Urban form and demographic characteristics by spatial metric, Case study: Zahedan City

پژوهش ‎های جغرافیای سیاسی

Article 6, Volume 5, Issue 3 - Serial Number 19, September 2020, Pages 110-131   

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: Doi:org/10.22067/pg.v5i3.2012-1011

Authors

Mohammad Reza Shojaeifar^{* 1}; MahmoodReza Anvari^{* 2}; Masoumeh HafezRezaZadeh³

¹Department of Geography, Zahedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zahedan. Iran

²Islamic Azad University, Zahedan.

³, Islamic Azad University, Zahedan

Abstract

Numerous studies have examined and analyzed the urban form. In these studies, discussions of the urban form generally focus on the contrast between scattered, and compact forms. Although scattered, and concentrated forms are the two dominant models in this regard, but a comprehensive study and analysis of other dimensions of the urban form and its relationship with other urban dimensions such as social and economic characteristics have rarely been done. In this paper, ten spatial measures in the form of five distinct dimensions of compactness, diversity, porosity, density, and complexity have been used to study and analyze the urban form and the relationship between urban form and demographic characteristics of neighborhoods with different social, and demographic characteristics have been studied.
The results of spatial measurements show that there are significant differences in the dimensions of the urban form of urban case studies. The urban form of city Zahedan has high compaction and density, low complexity and porosity, and moderate diversity.
Also, the results of the relationship between urban form and demographic characteristics of Zahedan city show that although there is a direct positive and significant relationship between demographic characteristics and the combined score of spatial measures of urban form; This relationship does not apply to all spatial metrics.

Keywords

: urban form; Demographic characteristics; spatial measures; Zahedan city

References

رضائیان، ب.، و رهنما، م. (1393)، سنجش میزان پراکنش و فشردگی شکل کلان شهر های ایران با استفاده از مدل های کمی، مطالعات جغرافیایی مناطق خشک، 4(16)، 87-107.

رهنما، م.، و عباس زاده، غ. (1385)، مطالعه تطبیقی سنجش درجه پراکنش/ فشردگی در کلان شهرهای سیدنی و مشهد، جغرافیا و توسعه ناحیه ای، 3(6).

سعیدنیا، ا. (1378)، شکل شهر، مجله معماری و فرهنگ، سال اول(1).

شیخی، ح.، پریزادی، ط.، رضایی، م.، و سجادی، م. (1391)، تحلیل و تعیین فرم کالبدی شهر اصفهان با استفاده از مدل گری و موران، پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهری، 3(9).

فردآقائی، ف.، (1382) ، بررسی تأثیر تحولات اجتماعی- اقتصادی بر روند شهرنشینی (نمونه موردی: شهر زاهدان)، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکده جغرافیا و برنامهریزی محیطی، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان.

قرائی، آ.، زبردست، ا.، و ماجدی، ح. (1397)، تبیین ارتباط میان فرم شهر و پایداری اجتماعی (مطالعه موردی: مناطق 22گانه شهر تهران)، فصلنامه علمی ـ پژوهشی برنامه ریزی توسعه کالبدی، 5(پیاپی 11)، 79-93.

مهندسین مشاور شهر و خانه، (1385)، طرح جامع شهر زاهدان، مرحله اول، شناخت و بررسی شهر و تجزیه و تحلیل طرح، شماره 2.

وارثی، ح.، یغفوری، ح.، زنگی آبادی، ع.، (1387)، بررسی تطبیقی توزیع خدمات عمومی از منظر عدالت اجتماعی (نمونه موردی: شهر زاهدان) ، مجله جغرافیا و توسعه، شماره 11

 

Anderson, W. P., Kanaroglou, P. S., & Miller, E. J. (1996). Urban form, energy and the environment: a review of issues, evidence and policy. Urban studies, 33(1), 7-35.

Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical analysis, 27(2), 93-115.

Araldi, A., & Fusco, G. (2016). Urban form from the pedestrian point of view: spatial patterns on a street network.

Bhatta, B. (2010). Analysis of urban growth and sprawl from remote sensing data: Springer Science & Business Media.

Choudhary, A., & Punia, M. (2017). Urban Form and Regional Development of National Capital Region Marginalization in Globalizing Delhi: Issues of Land, Livelihoods and Health (pp. 43-66): Springer.

Engelfriet, L., & Koomen, E. (2018). The impact of urban form on commuting in large Chinese cities. Transportation, 45(5), 1269-95.

Foley, D. L. (1964). An approach to metropolitan spatial structure. Explorations into urban structure, 21-78.

Fusco, G., & Araldi, A. (2017). Significant patterns in urban form-Spatial analysis of morphological indicators. Revue Internationale de Géomatique, 27(4), 455-79.

Galster, G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M. R., Wolman, H., Coleman, S., & Freihage, J. (2001). Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing policy debate, 12(4), 681-717.

Getis, A., & Ord, J. K. (1992). The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geographical analysis, 24(3), 189-206.

Guan, C. (2018). Spatial metrics of urban form: Measuring compact cities in China Vertical Urbanism (pp. 189-209): Routledge.

Guan, C., & Rowe, P. G. (2016). The concept of urban intensity and China's townization policy: Cases from Zhejiang Province. Cities, 55, 22-41.

Guo, C., Schwarz, N., & Buchmann, C. M. (2018). Exploring the added value of population distribution indicators for studies of European urban form. Applied spatial analysis and policy, 11(3), 439-63.

Guo, J., & Fast, V. (2019). Growing up, growing out: comparing spatial patterns of urban populations in Canada. Geomatica(0), 1-17.

Handy, S. (1996). Methodologies for exploring the link between urban form and travel behavior. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 1(2), 151-65.

Huang, J., Lu, X. X., & Sellers, J. M. (2007). A global comparative analysis of urban form: Applying spatial metrics and remote sensing. Landscape and urban planning, 82(4), 184-97.

Jenks, M., & Jones, C. (2009). Dimensions of the sustainable city (Vol. 2): Springer Science & Business Media.

Li, H., Calder, C. A., & Cressie, N. (2007). Beyond Moran's I: testing for spatial dependence based on the spatial autoregressive model. Geographical Analysis, 39(4), 357-75.

Lynch, K. (1984). Good city form: MIT press.

Marquez, L. O., & Smith, N. C. (1999). A framework for linking urban form and air quality. Environmental Modelling & Software, 14(6), 541-8.

Mcgarigal, K., & Marks, B. J. (1995). Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1-122.

Nickels, S. A., & Paliwal, H. B. (2018). Assessment of tree diversity of Urban and rural area at Jaunpur district, Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 7(3), 1901-4.

Ord, J. K., & Getis, A. (1995). Local spatial autocorrelation statistics: distributional issues and an application. Geographical analysis, 27(4), 286-306.

Pereira, R. H. M., Nadalin, V., Monasterio, L., & Albuquerque, P. H. (2013). Urban centrality: a simple index. Geographical analysis, 45(1), 77-89.

Pielou, E. C. (1975). Ecological diversity.

Pili, S., Grigoriadis, E., Carlucci, M., Clemente, M., & Salvati, L. (2017). Towards sustainable growth? A multi-criteria assessment of (changing) urban forms. Ecological Indicators, 76, 71-80.

Raimbault, J. (2017). Modeling the co-evolution of urban form and transportation networks.

Settlements, U. N. C. f. H. (2019). World Urbanization Prospects (2014 Revision ed.): Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell system technical journal, 27(3), 379-423.

Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. nature, 163(4148), 688-.

Steadman, P., Bruhns, H. R., Holtier, S., Gakovic, B., Rickaby, P. A., & Brown, F. E. (2000). A classification of built forms. Environment and planning B: Planning and design, 27(1), 73-91.

Tsai, Y.-H. (2005). Quantifying urban form: compactness versus' sprawl'. Urban studies, 42(1), 141-61.

Wheeler, S. M. (2003). The evolution of urban form in Portland and Toronto: implications for sustainability planning. Local Environment, 8(3), 317-36.

Williams, K., Burton, E., & Jenks, M. (2000). Achieving sustainable urban form: an introduction. Achieving sustainable urban form, 2000, 1-5.