سنجش و ارزیابی ابعاد و مولفه های زیست پذیری شهری با تاکید بر توسعه پایدار(نمونه موردی: شهر نورآباد دلفان)
محورهای موضوعی : کاربرد GIS&RS در برنامه ریزی شهری
احمد پوراحمد
1
(دانشگاه تهران)
احمد حاتمی
2
(دانشگاه تهران)
کلید واژه: توسعه پایدار, زیست پذیری شهری, شهر نورآباد دلفان,
چکیده مقاله :
پژوهش حاضر در پی آنست که با بررسی میزان زیست پذیری، در شهر نورآباد دلفان آن را به‌سوی توسعه پایدار سوق دهد. روش این پژوهش توصیفی تحلیلی و با استفاده از ابزار پرسش‌نامه و مشاهده مستقیم است جامعه آماری آن تمام شهروندان شهر نورآباد که در سرشماری سال 1395 برابر با 66417 نفر بوده است. برای تخمین حجم نمونه از فرمول کوکران استفاده شد. بعد از مشخص شدن حجم نمونه پرسشنامه‌ها به صورت تصادفی ساده در بین شهروندان پخش گردید. اطلاعات به دست آمده با استفاده از نرافزار Spss و آزمون‌های T تک نمونه‌ای، آزمون فریدمن تجزیه و تحلیل گردیدند. نتایج این پژوهش نشان داد که در شهر نورآباد ابعاد زیست پذیری به هم هماهنگ و هم‌اندازه نبوده و بعد زیست‌محیطی با مجموع 3 شاخص مطلوب و میانگین رتبه 55/2 در وضعیت مناسب بوده و همخوانی بیشتری با معیارهای شهر زیست پذیر دارد. در بعد اجتماعی از مجموع 6 شاخص تدوین شده 2 شاخص آموزش، همبستگی و تعلق اجتماعی در وضعیت مطلوب و چهار شاخص میزان خدمات اوقات فراغت، خدمات بهداشتی و درمانی، امنیت اجتماعی، مشارکت اجتماعی در وضعیت نامطلوب بوده است. میانگین رتبه برای بعد اجتماعی 90/1 بوده است. و در مرحله آخر بعد اقتصادی با 4 شاخص که دو شاخص مسکن و کالای مصرفی در وضعیت مطلوب و شاخص حمل‌ونقل و امکانات زیربنایی نیز در وضعیت نسبتا مطلوب و شاخص اشتغال در وضعیت بسیار نامطلوب ارزیابی شده است. نامطلوب بودن شاخص اشتغال در این شهر نه تنها زیست پذیری را به شدت کاهش داده است. بلکه موجب مهاجرت‌های دائمی و فصلی و مخصوصاً قشر جوان در شهر نورآباد شده است. بنابراین میزان ابعاد زیست پذیری در شهر نورآباد با شدت و ضعف همراه است و هرچه از بعد زیست‌محیطی به طرف ابعاد اجتماعی و اقتصادی حرکت کنیم از شدت زیست پذیری کاسته می‌شود.
Therefore, livability is a way to sustainable development. In this regard, purpose of the present study is to investigate the rate of livability in the NourAbad Delphan city for it leads to sustainable development. The method of this research is descriptive and analytical, using a questionnaire and direct observation tool. Therefore, a combination of quantitative and qualitative method is used. The statistical population of this study was all citizens of norabad city, which totaled 66417 in the year 1395. To estimate the sample size, a Cochran formula was used that number The sample was 384 according to this formula. After determining the sample size, the questionnaires were distributed randomly among the citizens. In addition, the researcher in person has directly observed the indicators studied at the city level. The obtained data were analyzed using Spss and T single-sample tests, Friedman test The results of this study showed that the dimensions of Livablity in Nourabad city were not coordinated and not equal, and then the environment with a total of 3 favorable and average indicators was 2.55 times higher than that of the city and more consistent with the criteria of the city of Livablity. Subsequent to the total of 6 indicators, 2 indicators of education , Social solidarity and social status, and the four indicators of the amount of leisure time services, health services, social security, social participation, and unfavorable status. The average score for the social dimension was 1.90. The last stage of the economic adventure was characterized by four indicators, which indicate that the housing and consumer goods in the optimal situation, the transport indicator, and the infrastructure are also relatively favorable and the employment index is in an extremely unfavorable situation. The undesirable index of employment in the city has not only greatly reduced the Livablity, which has caused permanent and seasonal migrations and especially young people in the city of Nur Abad. Thus, the dimensions of the habitability in the city of Nurabad are associated with severity and weakness, and the greater the extent of the environment to the Moving social and economic dimensions reduces the severity of Livablity.
_||_
Allen, T.F.H. (2010). “Making Livable Sustainable Systems Unremarkable.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 27 (5), PP. 79-469.
-Baum, S., Arthurson, K. and K. Rickson. (2010). Happy people inmixed-up places: The associationbetween the degree and type of local socioeconomic mix and expressions ofneighbourhood satisfaction. Urban Studies, Vol. 47(3), PP. 467–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098009351941.
-Burton, M. (2014). Quality of place, In Encyclopedia of quality of life and Well-Being research (pp. 5312–5314): Springer.
-Cown (Cowan), R. (2005). “the dictionary of urbanism”, street wise press.
- De Jong, M. and et al., (2015). Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization, Journal of Cleaner production, Vol. 109, PP. 25-38.
- Holden, M. (2012). “Is Integrated Planning Any More Than the Sum of Its Parts?: Considerations for Planning Sustainable Cities.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 32(3): PP. 305–18.
- Heylen, K. (2006). Liveability in social housing: three case studies in Flanders.
-Insch, A. and M. Florek. (2010). Place satisfaction of city residents: Findings and implicationsfor city branding. In G. Ashworth, & M. Kavaratzis (Eds.), Towards effectiveplace brand management: Branding European Cities and Regions (PP. 191–204). Cheltenham:Edward Edgar Publishing Limited.
- Midgley, J. and M. Livermore. (1998). “Social Capital and Local Economic Development: Implications for Community Social Work Practice,” Journal of Community Practice, Vol. 5(1/2): PP. 29-40.
-Ley, D. (1990). Urban liveability in context, Urban Geography, Vol. 11(1), PP. 31-35.
-Ley, A. and P. Newton. (2010). ‘Creating and sustaining liveable cities’, in Kallidaikurichi, S. andYuen, B. (Eds.): Developing Living Cities: From Analysis to Action, World Scientific, Singapore.
-Litman, T. 2011. Sustainability and Livability: Summary of Definitions, Goals, Objectives and Performance Indicators,Victoria, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
-Lowe, M., Whitzman, C., Badland, H., Davern, M., Hes, D., Aye, L., Butterworth, I. and B. Giles-Corti, (2013). Liveable, healthy, sustainable: What are the keyindicatorsfor Melbourne neighbourhoods?The conceptual meaning of livability and its importance to planning today: A case studyof the regeneration of Cardiff Bay, 2014 Author: Spencer Powell (130126436)
-Mastura, A., Norafida Ab, Gh., Abubakar, A. and N. Keumala. (2017). A Systematic Review on City Liveability Global Research in the Built Environment: Publication and Citation Matrix, Journal of Design and Built Environment, Special Issue.
-McCrea, R., Stimson, R. and J. Western. (2005). Testing a moderated model of satisfactionwith urban living using data for Brisbane-South East Queensland, Australia, SocialIndicators Research, Vol. 72(2), PP. 121–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-2211-
-Mercer QualityofLivingSurvey. ⟨www.mercer.com.⟩.
-McCrea, R. and P.Walters. (2012). Impacts of urban consolidation on urban liveability: Comparing an inner and outer suburb in Brisbane, Australia, Housing, Theory andSociety, Vol. 29(2), PP. 190-206.
-Mohamad, K. (2016). Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries, Frontiers of Architectural Research.
-Omuta, G.E. (1988). The quality of urban life and the perception of livability: A casestudy of neighbourhoods in Benin City, Nigeria, Social Indicators Research,Vol. 20(4), PP. 17-440.
-Steuteville, R. (2016). “What is a livable Community, Anyway?,” Pubic Square, Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org); at www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2016/10/25/what-livable-communityanyway.
-Rue, H., Rooney, K., Dock, S., Ange, K., Twaddell, H. and A. Poncy. (2011). The role of FHWA programs in livability. Retrieved from
- Shaheen, S. and et al. (2016). Moving Toward a Sustainable California: Exploring Livability, Accessibility & Prosperity, UC Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center (http://innovativemobility.org) for the California Department of Transportation.
-Tan Khee Giap,(2014). A new approach to measuring the liveability of cities:the Global Liveable Cities Index, World Review of Science, Technology and Sust, Development, Vol. 11(2), 2014.
-Türksever, A. N. E. and G. Atalik. (2001). Possibilities and limitations for the measurementof the quality of life in urban areas. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 53(2), PP. 163–187.
-Veenhoven, R. and J. Ehrhardt, (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: Test of predictions implied inthree theories of happiness, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 34, PP. 33–68.
-Vuchic, V. (1999). Transportation for Livable Cities, Center for Urban Policy Research, New Jersey.
-Visser, P., Dam, V.F. and P. Hooimeijer, (2005). The influence of neighbourhoodcharacteristics on geographical differences in house prices in the Netherlands, In European Network for Housing Research (ENHR) International HousingConference, Vol. 29, PP. 149-169.
-UN-ESA (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division)(2014). World urbanization prospects [highlights], The 2014 revision. (ST/ESA/SER.A/352).
-United Nations, (2014). World Urbanization Prospects, REVISION, 2014.
-UNEP, (2013). City-level decoupling, Urban resource fl ows and the governance of infrastructuretransitions, A report of the Working Group on Cities of the International Resource Panel, UNEP, Nairobi
-West, S. and M. Badham. (2008). A strategic framework for creating livable new communities: Final report, Victorian Growth Areas Authority: Melbourne, Victoria.
-Woolcock, G. (2009). Measuring up? assessing the liveability of Australian cities. In State of Australian Cities: National Conference, Perth,PP. 1-19. PromacoConventions.
-Young, E. and V. Hermanson, (2013). Livability literature review: synthesis of current practice. In Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting(No. 13-2940).Washington, DC, USA: National Association of Regional Councils.
-Zhang, X.Q. (2016). The trends, promises and challenges of urbanisation in the world, Habitat International, Vol. 54, PP. 241-252.