Capacity Building of Local Community Development in Line with Sustainable Development: The Coexistence of Poverty Contextual Variables and Geographic Space

جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری

Article 1, Volume 7, Issue 1 - Serial Number 12, September 2020, Pages 16-1   

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: 10.22067/gusd.v7i1.61625

Authors

Isa Piri^{* 1}; Mina Shirmohammadi²

¹Assistant Professor in Geography and Urban Planning, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

²PhD Candidate in Geography and Urban Planning, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

Abstract

Coexistence of poverty and geographical space is a conceptual formation implying the importance of capacity building in producing space for sustainable development. Capacity building is a procedural concept. Practice of democracy and production of civil living space for participation and transition to the social development are more important in contemporary modern urban planning. Now we know communities and civil societies are the main factors making democratic space to growing actors and private sector institutions. This study aimed at conceptualizing social matter priority and social development capacity building in the sustainable urban development process. The approach is descriptive-analytic and the method is survey. The independent variables of the study were tested through a close-ended questionnaire on a Likert scale. The population consisted of all households in Karmandan and Islamabad neighborhoods of Zanjan city with a population of 13368 and 35820, respectively. These two neighborhoods are of different social, economic, cultural, physical, and environmental backgrounds. Results of one sample T-test shows significant relationship between sustainable development and the local community development capacity building. The factorial analysis addressing the second hypothesis indicates that the economic factor with an average of 0.700 and institutional factor with 0.736 have the highest impact on the spatio-locational context of the community capacity building. Second hypothesis T-test also signals a significant relationship among the variables of eightfold factors affecting capacity building background. The findings suggest micro spatio-locational planning of the urban neighborhoods with special emphasis on cultural, social, and economic backgrounds, locationally improving poverty-stricken neighborhoods, and collecting micro-components to regenerate the neighborhoods.

Keywords

Local Community; Sustainable Development; Zanjan; Capacity Building; Coexistence

References

1. پیری، ع. (1390). تبیین علمی حکمروایی مطلوب و کارایی ارتباطی شهر؛ مطالعه موردی:‌ نظام شهری استان آذربایجان شرقی. پایان نامه دکتری رشته جغرافیا و برنامه­ریزی شهری،‌ تبریز: دانشگاه تبریز
2. جواهری­پور، م.، و داورپناه، ب. (1381). سکونتگاه­های ناپایدار اقشار کم­درآمد شهری هفت شهر، فصلنامه عمران و بهسازی شهری، 3(8)، 95-82.
3. رفیعیان، م.، خدائی، ز.، و داداش پور، ه. (1393). ظرفیت­سازی اجتماعات محلی به مثابه­ی رویکردی در توانمندسازی نهادهای اجتماعی. فصلنامه جامعه­شناسی نهادهای اجتماعی،1(2)، 133-160.
4. فوکو، م. (1390). نظم اشیاء؛ دیرینه شناسی علوم انسانی، ترجمه یحیی امامی، چاپ اول، تهران: نشر پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی واجتماعی

 

5. Andrews, R. (2008). Civic Engagement, Ethnic Heterogeneity and social capital in urban areas: evidence from England, urban affairs review, 44(3), 428- 440.
6. Ayers, A.J. (2008). we all know a democracy when we see one (neo)liberal orthodoxy in the democratization and good governance project. Policy and society, 27(27), 1-13.
7. Batterbury, S.P.j., & Fernando j.L. (2006). Rescaling governance and the impacts of political and environmental decentralization: an introduction. World   development, 34(11), 1851-1863
8. Button, K. (2002). City management and urban environmental indicators. Ecological economics, 4(4), 217-233.
9. Habermas,J., (1984). On Reconstruction of Historical Materialism. London: Shapiro, Heinemann.
10. Harding, R. (2006). Ecologically sustainable development: origins, implementation and challenges. Desalination, 4(187), 229- 239.
11. Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and City. Oxford: Oxford.
12. Jacobs, J. (1961). the death and life of great American cities, New York: Random House.
13. Land, B. (1976), Our common future. UN: Report to UN
14. Megyesi, B., Kelemen, E. & Schermer, M. (2010), Social capital as a success Factor for Collective Farmers Marketing Initiatives. Jrnl of society. Of Agriculture & food, 180(1), 89-103.
15. Mercer, C. (2003). Performing partnership: civil society and the illusions of good governance in Tanzania. Political geography, 10(22), 741- 763.
16. Musters, C.G.M., De Graaf H.J., & Ter Keurs W.J. (1998). Defining socio- environmental systems for sustainable development. Ecological economic, 9(26), 44-59
17. Perkins, H.A. (2009). Out from the (green) shadow? Neoliberal hegemony through the market logic of shared urban environmental governance. Political geography,14(28), 395- 405
18. Seabrooke, W.,Yeung S. C. W., & Mayong Li F. M. (2004). Implementing sustainable urban development at the operational level (with special reference to Hong Kong and Guangzhou). Habitat International, 12(28), 443- 46
19. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University.
20. Sen, A. (2009). The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books.
21. Späth, L., & Scolobig., A. (2017). Stakeholder empowerment through participatory planning practices: The case of electricity transmission lines in France and Norway. Energy Research and Science, 23, 189-198
22. Strzelecka, M., Boley, B. B., & Woosnam, M, K. (2017). Place attachment and empowerment: Do residents need to be attached to be empowered? Annals of Tourism Research, 66, 61-73