کاخکی، مریم؛ رضایی، محمدکاظم. 1392 . روش ارزیابی سرزندگی محیطی در مجتمع‌های تجاری و مراکز خرید، پژوهش­های شهری هفت حصار، دوره 6 (2)، صص 65-76.
فولادی، الهه، ارمغان، سیمین، دانیالی، تهمینه، همتی، محمد. 1400. تحلیل جایگاه دانش بومی در توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری با تأکید بر زیست‌پذیری اقتصادی- اجتماعی مورد: روستاهای منطقه 19 تهران. مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، سال دوم. شماره دوم. پاییز و زمستان.
کارگر، بهمن؛ رحیم سرور .1392. شهر، حاشیه و امینت اجتماعی، انتشارات سازمان جغرافیایی. تهران.
مؤمنی، احمد، جهانشیری، ماندانا، عزمی، آئیژ. 1399. اثرات حکمروایی خوب بر زیست‌پذیری سکونتگاه­های پیراشهری در دهستان آدران. مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، سال دوم. شماره اول. بهار و تابستان.
نصیری هنده­خاله، اسماعیل، امیر انتخابی، شهرام، تاج ، سروش. 1400. پایش زیست‌پذیری سکونتگاه­های ناکارآمد پیراشهری کلانشهر رشت مورد: محله عینک. مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، سال سوم. شماره دوم. زمستان.
هادیزاده بزاز، مریم. 1392 . مدیریت اراضی حریم شهرها؛ راهکاری اصولی در کاهش مشکلات شهری مورد شهر مشهد، هفت شهر. شماره 43-44.
Angel, M and Lopez, G (2010). Population Suburbanization in Barcelona-2010: Is its spetial structure changing? Journal of Housing Economics, Vol 19, No 2, PP. 119-132.
Atef Elsawy, Ahmed., Ayad, Hany.,  Saadallah, Dina, 2019, Assessing livability of residential streets – Case study: El-Attarin, Alexandria, Egypt, Journal of Alexandria Engineering Journal, vol 58.
Badland, H., et al. (2014). Urban liveability: Emerging lessons from Australia for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health. Social Science & Medicine, 111, 64–73.
Biwas,R,AYyan,K .2019. A good governance framework for urban management. Journal of urban management, No 4 PP 47 – 63
Cities P.2003.“A sustainable urban system”: the long term plan for greater Vancouver, cannada, cities plus
Clements-Croome, Derek;  Marson, Matthew; Yang, Tong; Airaksinen, Miimu;.2022. Planning and Design Scenarios for Liveable Cities. Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences.Elsevier.
Douglass, M.2006.The livability of mega-urban regions in Southeast Asia- Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh.
Dukku, Sani Jibir, 2018, Housing Shortage: Implications for Sustainable Urban Development in Nigeria, Journal of Environment and Earth Science. Vol 8, no 2.
Geng, Y., Fujita, T., Bleischwitz, R., Chiu, A., & Sarkis, J. (2019). Accelerating the Transition to Equitable, Sustainable, and Livable Cities: Toward Post-Fossil Carbon Societies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 239, 1-9.
Hankins, K. B., (2009), "The disappearance of the state from Livable" Urban Spaces, Antipode, 41 (5): 845–866.
Hernandez, S., & Monzon, A. (2016). Key Factors for Defining an Efficient Urban Transport Interchange: Users' Perceptions. Cities, 50, 158-167.
Jacobs, A., Appleyard, D .1987. Toward an Urban Design Manifesto. Journal of the American Planning Association, Volume 53, pp.112-120.
Kashef, M. (2016). Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 5(2), 239–253.
Landry, C.2000. Urban Vitality: A New source of Urban Competitiveness. Prince Claus fund journal, ARCHIS issue Urban Vitality / Urban Heroes.
Larice, Michael.2005.Great Neiborhoods: The Livability and morphology of High density neighborhoods in Urban North America, Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, Professor Michael SouthworthLau leby, journal of construchion in developing countries.
Mahmudi, M .2015. livable streets: the effects if physical problem’s on the quality and livability of Kuala lampur streets. Cities, No. 43, pp104-114.
Merriam-Webster. (2017). Livability. http://www.merriam-webster.com (July 02 2017).
Mueller, J., Lu, H., Chirkin, A., Klein, B., & Schmitt, G. (2018). Citizen Design Science: A strategy for crowd-creative urban design. Cities, 72, 181-188.
Newman, P. W. G. (1999). Sustainability and cities: Extending the metabolism model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), 219–226.
Norouzian-Maleki, S., et al. (2015). Developing and testing a framework for the assessment of neighbourhood liveability in two contrasting countries: Iran and Estonia. Ecological Indicators, 48, 263–271.
Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. (2011). City life: Rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 433–451.
Pacione, M. (1990). Urban liveability: A review. Urban Geography, 11(1), 1–30.
Ruth, M., & Franklin, R. S. (2014). Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Applied Geography, 49, 18–23.
Sarkar, Ahana; Bardhan, Ronita. 2020. Socio-physical liveability through socio-spatiality in low-income resettlement archetypes - A case of slum rehabilitation housing in Mumbai, India. Journal of Cities, vol,105.
Skalickya, V., Čerpesb I. (2019). Comprehensive assessment methodology for liveable residential environment. Cities, 94, 44-54.
Sofeska, E. (2017). Understanding the livability in a city through smart solutions and urban planning toward developing sustainable livable future of the City of Skopje.
Song, Yang.2011. A livable city study in china: using structural Equation models, thesis submitted in statistics. department of statistics Uppsala university.
Timmer, V., & Seymoar, N. K. (2005). The livable city. Vancouver working group discussion paper, the world urban forum 2006. Vancouver: UN Habitat – International Centre for Sustainable Cities.
UN.2020. Indicators of sustainable Development: Guideliness and methodologies, United Nations, New York, Thired Edition, Octobr. 97
Xi Jun Yu, Cho Nam Ng .2007. "Spatial and temporal dynamics of urban sprawlalong two urban–rural transects: A case study of Guangzhou, China", Available online at www.sciencedirect.com:96-109.
Xiao,Yi; Chai, Jixing; Wang, Rui; Huang, Huan. 2022. Assessment and key factors of urban liveability in underdeveloped regions: A case study of the Loess Plateau, China . Journal of Sustainable Cities and Society.Volume 79.
Xu, L., Kang, P., Wei, J. 2010. Evaluation of urban ecological carrying capacity: a case study of Beijing, China,Journal of Procedia Environmental Sciences, No. 2: 1873-1880.
Yu, Tao, Qiping, Shen, Geoffrey, Shi, Qian, Zheng, Helen, Wei, Wang, Ge, Xu, Kexi. 2017. Evaluating social sustainability of urban housing demolition in Shanghai. China, Journal of Cleaner Production, pp.26-40.
Zhan, D., et al. (2018). Assessment and determinants of satisfaction with urban livability in China. Cities, 79, 92-101.
Preipheral Urban Spaces Development
Volume 4, Issue 2 - Serial Number 8
Autumn and Winter
November 2022
Pages 189-204

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics