Evaluating the Livable Capacity of Urban Neighborhoods in Tehran: A Case Study of Harandi, Takhti and Kosar Neighborhoods

جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری

Article 3, Volume 3, Issue 2 - Serial Number 5, March 2017, Pages 53-68   

Document Type: Scientific-Research

DOI: 10.22067/gusd.v3i2.50303

Authors

Hashem Dadashpour¹; Davod Azizi^{* 2}; Peyman Asgharzade³

¹Tarbiat Modarres University

²TarbiatModarres University

³University of Art

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
With the growth and development of cities in the present era and also the extreme increase in urban issues, the continuation of these issues has caused jeopardized life in the cities. The theory of livability and sustainable development seeks to create a safe and healthy environment for human societies. Livability is a concept that integrates economic, social, environmental and physical dimensions. To prevent one-dimensionalility and reductivity of livability, a network of relationships should be considered among the various criteria. The goal of the present research is offering components of neighborhoods livability assessment based on world literature and using these components in determining the livability and ranking of Harandi, Kosar, and Takhte's neighborhoods.
The theoretical lens of this research is livability theory. Livability, as one of the major issues in urban sustainability, refers to urban systems where the socio-cultural, economic, physical and psychological health of all residents must be considered. In this paper, using the theory and related indicators, researchers evaluate and assess the livability of neighborhoods of Harandi, Kosar and Takhti in 12 district municipalities of Tehran. We have argued how much these neighborhoods have been livable with regard to being located in contiguity of the Grand Marketplace of Tehran.
2. Methodology
The research methodology is descriptive-analytic with practical purposes. Indicators and components of research have been extracted using the existing literature. Through field surveys and questionnaires data were obtained from residents. Analysis of data was done by the Excel software. For evaluating and ranking the livability of neighborhoods, Electre model was used. For obtaining scores of indicators and components to evaluate livability of neighborhoods, we reviewed and analyzed the questionnaires. The components were obtained according to the average citizens' comments on the questionnaires. Qualitative characteristics of the rating "very low" to "very high" were allocated to them. Subsequently, using an interval bipolar scale the qualitative criteria were changed to quantitative criteria.
3. Results
The results show that there are differences among the studied neighborhoods in terms of livability. In the final matrix Electre neighborhood Harandi had 0 points, Kosar 1 point and 2 points were allocated to Takhti neighborhood. According to the results, s Takhti neighborhood has the most compatibility with the principles and elements of livability. One significant reason for high livability of this neighborhood was low commercial uses and low storage-related services to the market. That is why this neighborhood has historical memory and identity for residents. Although many factors can contribute to the livability of neighborhoods of Tehran, in the little livability neighborhoods of the study, development of commercial-service applications and services on the market and the loss of a sense of belonging among citizens have the most negative impact. This effect is more visible and tangible in the neighborhood of Harandi. According to these results, neighborhoods of Takhti in aspect of livability components have higher level than other neighborhoods, and neighborhoods of Kosar and Harandi are placed after Takhti with regard to livability.
4. Conclusion
Kosar and harandi because of the dominance of commercial-service and warehousing functions for the market and the lack of a sense of belonging to the neighborhood have less livability than Takhti neighborhood. The negative impact of the trend market on the surrounding neighborhood due to its economic power becomes more and more powerful day by day. According to the analysis conducted on the three neighborhoods that are at the core of Tehran metropolis, there can be strategies to reduce negative impacts of the market on neighborhoods and steps to increase the livability of that, which has been emphasized in several instances:
- Special planning for social life in the city;
- Increased participation of local people in the management and operation of neighborhoods;
- The empowerment of residents to improve their economic and social status;
- Spatial organization of business-services market and preventing the spread of uncontrolled and unbridled warehouses in the neighborhoods;
- Exploiting of the strong economic potential of the market in order to create appropriate jobs, infrastructure for residents of neighborhoods and increase the continuity of their residence;
- With regard to low participation among neighborhoods that were studied and specially the neighborhood of harandi, we can increase effective and more interaction among residents by creating appropriate and diverse places, and public spaces for increasing communications among residents. This creates greater participation and a sense of more responsibility towards problems among the residents of the neighborhoods.

Keywords

Livability; quality of life; ELECTRE model; Metropolis; Tehran

References

1. احمدی‌نژاد، ف.، و بندرآباد، ع. (1393). ارزیابی شاخص‌های کیفیت زندگی با تأکید بر اصول شهر زیست‌پذیر در منطقة 22 تهران. پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، (۱۶)، 55 -74

2. امین‌زاده گوهرریزی، ب.، و روشن، م. (1392). ارائة روش سنجش تطبیقی زیست‌پذیری در محلات شهری با تأکید برمعیارهای برنامه‌ریزی کاربری زمین (نمونة موردی: شهر قروین). مقالة اراپه شده در اولین همایش ملی شهرسازی و معماری در گذر زمان، ص. 1-18. دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام خمینی(ره) واحد قزوین، قزوین

3. بندرآباد، ع. (1390). شهر زیست‌پذیر از مبانی تا معانی. تهران: آدرخش

4. خراسانی، م.، و رضوانی، م. (1392). سنجش و ارزیابی مؤلفه‌های زیست‌پذیری در سکونتگاه‌های روستایی پیرامون شهری (بررسی موردی: شهرستان ورامین). توسعه روستایی، ۵(۱)، 89-110

5. رهنمایی، م.، فرهودی، ر.، قالیباف، م.، و هادی‌پور، ح. (1386). سیر ساختاری و عملکردی در شهرهای ایران. نشریه انجمن جغرافیایی ایران، ۵(۱۲و۱۳)، 19-43

6. ساسان‌پور، ف.، تولایی، س.، جعفری‌اسداآبادی، ح. (1394). سنجش و ارزیابی زیست‌پذیری شهری در مناطق بیست و دو گانة کلان‌شهر تهران. فصلنامه برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای، ۵(۱۸)، 27-42

7. سلمانی، م.، بدری، س. ع.، قصابی، م.، و عشور نژاد، غ. (1392). درجه‌بندی سکونتگاه‌های روستایی برای توسعة گردشگری بیابان با استفاده از روش electre III (مطالعة موردی: خور و بیابانک). جغرافیا و پایداری محیط، ۳(۶)، ۱-22

8. عیسی‌لو، ع.، بیات، م.، و بهرامی، ع. (1393). انگارۀ زیست‌پذیری رهیافتی نوین جهت ارتقای کیفیت زندگی در جوامع روستایی (نمونة موردی: شهرستان قم، بخش کهک). فصلنامۀ مسکن و محیط روستا، (146)، 120– 107

9. کزازی، ا.، امیری، م.، و رهبر یعقوبی، ف. (1390). ارزیابی و اولوی‌ بندی استراتژی‌ها با استفاده از تکنیک الکتره 3 در محیط فازی (مطالةه موردی: شرکت تماد). مطالعات مدیریت صنعتی، ۸(۲۰)، 49-79

10. کیانی، ا.، غلامی‌فاردقی، ح.، و وحدتی، م. (1391). سنجش و ارزیابی ظرفیت زیست اجتماعی محلات در شهرهای کوچک با مدل electre (مطالعه موردی: شهر درق). پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، ۳(۱۱)، 59-72

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

12. Dajian, Z., & Rogers, P. (2006). 2010 World Expo and urban life quality in Shanghai in terms of sustainable development. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 4(1), 15-22

13. Dunstan, K. (2007). Creating an indicator of livability: The Neighborhood Livability Assessment Survey (NLAS). Paper presented at the European Urban Research Association (EURA) Conference, Glasgow, Scotland

14. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2011). A summary of the liveability ranking and overview, EIU. Retrieved from http://www.eiu.com/cityrankings11

15. Leby, J. L., & Hashim, A. H. (2010). Liveability dimensions and attributes: Their relative importance in the eyes of neighbourhood residents. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 15(1), 67-91

16. Ley, A., & Newton, P. (2010). Creating and sustaining livable cities. In S. Kallidaikurichi & B. Yuen (Eds.), Developing living cities: From analysis to action (PP. 68-79). Singapore: World Scientific

17. Nadim, H. T. (2012). Urban growth management as an approach for livable and sustainable communities, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Cairo University, Egypt

18. Partners for Livable Communities. (2009). What is livability? Retrieved from http://livable.org/livability-resources/events/partners-events

19. Radcliff, B. (2001). Politics, markets and life satisfaction: The political economy of human happiness. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 939-955

20. Rue, H., McNally, L., Rooney, K., Santalucia, P., Raulerson, M., Lim-Yap, & Burden, D. (2011). Livability in transportation. Washington, DC: FHWA

21. Salzano, E. (1997). Seven aims for the livable city. In S. H. Lennard, S. von Ungern Sternberg, & H. L. Lennard (Eds.), Making cities livable (PP. 18-20). California, USA: Gondolier Press

22. Sanford, E. L. (2011). What is the difference between livability and sustainability? Retrieved from http://www.camsys.com/kb_experts_livability. htm

23. Shamsuddin, S., Hassan, N. R. A., & Sulaiman, A. B. (2013). Livability of Kuala Lumpur city centre: An evaluation of the happiness level of the streets- activities. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 7(6), 1863-1869

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

25. Timmer, V., & Seymoar, N. K. (2006). The world urban forum: Vancouver working group discussion paper. Retrieved from http:// www. cscd. gov.bc.ca/ lgd/ intergov_relations/ library/wuf_the_livable_city.pdf

26. Veenhoven, R., & Ouweneel, P. (1995). Livability of the welfare-state: Appreciation-of-life and length-of-life in nations varying in state-welfare-effort. Social Indicators Research, 36, 1-49

27. Vergunst, P. (2003). Livability and ecological land use the challenge of localization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Swedish University of Agriculture Sciences. Sweden

28. Woolcock, G. & Elliott, W. (2009). Measuring up? Assessing the liveability of Australian cities. In P. Maginn, R. Jones (Ed.), Proceedings of State of Australian Cities (SOAC): National Conference, Promaco Conventions, Bateman, WA. http:// apo.org.au/ node/ 60183