Analyzing Urban Livability using the ELECTRE Model Case Study: Gorgan City Regions

جغرافیاوتوسعه ناحیه ای

Article 8, Volume 17, Issue 1 - Serial Number 32, September 2019, Pages 223-248   

Document Type: scientific-research article

DOI: 10.22067/geography.v17i1.66960

Authors

Abolfazl Meshkini¹; Robab Maleki²; Ebrahim Moammeri^{* 3}

¹Tarbiat Modares University

²University of Tehran

³Golestan University

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

The idea of livable cities is a new approach in which a comfortable urban environment is defined as a place for living, physical activities (urban facilities, infrastructure, spatial planning, etc.), and non-physical aspects (social relationships, economic activities, etc.). Whether living in urban or rural areas, every human being seeks to achieve desirable, satisfactory, and meaningful livelihoods which naturally requires a set of contexts and factors to enable humans make a living for themselves and their society founded on long-term welfare and comfort. Certain authors view such conditions as synonymous to livability or proper conditions for living. In general, the concept points to a set of objective features that transform a place into an environment where people would be willing to live in, both in present and future. Urban livability is concerned with aspects that play a role in increasing quality of life. Increased quality of live would, in turn, influence lifestyle and healthcare conditions, enhancing the sustainability of the built environment. One of the main causes of cities’ failure with regards to livability are their lack of identity which may be the result of the absence of many essential activities for urban vitality and enthusiasm as well as the poor quality of urban design and architecture. Gorgan is also facing issues. The expansion of the city of Gorgan has caused many changes and on the other hand, due to the rapid growth and development of the migration and the inefficiency of urban plans, has caused many problems in the economic, social, and environmental aspects that have made the city's viability decline. Gorgan has not resolved these issues. It is then necessary to examine its viability. The main purpose of this research is to investigate the biodiversity of Gorgan.
 

Theoretical Framework

Since livability is a general concept, it deals with other notions such as sustainability, quality of life, spatial quality and healthy communities. Given the latest theories in urbanism, it can be said that the principles present in many of these theories such as sustainable development, smart growth, new urbanism, and compact cities are close to those with livability and quality of life enhancement. Subsequently, the criteria and indices under the focus of these theories can be applied to increase the livability of cities and urban regions. In other words, livability is multifold, hierarchical concept that may form in different levels as a set of criteria or sub criteria.

Method

The present applied research was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method. The total population of the study included the residents of Gorgan city regions. Data were collected using library and document studies while raw data were extracted from Grogan city land use. The Shannon Entropy technique was employed to assign weights to livability indices used in the study. The ELECTRE model was also used to evaluate the extent of livability in Gorgan city regions.

Results and Discussion

Results obtained from applying ELECTRE model to six regions of Gorgan city show that 404.20 hectares of the regions’ total area, that is, 11.14% involves very low livability, while 1577.41 (42.02%), 675.2 (18.62%), and 1022.5 (28.20%) hectares involve low, medium and high livability, respectively. The results indicated that the majority of Gorgan city regions are located in low livability areas.

Conclusion

In recent years, urban livability has been considered as one of the most important criteria indicating the level of comfort and welfare of societies at various levels; it has also been the focus of urban affair planners and managers. Subsequently, prioritizing and determining the extent of entitlement and deprivation in terms of livability aspects in urban regions are of major importance. In the present study conducted with the purpose of uncovering the status quo of Gorgan city regions, 16 indices were indicated for assessment. The ELECTRE model results showed a drastic difference between various regions of Gorgan city. Regions 7 and 8 involve the highest level of livability compared to other regions. Conversely, certain regions such as 1, 2, and 3 involve fewer facilities compared to regions 7 and 8 despite the fact they accommodate fewer population; these regions have failed to meet the needs of their residents efficiently in terms of livability conditions, being at very poor levels. Consequently, a set of recommendations were posed to enhance the level of livability in Gorgan such as increasing the area of green space per capita and construction of new, large and suitable parks with respect to the presence of unused lands as proper areas to be transformed into green spaces as well as providing necessary facilities, providing financial services and credits for deprived regions, particularly region 3 of Gorgan.

Keywords

Epidemiology: Sustainability: Electricity: Townscapes

References

1. اذانی، م؛ نیلی احمدآباد، س. (1388). تأثیرگذاری شهرهای پیوسته در ساماندهی مادر شهر اصفهان (مطالعة موردی: خانة اصفهان و ملک شهر). مجلة علمی – پژوهشی فضای جغرافیایی، 9 (27)، 54-23.

2. امت‌علی، ع. (1378). طراحی مرکز شهر جدید سهند. پایان‌نامة منتشرنشدة کارشناسی ارشد طراحی شهری..دانشگاه شهید بهشتی. تهران، ایران.

3. بندرآباد، ع؛ احمدی نژاد، ف. (1393). ارزیابی شاخص‌های کیفیت زندگی با تأکید بر اصول شهر زیست‌پذیر در منطقة 22 تهران. مجلة پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 5 (16)، 74-55.

4. جعفری، ح. (1392). بررسی زیست‌پذیری کلان‌شهر تهران در راستای توسعة پایدار. پایان‌نامة منتشر نشدة کارشناسی ارشد جغرافیا. دانشگاه خوارزمی. تهران، ایران.

5. خراسانی، م؛ رضوانی، م. (1392). شناخت و تحلیل تفاوت زیست‌پذیری روستاهای پیرامون شهری در شهرستان ورامین. فصل‌نامة اقتصاد فضا و توسعة روستایی، 2، 74-55.

6. ربانی، ر. (1383). جامعه‌شناسی شهری. اصفهان: دانشگاه اصفهان.

7. رخشانی‌نسی، ح؛ ربانی، ن. (1397) ارزیابی وضعیت شاخص‌های زیست‌پذیری شهری از دیگاه شهروندان (موردشناسی: مناطق پنج‌گانة شهر زاهدان). جغرافیا و آمایش شهری- منطقه‌ای، 8 (27)، 74-55.

8. زیاری،ک.حیدری، ا؛ غنیزاده‌قاسم‌آبادی، ه؛ آباذری، ن. (1397). ارزیابی و اولویت‌بندی مؤلفه‌های زیست‌پذیری در شهر بم. نشریة جغرافیای اجتماعی شهری، 5 (1)، شمارة پیاپی 12، 120-105.

9. ساسان‌پور، ف؛ علیزاده، س؛ اعرابی‌مقدم، ح. (1397). قابلیت‌سنجی زیست‌پذیری مناطق شهری ارومیه با مدل RALSPI. نشریة تحقیقات کاربردی علوم جغرافیایی، ۱۸ (۴۸)، 258-241.

10. سعیدنیا، ا. (1378). مدیریت شهری. جلد دهم، تهران: سازمان شهرداری های کشور.

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

12. شکوئی، ح. (1395). اکولوژی اجتماعی شهرها. تبریز: انتشارات دانشگاه تبریز.

13. عابدین‌درکوش، س. (1395). درآمدی به اقتصاد شهری. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.

14. عابدینی، ا؛ کریمی، ر. (1395). سنجش زیست‌پذیری در شهرها بر اساس روش F.ANP (مطالعة موردی: نواحی پانزده‌گانة شهر ارومیه). محیط‌شناسی، 42 (4)، 752-735.

15. عیسی‌لو، ع؛ بیات، م؛ بهرامی، ع. (1393). انگارة زیست‌پذیری رهیافی نوین جهت ارتقای کیفیت زندگی در جوامع روستایی، مطالعة موردی:شهرستان قم، بخش کهک. فصل‌نامة مسکن و محیط روستا،146، 120-107.

16. ماجدی، ح؛ بندرآبادی، ع. (1393). برسی معیارهای جهانی و بومی شهرزیست‌پذیر. هویت شهر، 17، 76-65.

17. موسوی، م. ظ. (1391). درآمدی بر مشارکت اجتماعی. چاپ اول. تهران: انتشارات جامعه‌شناسان

18. Cummins, S., Stafford, M., Macintyre, S., Marmot, M., & Ellaway, A. (2005). Neighbourhood environment and its association with self rated health: Evidence from Scotland and England. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(3), 207-213.‏

19. Galea, S., Freudenberg, N., & Vlahov, D. (2005). Cities and population health. Social Science and Medicine, 60(5), 1017-1033.‏

20. Gee, G. C., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2004). Traffic stress, vehicular burden and well-being: a multilevel analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 59(2), 405-414.‏

21. Ghanbari, A., Yekta, P., & Roushan, A. (2001). Effective factors on quality of life in diabetic patients. Journal of Guilan University of Medical Sciences, 10(37), 82-89.‏

22. Gordon-Larsen, P., Nelson, M. C., Page, P., & Popkin, B. M. (2006). Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics, 117(2), 417-424.‏

23. Groenewegen, P. P., Van den Berg, A. E., De Vries, S., & Verheij, R. A. (2006). Vitamin G: Effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health, 6(1), 149-158.‏

24. Kihl, M., Brennan, D., Gabhawala, N., List, J., & Mittal, P. (2005). Livable communities: An evaluation guide. Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute.‏

25. Lynch, K. (1981). A theory of good city form. Cambridge, England: The MIT Press.

26. Nour, W. (2015). Towards sustainability in the livable city. International Transaction Journal of Engineering Management and Applied Sciences and Technologies, 6(4), 145-155.‏

27. Shamsuddin, S., Hassan, N. R. A., & Bilyamin, S. F. I. (2012). Walkable environment in increasing the liveability of a city. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 167-178.‏

28. Tu, K. J., & Lin, L. T. (2008). Evaluative structure of perceived residential environment quality in high-density and mixed-use urban settings: An exploratory study on Taipei City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87(3), 157-171.‏

29. Wheeler, S.‌ (2001). Livable communities: Creating safe and livable neighborhoods, towns, and regions in California.‏ Retrieved from https:// escholarship. org/ uc/item/8xf2d6jg