ارزیابی کیفیت زندگی در محلۀ سیروس تهران

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه جغرافیا، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

2 استاد گروه جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

3 دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

4 کارشناس ارشد شهرسازی، دانشکدة شهرسازی و معماری، دانشگاه هنر تهران

چکیده

هزارة سوم میلادی هزارة شهرنشینی است. این پدیده علی‌رغم دستاوردهای بزرگ برای بشر، مسائل و مشکلاتی از جمله افت شدید کیفیت زندگی را برای شهروندان به‌دنبال داشته است. کیفیت زندگی مقوله‌ای چندبعدی و پیچیده است و این مفهوم برای افراد و گروه‌های مختلف و متناسب با شرایط زمانی و مکانی، معانی متفاوتی دارد. در پژوهش توصیفی-تحلیلی حاضر، کیفیت زندگی ساکنان محلة سیروس تهران برمبنای سطح رضایتمندی آن‌ها از 7 شاخص (حمل‌و‌نقل، امکانات و خدمات، واحد مسکونی، امنیت، هویت و تعلق‌خاطر، زیبایی، تنوع و خوانایی، کیفیت محیط‌زیست و آلودگی) و رضایت کلی آن‌ها از زندگی ارزیابی شد. برای نمونه‌گیری، 5 درصد از خانوارها انتخاب شدند و جمع‌آوری داده‌ها با پرسشنامه و مصاحبه صورت گرفت. تحلیل داده‌ها نیز با استفاده از آنالیز واریانس و آزمون t تک‌نمونه‌ای صورت گرفت. براساس نتایج این پژوهش، هرچند کیفیت زندگی در این محله، متوسط به پایین (97/2)، و رضایت ساکنان از کیفیت زندگی پایین‌تر از حد متوسط است، میزان رضایتمندی آن‌ها از عناصر اصلی سازندة کیفیت زندگی شهری در محدودة مورد مطالعه و زیرمعیارهای آن (زیست‌محیطی، اجتماعی-روانی و کالبدی) نتایج متفاوتی را به‌دنبال دارد؛ به‌طوری‌که کمترین میزان رضایت (بیشترین آزردگی) علی‌رغم اجرای پروژه‌های نوسازی در محلة سیروس، به شاخص‌های هویت و تعلق‌خاطر (روانی-اجتماعی) با میانگین 64/2 (پایین‌تر از حد میانگین) مربوط است. در این میان، تأکید صرف به اهداف کالبدی و بی‌توجهی به اهداف اجتماعی در قالب پروژة نوسازی (ناشی از رویکرد سنتی برنامه‌ریزی) چهرة کنونی حقایق جاری را نمایان کرد. به‌علاوه در میزان رضایتمندی یا آزردگی ساکنان، مدت اقامت، سن و نوع شغل تأثیرگذار بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessment of Quality of Life in Syroos Neighborhood in Tehran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hossein Hataminejad 1
  • Keramattolah Ziari 2
  • Shahram Pashabadi 3
  • Mahsa Haji 4
1 Associate Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 PhD Candidate in Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4 MA in Urban Planning, Collage of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
The early urbanization process is an inevitable reality. In the meantime, rapid urbanization, especially in developing countries, has led to a sharp decline in the quality of life for citizens and it has always plagued the national government, local and urban management. Given the rapid urbanization in the world, quality of life in urban areas has become a central issue for planners and urban managers. The importance of this issue is doubled with the increasing trend of urbanization in the country (72% of the urban population in 1390). Over the past few decades, the attitude that cities have become center of development, it seems important to consider economic growth and socio-economic renewal, quality of life, poverty reduction and environmental sustainability. In Iran, although consistent with international developments, global transformations are taking place in the attitudes and policies of city officials and executives and, thus, paying attention to the opinions of residents in recent years is a significant turning point in the traditional duties of the provincial authorities. But surveys show that any policy and planning to raise the level of quality of life and environment in neighborhoods has been based on expert opinions. This means a planning from top to bottom. In other words, the quality of life and environment, the assessment of the locations and the decisions made based on these assessments were mainly performed by experts. The studies conducted globally suggest a low correlation coefficient between the evaluation of experts and residents in this regard. In the meantime, the Syrous neighborhood of Tehran (12th district of Tehran) has not been an exception and has less to do with residents' attitudes. This research seeks to assess the quality of life of citizens in the Syros neighborhood of Tehran and attempts to scientifically explain the impact of various environmental (noise, pollution, etc.), psychosocial and physical indicators (services and facilities, etc.) in terms of residents in three levels of the neighborhood, residential unit and improvement of quality of life based on residents' opinions and expert reviews.
Methodology
The methods used in this research are descriptive - analytical based on applied aims for improving the quality of life. The instrument of measurement in this research is questionnaire, interview, observation and statistical data. The statistical population in this research is all residents of Syroos community in the 12th district of Tehran municipality (with a population of 7,175 and about 1944 households), 5% of households (97 households) were selected for sampling. The sampling method used in this research is simple random and the samples were selected from the people aged 15 years and older. In this study, one-way t-test and one-sample t-test were used to assess the quality of life of residents of the neighborhood, and also to measure the residents' satisfaction from the 5-option Likert scale.
Results and discussion
The results of life quality assessment in the Syroos community indicate that although the quality of life in this middle-to-low neighborhood is 2.97, the resident’s satisfaction from quality of life in general is lower than the average. However, residents' satisfaction values show different results in the main elements of the quality of urban life in the study area and its sub-criteria (environmental, social, psychological and physical). Thus, the lowest level of satisfaction (the most distressed), despite the implementation of renovation projects in the community of Syroos, was related to the indices of identity and belonging (2.64) and lower than average. In the meantime, the emphasis on physical goals and lack of attention to social goals in the framework of the modernization project (due to the traditional urban planning approach) has occurred in the face of current facts. The effects and consequences of this purely physical approach have been one of the reasons for considering the concept of quality of life in urban planning (multifaceted and comprehensive) in recent years. The physical indicators including transportation with an average satisfaction value of 3.16, housing units with an average of 3.29, and services with an average of 3.3 are placed in the following classes in terms of satisfaction of residents. Other psychological indicators including social security, with an average satisfaction 3.42 and beauty, diversity and readability with an average satisfaction 3.49 and environmental indicators (average satisfaction of 3.81) are followed. The above situation represents a relatively different but low status.
Conclusion
Quality of life has always been one of the main urban issues in developing countries, including Iran. The results of this research show that quality of life is a multidimensional and complex subject. It affects many factors and the level of satisfaction with the elements of the quality of life for different individuals and groups. It has different impacts according to different conditions of time, place, social, economic, cultural and physical circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary to study the inner layers of the issue. The results of measuring the quality of life in the Syroos community indicate that the residents' satisfaction from quality of life is, in general, lower than the average (2.97). Given the low quality of life in the community, improving the quality of life is necessary to increase the satisfaction level of residents. In the meantime, any policy and planning to improve the quality of life in this neighborhood should not only be based on the views and needs of residents, but it has to be integrated. Therefore, the measures to increase the identity and consistency and also improve the transportation system are in the first and second priorities. Other priorities are including development of comfort in the residential environment, strengthening existing facilities and services, neighborhood security, and improvement of the environmental situation.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • quality of life
  • Quality of Environment
  • Satisfaction
  • Syroos community
  1. رضوانی، محمدرضا، علیرضا شکیبا و حسین منصوریان، 1387، ارزیابی کیفیت زندگی در نواحی روستایی، مجلة رفاه اجتماعی، شماره‌های 30 و 31، صص 59-75.
  2. رفیعیان، مجتبی و جمشید مولودی، 1390، رویکردها و روش‌های سنجش کیفیت محیط مسکونی شهری، چاپ اول، نشر آذرخش، تهران.
  3. فتحعلیان، معصومه، 1390، مطالعة تطبیقی کیفیت زندگی در بافت‌های خودرو و برنامه‌ریزی‌شدة اسلامشهر، پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه هنر، تهران.
  4. فیشلر، رافائل، 1381، برنامه‌ریزی برای بهبود وضعیت زندگی از استاندارد زندگی تا کیفیت زندگی، ترجمة محمد تقی‌زاده مطلق، فصلنامة جستارهای شهرسازی، شمارة 1، صص 17-26.
  5. کوکبی، افشین، محمدرضا پورجعفر و علی‌اکبر تقوایی، 1384، برنامه‌ریزی کیفیت زندگی شهری در مراکز شهری؛ تعاریف و شاخص‌ها، جستارهای شهرسازی، شمارة 12، صص 75-87.
  6. محفوظیان، مریم، 1391، راهکارهای ارتقای کیفیت زندگی برمبنای سنجش رضایتمندی سکونتی در محلة ده‌ونک، پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه هنر، تهران.
  7. مرادی، داریوش، 1385، به‌کارگیری سیستم گزارش‌دهی کیفیت زندگی در برنامه‌ریزی شهری، پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران.
  8. مهندسان مشاور باوند، 1381، طرح ساماندهی، بهسازی و نوسازی مشارکتی محلة سیروس تهران، مرحلة اول، سازمان عمران و بهسازی، تهران.
  9.  نجات، سحرناز و همکاران، 1385، استانداردسازی پرسشنامة کیفیت زندگی سازمان جهانی بهداشت، مجلة دانشکدة بهداشت و انستیتو تحقیقات بهداشتی، شمارة 4، صص 1-12.
10. Baker, E., 2000, Housing Tenant Relocation-Residential Mobility, Satisfaction and The Development of a Tenent’s Spatial Desion Support System. University of Adelaide, Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies.

11. Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., and Bonnes, M. 2003, Indexes of Perceived Residential Environment Quality and Neighbourhood Attachment in Urban Environments: A Confirmation Study on the City of Rome, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 65, No. 1, PP. 41-52.

12. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., and Rodgers, W. L., 1976, The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions, Russell Sage Foundation.

13. Clark., A., 2008, Monitoring the Urban Quality of Life in Latin America, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, September 26.

14. Epley, D. R., and Menon, M., 2007, A Method of Assembling Cross-Sectional Indicators Into a Community Quality of Life, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 88, No. 2, PP. 281-296.

15. Fahy, F., and Cinnéide, M. Ó., 2008, Developing and Testing an Operational Framework for Assessing Quality of Life, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 28, No. 6, PP. 366-379.

16. Lee, Y. J., 2008, Subjective Quality of Life Measurement in Taipei, Building and Environment, Vol. 43, No. 7, PP. 1205-1215.

17. Massam, B. H., 2002, Quality of Life: Public Planning and Private Living, Progress in Planning, Vol. 58, No. 3, PP. 141-227.

18. Myers, D., 1987, Community-Relevant Measurement of Quality of Life: A Focus on Local Trends, Urban Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1, PP. 108-125.

19. Ng, S. H., Kam, P. K., and Pong, R. W., 2005, People Living in Ageing Buildings: Their Quality of Life and Sense of Belonging, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 3, PP. 347-360.

20. Sahin, A. P. D. N. P., Fasli, A. P. D. M., and Vehbi, A. P. D. B. O., 2007, AN Assessment of Quality of Life in Residential Environments: Case of Selimiye Quarter in Walled City of Nicosia, North Cyprus, Retrieved March, 23, 2012.

21. Pacione, M., 2003, Urban Environmental Quality and Human Wellbeing—A Social Geographical Perspective, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 65, No. 1, PP. 19-30.

22. Preuss, I., and Vemuri, A. W., 2004, Smart Growth and Dynamic Modeling: Implications for Quality of Life in Montgomery County, Maryland, Ecological Modelling, Vol. 171, No. 4, PP. 415-432.

23. Smith, D.M., 1994, Goography and Social Justic (Oxford)- Bastl Blackwell Press.

24. Uzell,D.,& Moser,G , 2006, Environment and Quality of Life, Revue Européenne De Psychologie Appliquée Vol. 56 No. 1, PP. 1–4.

25. VanKamp, I. et al. 2003, Urban Environmental Quality a and Human Well-Being: Towards a Conceptual Framework and Demarcation of Concepts; a Literature Study, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 65, No. 1, PP. 5-18.

26. Viene., D., 2008, Comparing two Person-Environment Fit Models of Residential Satisfaction: Does the Method of Study Influence Outcomes? In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology, Fielding Graduate University.

27. Westaway, M. S., 2006, A Longitudinal Investigation of Satisfaction with Personal and Environmental Quality of Life in an Informal South African Housing Settlement, Doornkop, Soweto, Habitat International, Vol. 30 No. 1, PP. 175–189.