The Application of Multi-criteria Decision Making Models for Assessing the Livability of Metropolitan Areas of Tehran

جغرافیاوتوسعه ناحیه ای

Article 10, Volume 16, Issue 2 - Serial Number 31, March 2019, Pages 243-269   

Document Type: scientific-research article

DOI: 10.22067/geography.v16i2.72686

Authors

Seyyed Ali Mousavi Noor; Hamid Reza Varesi^* ; Jamal Mohammadi

University of Isfahan

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

Geographers have always considered the ultimate goal of geographic studies to improve the quality of human life. In the various definitions presented from geography since very far away (i.e. Eratosthenes), the emphasis has been on the interaction between man and the environment. Geographers have always sought to optimize this relationship to deserve part of human life. Theoretical framework of bioactivity is a complex, multidimensional and general concept that is associated with a number of other concepts and terminology such as sustainability, quality of life, and quality of place, and healthy communities. People and places are two sides of the concept of livability. Biodiversity reflects the welfare of a local community and includes many features that transform a place where people tend to live there in the present and future. A habitable place to live is the right place to work and live.

Review of Literature

Livability is one of the greatest ideas of urban planning in contemporary times (Godschalk, 2004). Livability theory was created based on the work of Maslow, human needs, and then developed because of the importance of threats in the field of quality of life. Factors such as rapid growth, the lack of agricultural land and open spaces, housing shortages, the growth of social inequality, weakness of local identity and social life are serious threats to the livability of the communities. According to Radcliff (2001), people are happier and more satisfied in communities that meet their needs better. Livability is usually characterized by three main areas: environmental quality, local amenities and individual well-being (Lennard, 1995). Various indexes have been identified for livability in different researches, such as housing, employment, recreation, cleaning and security (Howley et al, 2009). Oberlink (2008) mentioned components of this including: housing, transportation and mobility, land use, cooperation and interaction, local social understanding and planning, and leadership, in report of opportunities for creating livable communities. This concept overlaps with some approaches such as sustainability, urban village, quality of life, smart growth and new urbanism; because all of them are critical responses to unfavorable urban policies.

Method

The research method used in this study is of applied and descriptive-analytic. The library and field documentation (questionnaire) has been used to collect information. The statistical population is the residents of Tehran City, which according to the census of 2016 includes 8693706 people. The sample size was calculated first in the studied areas according to the Cochran sampling formula with a 7% error rate. For 22 urban areas, 385 persons were obtained and according to the extent of the Tehran metropolitan area and the probability of the loss of the questionnaire, 485 researcher made questionnaires. Next in each of the studied areas, the proportional quota was allocated based on the population. Sampling method was also possible in this research. Cronbach's alpha method was used to measure the reliability of the instrument, namely the household questionnaire, which is equal to 0.799.
To investigate the validity of the questionnaire, which was used as the main tool of this research for assessing the biogenesis of 22 metropolitan areas of Tehran, the views of experts in geography and urban planning, urban development and sociology were used. In order to reach the final survey indexes, a sample of the above resources was provided by 15 experts in the form of an initial questionnaire. In two phases, they used the Delphi method to scale the questionnaire. The initial questionnaire, which was provided to the experts, was 214 items, while at the end of the Delphi dual phase remained only 193 points. A total of 58 items were also extracted from the statistical yearbook of 2016 and the rest were used as questionnaires in the final questionnaire.

Results and Discussion

In all areas of the 22 metropolises of Tehran metropolitan area, the bioequivalence conditions are not the same, and there is a significant difference between the regions of Tehran in terms of the biodegradability index. As it is stated in the ranking of the 22 metropolitan areas of Tehran in terms of Livability based on the multi-criteria decision making model of VIKOR, region 1 with the highest livability with the lowest level of VIKOR (0) in the first place and area 3 with Wickor (0.62) and Zone 2 with Wickor (0.71) were ranked the first to the third. In contrast, regions 20, 19, 17, 15, 18, 16, and so on with the highest amount of calculated Wikers were placed in the last positions. These results indicate that the biodegradability of the regions is not the same so that most southern regions (14 regions) have poor biodegradability, and the decreasing livability after high livability to the central regions Tehran City has been drawn. A total of 14 regions located in most of these areas are in the southern and inner suburbs of Tehran metropolis. In terms of statistics, 0.18 is in optimal condition, 0.18 is in semi-desirable condition, and 0.44 is in unfavorable condition. These results are consistent with the results of Sasanupour et al. (2014), in which case the first and third places are in the first place in terms of livability.

Conclusion

Findings revealed that today Tehran has social, economic, physical and environmental problems. It originates from the massive re-distribution of the population due to the concentration of administrative and political facilities. On the other hand, widespread migration with regard to economic conditions and unemployment is one of the most important factors contributing to the pattern of inhumane physical development, insecurity, density, environmental issues, and ultimately reducing bio-availability which is far away from sustainable development components. Due to the fact that urbanization is not inhibited and high population growth is one of the most important factors of increasing the risks and reducing the livability of Tehran's metropolis, population growth and consequently, concentration, traffic, physical growth, and the handover of the city to its peripheral and urban areas have provided a platform for stimulating and exacerbating the risks, such as the formation of thermal islands, greenhouse gas emissions, and so on.
According to the results of the research, the following suggestions are presented for the biodegradation of Tehran's metropolitan areas:

Considering the improvement of the economic situation in the southern and central zones (20, 19, 17, 18, 15). In other words, while logic 1 grows due to the existence of commercial centers and infrastructure services, etc., it is also necessary to consider the economic growth and development of other districts and zones since the 1st and 3rd districts, 2,22, have produced significant gaps compared to other areas.
Improving the housing situation in the southern areas of Tehran (20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15) and the various opportunities provided in this field (i.e. diversity leading to the creation of lively and dynamic neighborhoods and the residence of different citizens) economically and socially in the neighborhoods.

 

Keywords

Livability; sustainable urban development; Multi criteria Decision Making Models; Path analysis; 22 Districts of Tehran Metropolis

References

1. ابراهیم‌زاده، ع؛ بریمانی، ف؛ نصیری، ی. (1383). حاشیه‌نشینی: ناهنجاری‌های شهری و را ه‌کارهای تعدیل آن، موردشناسی: کریم آباد زاهدان. دو فصل‌نامة جغرافیا و توسعه، 2 (3)، 143-121.

2. ادیبی سده، م؛ کشاورز، ز. و قنبری، م. (1393). بررسی شاخص‌های کیفیت زندگی در نواحی روستایی، مطالعة موردی: دهستان‌های بخش مرکزی شهرستان اردستان استان اصفهان. مجلة مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری و محله‌ای دانشگاه اصفهان.، 6 (22)، 182-163.

3. افشارکهن، ج.؛ بلالی، ا.؛ قدسی، ع. (1391). بررسی ابعاد اجتماعی مسألة کنترل ترافیک شهری، مورد مطالعه: مشهد. مجلة مطالعات شهر، 2 (4)، 90-59.

4. بازوندی، ف؛ شهبازی، م. (1393). نقش سرزندگی در ایجاد تصویر ذهنی شهروندان و میزان بهره‌گیری از فضای شهری (مطالعة موردی: پیاده‌راه خیابان سپهسالار تهران). دو فصل‌نامة پژوهش‌های منظر شهر، 1 (1)، 43-33.

5. بندر آباد، ع. (1390). شهر زیست‌پذیر از مبانی تا معنا. چاپ اول. تهران: انتشارات آذرخش.

6. بندرآباد، ع؛ و احمدی‌نژاد، ف. (1392). ارزیابی شاخص‌های کیفیت زندگی با تأکید بر اصول شهر زیست-پذیر در منطقة 22 تهران. مجلة پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 5 (16)، 74-55.

7. خراسانی، م. ا. (1391). تبیین زیست‌پذیری روستاهای پیرامون شهری با رویکرد کیفیت زندگی، مطالعة موردی شهرستان ورامین. رسالة دکتری. دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

8. ساسان‌پور، ف؛ تولایی، س؛ جعفری اسدآبادی، ح. (1393). قابلیت زیست‌پذیری شهرها در راستای توسعة پایدار شهری، مورد مطالعه: کلان‌شهر تهران. فصل‌نامة علمی – پژوهشی و بین‌المللی انجمن جغرافیای ایران، 12 (42)، 157-129.

9. ساسان‌پور، ف؛ تولایی، س؛ و جعفری اسدآبادی، ح. (1394). سنجش و ارزیابی زیست‌پذیری شهری در مناطق بیست و دو گانة کلان‌شهر تهران. فصل‌نامة برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای، 5 (18)، 42-27.

10. ساسان‌پور، ف؛ موحد، علی؛ لطیفی، ا. (1396). تحلیل قابلیت زیست‌پذیری در مناطق کلان شهر اهواز. فصل‌نامة جغرافیای اجتماعی شهری، 4 (1)، 44-23.

11. سلیمانی مهرنجانی، م؛ تولایی، س؛ رفیعیان، م؛ زنگانه، ا. و فرخی‌نژاد، ف. (1395). زیست‌پذیری شهری: مفهوم، اصول، ابعاد و شاخص‌ها. پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 4 (1)، 50-27.

12. علی اکبری، ا؛ و اکبری، م. (1396)، مدل‌سازی ساختاری تفسیریِ عوامل مؤثر بر زیست پذیری کلان‌شهر تهران. فصل‌نامة برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا، 21 (1)، 31-1.

13. فلاح منشادی، ا. (1394). تحلیل و بررسی اقدامات لازم برای اجرایی شدن حمل و نقل یکپارچه شهری در کلان‌شهرها؛ نمونة موردی: شهر تهران. فصل‌نامة پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 6 (20)، 98-83.

14. قربانی، ر؛ و نوشاد، س. (1387). راهبرد رشد هوشمند در توسعة شهری اصول و راهکارها. فصل‌نامة جغرافیا و توسعه، 6 (12)، 180-163.

15. مرکز آمار ایران. (1390). سال‌نامة آماری سال 1391.

16. مرکز آمار ایران. (1395). نتایج سرشماری نفوس و مسکن سال 1395.

17. مهدیزاده، ج. (1382). برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی توسعة شهری (تجربیات اخیر جهانی و جایگاه آن در ایران). معاونت شهرسازی و معماری وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی.

18. ویلر، ا. (1393). برنامه‌ریزی برای پایداری: ایجاد جامعة زیست‌پذیر، متعادل و اکولوژیک. (ترجمه، م. جمعه‌پور و ش. احمدی). تهران: نشر علوم اجتماعی.

19. Bricker, S. H., Anks, V. J., Galik, G., Tapete, D., & Jones, R. (2017). Accounting for groundwater in future city visions. Land Use Policy, 18 (69), 618-630.

20. Busquets, F., & Correa, J. (Eds) (2006). Cities: 10 lines - A New Lens for the Urbanistic Project. Cambridge, US: Harvard University.

21. Cities P. L. U. S. (2003). A sustainable urban system: The long term plan for greater Vancouver. Vancouver, Canada: Cities PLUS.

22. CLC. (2014). Livable and sustainable cities, a framework. Singapore : Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore.

23. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2014). World urbanization prospects. New York: United Nation publication.

24. Godschalk, D. (2004). Land Use Planning Challenges: Coping with Conflicts in Visions of Sustainable Development and Livable Communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70 (1), 5-13.

25. Hora, E. A. (2014). Factors that affect Women Participation in Leadership and Decision Making Position. Asian Journal of Humanity, Art and Literature, 1 (2), 97-118.

26. Howley, P., & Scott, M., & Redmondb, D. (2009). Sustainability versus liveability: An investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(6), 847-864.

27. Kennedy, R. J., & Buys, L. (2010). Dimension of livability: A tool for sustainable cities. Paper presented at SB10mad Sustainable Building Conference, Madrid, Spain. Retrieved from http:// www. irbnet. de/ daten/ iconda/ CIB17095. pdf

28. Landry, Ch. (2000). Urban Vitality: A new source of urban competitiveness. Prince Claus Fund Journal, ARCHIS issue "UrbanVitality / Urban Heroes".

29. Larice, M.Z. (2005). Great neighborhoods: the livability and morphology high density neighborhoods in urban north America. PHD in City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley.

30. Lennard, SH., & Lennard, HL. (1995). Liveable Communities Ties Observed. Carmel: Gondolier Press.

31. Masika, R., Haan, A., & Baden, S. (1997). Urbanization and urban poverty: A gender analysis. report prepared for the gender equality unit, Swedish international development cooperation agency (Sida). Brighton, England: Institute of Development Students.

32. Nel, E., & Goldman, I. (2005). A framework for monitoring and evaluation pro–poor local economic development. report prepared for the World Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program evaluating and dissemination experiences in local economic development (LED) program, investigation of pro-poor LED in south Africa. Retrieved from http:// siteresources. worldbank. org/ INTLED/ Resources/ 339650-1144099718914/ProPoorMEExecSum.pdf.

33. Norris, T., & Mary, P. (2000). The health community’s movement and the coalition for healthier cities and communities. Public Health Reports, 115(2), 118-124.

34. Oberlink, M. R. (2008). Opportunities for creating livable communities. Washington: AARP public policy Institute. Retrieved from https:// www.aarp.org/ content/ dam/ aarp/ livable-communities/ old-learn/ planning/ in-brief-opportunities-for-creating-livable-communities- 2008-aarp.pdf.

35. Radcliff, B. (2001). Politics, markets and satisfaction: The Political economy of human happiness. American Political science Review, 95(4), 939-952.

36. Satu Shammi, A. (2014). An examination of the livability of dense urban neighborhoods in DhakaThe impacts of urban planning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

37. Scarpino, G. (2007). The Resilience Resilience and Urban Aboriginal Women. Native Social Work Journal, 6(6), 33-55.

38. Siedentop, S., & Fina, S. (2008). Urban sprawl beyond growth: From a growth to a decline Perspective on the Cost of Sprawl. Paper presented at the 44th ISCOCARP Congress, China, Dalin.

39. Southworth, M. (2003). Measuring the livable city. Built Environment, 29(4), 343-354.

40. The Sustainable Development Solutions Network. (2012). A Framework for Sustainable Development . Retrieved from http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/ uploads/ 2014/02/121220-Draft-Framework-of-Sustainable-Development1.pdf .

41. Timmer, V., and Nola- Kate, S. (2005). The Livable city. Canada: Internationl center for sustainable cities. Retrieved from http:// publications.gc.ca/ collections/ Collection/Iu92-4-6-2004E.pdf.

42. United Nations. (2005). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision. UN: United Nations publications. Retrieved from http:// citeseerx. ist. psu. Edu/ viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.445.9975&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

43. Van Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., & Hollander, A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65 (1), 5-18.

44. Victorian competition and efficiency commission & Department of the Treasury and Finance. (2008). A state of liveability: an inquiry into enhancing Victoria's liveability: Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission's final report: Victorian government response. Melbourne, Australia: Department of Treasury and Finance. Retrieved from https:// www.dtf.vic.gov.au/ sites/ default/files/2018-02/enhancing-victorias-liveability-inquiry.pdf.

45. Wheeler, S.M. (2000). Planning sustainable and livable cities. London, UK: Routledge.

46. Wheeler, S.M. (2013). Planning for sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable, and Ecological Communities. London, UK: Routledge.