Preipheral Urban Spaces Development

Preipheral Urban Spaces Development

Explaining the objective and subjective aspects of the quality of life in peri-urban spaces (Case study: Small Lavasanat village)

Document Type : Articles extracted from Thesis

Authors
1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Human Geography, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Prof. Department of Human Geography, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran..
3 Associate Prof. Department of Human Geography, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran..
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Introduction
In discussions concerning the Quality of Life (QoL), mere existence is insufficient; the quality of that existence is paramount. Given the critical role of peri-urban areas in national production, growth, and development, the necessity of ensuring the satisfaction of residents in these areas and enhancing the quality of life in peri-urban settlements is undeniable. The villages of Lavasanat are no exception to this rule. These peri-urban villages face numerous problems, including inadequate access to educational, health, welfare, and infrastructural services, land speculation, agricultural land-use conversion, and economic issues such as employment, as well as the spread of social and cultural anomalies due to the influence of the central city. Accordingly, the present research seeks to answer the following questions: To what extent is the Quality of Life in the small villages of Lavasanat in an objective sense? And is there a significant difference between the studied villages in terms of QoL components?

Methodology
The research methodology employed is descriptive-analytical. Information gathering for the studied villages was based on four domains of Quality of Life and fifteen components, which include both objective and subjective indicators. To select the sample size, in the first step, the studied villages were classified into 4 groups based on household size: 10-100, 100-200, 200-300, and over 300 households. In the second step, 15% of the villages were selected based on the advice of the professors. In the third step, the number of villages in each class was determined based on the frequency of villages in each population stratum, resulting in the selection of a total of 13 villages as the sample. Using Cochran’s formula, a sample size of 190 households was determined for the research. Questionnaires were distributed across the studied villages, with the sample size for each village being proportional to its total number of households, and subsequently completed by the respondents.
Results and discussion
o measure the objective dimension of the housing component, four indicators were used: housing amenities, housing age, housing area, and number of rooms. For housing amenities, for instance, residences with all facilities were assigned a score of 5, those with two facilities a score of 3, and those with only one facility a score of 1. The findings indicate that the highest level of fulfillment in objective QoL indicators was observed in the villages of Mazra’e Sadat, Hanzak, and Afjeh, while the lowest levels were recorded in Kiyur, Kardian, and Nasserabad. To assess the QoL domain related to welfare needs, three components were utilized: leisure time, participation, and education. To measure recreation and travel leisure, two indicators were used: number of annual trips and access to sports facilities. Households making three trips per year scored 5, two trips scored 4, one trip scored 2, and zero trips scored 1. Based on the findings, residents of (Afjeh, Kand-e Olya, Rahat Abad, Barg-e Jahan, Mazra’e Sadat, Hanzak) reported an average of one trip per year, while residents of other villages stated they had no trips on average throughout the year. To examine the infrastructure services domain, four components were used: road type, access to public transportation, number of public transport vehicles in the village, and access to the post office. Overall, in terms of objective indicators, the studied villages are not in a favorable condition. The best status in this regard belongs to the villages of Afjeh, Kand-e Olya, and Hanzak, while other villages possess an unfavorable status with an average score of (2).

Conclusion
This research attempted to adopt a combined geographical perspective by considering 4 main domains. Ultimately, based on the conceptual literature, a combination of objective and subjective indicators was taken into account. The analysis of objective QoL indicators reveals that the overall objective housing condition in the studied villages is relatively favorable. Nutrition and protein intake, which was one of the objective components measured, showed that the sample population emphasized a sharp decrease in their protein consumption due to rising living costs. Regarding housing status, the studied villages generally possess favorable conditions, as the majority of residents were satisfied with the structural integrity, amenities, and area of their housing. However, in terms of health and sanitation, the studied villages are not in a suitable condition, although they are in a favorable state regarding security. The household income status shows that the overall average household income is low relative to expenses. Furthermore, concerning the components of leisure/recreation and participation, the results indicate that their status is unfavorable, yet their condition regarding the education component is relatively suitable. Crucially, the subjective dimension of QoL domains in the studied villages presents a completely different situation compared to the objective dimension. The satisfaction of residents of the studied villages with the QoL domains from a subjective perspective is low. This implies that despite the objective conditions of the QoL domains being somewhat adequate in the studied villages, the level of subjective satisfaction remains low .

Funding
According to the responsible author, this article has no financial support

Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.

Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
Keywords
Subjects

پازکی، معصومه. (1402). کارآفرینی گردشگری و کیفیت زندگی در سکونتگاه‌های پیرامونی شهرهای شهرستان شاهرود، مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری،1(9)، 40-17.  10.22034/jpusd.2023.344792.1209
چاره جو، فرزین، احمدی، عاطفه و جوان، فرهاد. (1399). تحلیل و ارزیابی رابطه حکمروایی خوب شهری و کیفیت زندگی (مورد: محلات شهر سنندج). جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی منطقه‌ای، 10(38)، 171-184.
حجاریان، احمد. (1402). تحلیل و ارزیابی میزان زیست‌پذیری سکونتگاه‌های روستایی نواحی پیراشهری (مطالعه موردی: کلانشهر اصفهان) مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری ، 3(13)، 56-39. 10.22034/jpusd.2023.380688.1256
حقانی، مهسا،  مجیدی هتکه لویی، سحر. (1403). واکاوی عوامل مؤثر بر دلبستگی مکانی مناطق پیراشهری قائمشهر با تمرکز بر آزادی بهره­بردار (موردمطالعه: محله مفت آباد)، مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری،6(11)، 40-17.  10.22034/jpusd.2023.401259.1275
حیدری نیا، سعید، محمدی، مصطفی، حجت شمامی، سیروس. (1403). تبیین نقش فناوری اطلاعات در توسعه گردشگری کشاورزی فضاهای پیراشهری تهران، مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری،7(2)،206-179. 10.22034/jpusd.2025.533161.1351
رضوانی، محمدرضا، شکیبا، علیرضا، منصوریان، حسین. (1389). ارزیابی کیفیت زندگی در نواحی روستایی، فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی رفاه اجتماعی، 8(30)،60-35.
قادرمرزی، حامد، احمدی، حسین، احمدی، عاطفه و جوان، فرهاد. (1397). تحلیلی بر تاثیر حکمروایی خوب در بهبود کیفیت زندگی روستایی (مطالعه موردی: شهرستان دهگلان). جغرافیا (نشریۀ انجمن جغرافیایی ایران)، 16(58)، 157-190.
نوبخت حقیقی، شهاب، قنبری، حسین علی. (1402). تحلیل کیفیت زندگی در فضاهای پیراشهری کلانشهر رشت، مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری،2(10)، 252-237. 10.22034/jpusd.2023.382492.1259
Alborz,A(2017).  The Nature of Quality of Life: A Conceptual Model to Inform Assessment: The Nature of QoL, Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities , University of Manchester, Manchester, UK ,March 2017.
Angel, S., Sheppard, S. C. & Civco, D. L. (2023). The Dynamics of Global Urban Expansion Washington, DC: World Bank, Transport, Urban Development Department., 45, 154–168
Bemard,J. (2017).Rural qulity of life-poverty,satisfaction and opportunity deprivation in different types of rural territories, Europ. Countrys. · Vol. 10 · 2021 · No. 2 · p. 191-209.
Bigelow, D. A., McFarland, B. H., & Olson, M. M. (1991). Quality of life of community mental health program clients: Validating a measure. Community Mental Health Journal, 27, 43-55.
Boncinelli,F., Pagnotta, G., Riccioli, F., Casini, L(2024), The determinants of quality of life in rural areas from a geographic perspective: The case of Tuscany,review of urban ®ional development stydies,RURDS Vol. 27, No. 2, July 2015 doi: 10.1111/rurd.12035.
Bottomley,A., Reijneveld,J., Koller,M., Flechtner,H, 2019, Current state of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes research, European Journal of Cancer 121 (2019) 55-63.
Brauer, R., & Dymitrow, M. (2014). Quality of life in rural areas: A topic for the RuralDevelopment policy?. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 25(25), 25-54
Chen, G. Sun, X. Guo, S. Chen, Y. Chang, Y. Li, Y. Sun.(2017).Factors affecting the quality of life among Chinese rural general residents: a cross-sectional study,N Public Health Volume 146, May 2017, Pages 140-147.
Costanza,R., Fisher,B., Ali,S., Beer,C., Bond,L., Boumans,R., Danigelis,N., Dickinson,J., (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being, Ecologicale  Economics 61(2007) 267-276.
Das, D, (2008). Urban Quality of Life: A Case Study of Guwahati, Social Indicators Research 88. doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9191-6.
kamp,I. Kees,L, Gooitske,M. Augustinus,H .(2003). Urban environmental quality and human Well-being Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts, a literature study:. Landscape and Urban planning 65(2003) 5-18.
Lee, Y. J., .(2008), Subjective Quality of Life Measurement in Taipei, Building and Environment, Vol. 43, No.7,pp.1205-1215.
leila Ardestani, L., Choobchian, S., Hannes Viira, A,. Tanaskovik, V. (2023). Investigating Subjective and Objective Quality of Life in Rural Areas: the Case of Tehran Province in Iran, Applied Research in Quality of Life, Volume 17, pages 671–702, (2022)
Ling Hoon Leh, O.(2018).   Quality of life among residents in a sub-urban area. Case study: Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia, IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 117 (2018) 012028.
Mohammad Reza Rezvani,M-R, Mansourian, H(2011). The Development of Quality-of-Life Indicators in Rural Areas in Iran: Case Study – Khave Shomali District, Lorestan Province, Community Quality-of-Life Indicators: Best Cases V, Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York
Nagesh, P., Bailey, A., George, S., Hyde, M and Subaiya, L. (2023),  (Im)mobile ageing: risks of exclusion in later life in liminal urban peripheries, Ageing & Society 1-24, doi:10.1017/S0144686X22001398.
Parshukov,D.V, Shaporova, Z. E, Koloskova,Y.I. (2021).  uality of life of the rural population of the Krasnoyarsk Territory: assessment, trends and priorities,FIOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 839 (2021) 022096.
Tilt,B(2019). Local Perceptions Of "Quality Of Life " In Rural China Implications for Anthropology and Participatory Development, Journal of Anthropological Research, vol. 67, 2019.
Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2002). Quality-of-life indicators as performance measures. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 291–300.
Wallace, B. J. . (2009). Critical reflections: Confessions from the director of a fifteen-year agroforestry research and development project in the Philippines. Human Organization 68:55-63.