نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی
1 استادیار جغرافیا و برنامهریزی شهری، دانشگاه شیراز
2 دانشیار جغرافیا و برنامهریزی روستایی، دانشگاه شیراز
عنوان مقاله [English]
Rapid urbanization referring to the rapid population growth living in urban areas is an attribute of many developing countries. This phenomenon has occurred in some metropolises of Iran, e.g. Tehran, Mashad, Isfahan, Shiraz and Tabriz. Expansion of urban spaces, corrosion of villages and their peripheral lands are outcomes of rapid urbanization. If urbanization process accompanied by urban expansion is not managed properly, it would lead to urban sprawl, pollution, environmental discount, and unsustainable production and consumption patterns. Besides, unorganized expansion of cities has several spatial outcomes on peripheral villages, e.g. land use and land coverage changes in common territory of villages. Physical expansion of settlements toward each other usually leads to annexation of smaller settlements (village) to larger settlements (city).
The outcomes of annexation of villages to cities may have positive or negative effects. Some positive outcomes include improvement of physical infrastructures, development of urban services and increment of constructions. Changes in agricultural lands, conversion of production work forces into consumers, rise of expectations, and promotion of consuming and increment of life costs are examples of negative outcomes. When some villages are joined to a city, these villages would consequently be part of that city; but in many cases, we can see obvious differences between joined villages and main city in respect of social, cultural, economic and environmental attributes. In the way of urban sprawl, the cities impose main changes and evolutions on peripheral areas. In fact, new spatial interactions between those two different areas necessitate these changes. This is a process experienced in many developing countries including Iran.
Shiraz, an Iranian metropolis, experienced considerable physical expansion in recent years. The physical area of the city is increased from 3540 hectare in 1976 to 24000 hectare in 2011. During this period of time, population is increased from 425813 to 1460665. In other words, during 1976-2011, urban population is increased 3.43 times and its area 6.78 times; this condition is a sign of notable acceleration of urban physical development in comparison with population increment. In the way of expansion of city toward peripheral lands, adjacent rural areas would gradually annex to the urban areas. As mentioned before, annexation of the villages to city has various outcomes in social, economic, cultural and physical dimensions. Given the importance of the issues, this paper investigated the effects and outcomes of annexation of rural settlements to Shiraz city area.
In this paper, we have investigated the effects of annexation of some rural settlements to Shiraz metropolis in economic, socio-cultural and environmental-physical dimensions, from the residents’ viewpoints. We have collected the required data through library studies and questionnaire. Research population is the head of households in 12 villages joined to city. Sample size based on Cochran method was 315. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods. We initially studied demographic evolutions and changes in urban area over the period of 1976-2011 and, then, analyzed the data extracted from filled questionnaires using statistical methods.
The questionnaire included 43 questions about various effects and outcomes of annexation of rural settlements to Shiraz city. This study emphasize on economic, socio-cultural and environmental-physical dimensions for which we have 11, 18 and 14 criteria, respectively. Some of these criteria are related to positive effects and some other negative. Analysis of the data were carried out using some statistical tests including Chi-squared test, Wilcoxon, Friedman test, Pearson correlation coefficient, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, and Phi-Cramer’s V.
Results and discussion
Analysis of economic effects of the annexation showed that from the viewpoint of respondents, negative economic effects of annexation of studied villages to Shiraz city are relatively more than positive ones. Hence, the mean value of all economic criteria is over the mean value except the criterion of job stability. We assessed socio-cultural effects via 18 criteria; mean value of all these criteria are over test mean. Evaluation of environmental-physical effects of annexation (via 14 criteria) showed that among these criteria only mean value of “officials’ attention to the physical condition” is lower than default mean value. In socio-cultural dimension, as the economic dimension, negative effects of annexation are relatively more than positive effects.
The results showed that there are significant differences between socio-cultural and environmental-physical dimensions, and there is no significant difference between economic and environmental-physical dimensions. Results also revealed that the negative effects of the annexation of villages to Shiraz city are relatively more than positive ones in economic and socio-cultural dimensions from the respondents’ viewpoints. Other results showed that among personal variables including gender, age, job, literacy and habitation duration, the relation of satisfactory was significant with all variables except gender. Correlation coefficient of ‘satisfaction’ with two criteria of age and habitation duration is negative, i.e., those respondents who lived for longer time in annexed villages, declared less satisfaction. It seems that from the viewpoint of old residents of annexed areas, gradual changes happened in patterns of life and activity and relationships system may be a threat for sustained social attachments and place identity.
It can be concluded that according to respondents in respect of economic and socio-cultural dimensions, negative effects of annexation of studied villages to Shiraz city is relatively more than positive effects. About environmental-physical dimension, there isn’t significant difference between positive and negative effects. However, there is significant difference between the effects of the three dimensions of economic, socio-cultural and environmental-physical. It is noteworthy that the results of this paper cannot be generalizable to all other cities encountered with this issue without accurate investigation and case studies, because of different conditions of various urban areas.
14. Brueckner, J. K., 2000, Urban sprawl: diagnosis and remedies, International Regional Science Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, PP. 160-171.
15. Chen, Q. and Song, Z., 2014, Accounting For China's Urbanization, China Economic Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, PP. 485–494.
16. Christopher, D., 2008, Health and Urban Living, Science, Vol. 319, No. 5864, PP. 766–769.
17. Cohen, B., 2006, Urbanization in Developing Countries: Current Trends, Future Projections, and Key Challenges For Sustainability, Technology in Society, Vol. 28, No. 1-2, PP. 63–80.
18. Ewing, R., Pendall, R., and Chen, D., 2002, Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact: The Character and Consequences of Metropolitan Expansion. Smart Growth America, Washington, Dc. http://Smartgrowthamerica.Com/ Accessed 15.11.12.
19. Jiang, L., Deng, X., and Seto, K.C., 2013, The Impact of Urban Expansion on Agricultural Land Use Intensity in China, Land Use Policy, Vol. 35, No. 1, PP. 33-39.
20. Kleemann, J., et al. 2017, Peri-Urban Land Use Pattern and Its Relation to Land Use Planning in Ghana, West Africa, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 165, No. 1, PP. 280–294.
21. Mcgranahan, G., 2015, Urbanization, International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition, Vol. 24, PP. 958-964.
22. Pandey, B. and Seto, K. C., 2014, Urbanization and Agricultural Land Loss in India: Comparing Satellite Estimates with Census Data, Journal of Environmental Management; Vol. 148, No. 1, PP. 53-66, http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Jenvman.2014.05.014
23. Patino, J. E., and Duque, J. C., 2013, A Review Of Regional Science Applications Of Satellite Remote Sensing In Urban Settings. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 37, No. 1, PP. 1-17.
24. Pozoukidou, G., and Ntriankos, I., 2017, Measuring and Assessing Urban Sprawl: A Proposed Indicator System For The City Of Thessaloniki, Greece, Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, Vol. 8, No. 1, PP. 30–40.
25. Shafizadeh Moghadam, H., and Helbich, M., 2013, Spatiotemporal Urbanization Process In The Megacity Of Mumbai, India: A Markov Chains-Cellular Automata Urban Growth Model, Applied Geography, Vol. 40, No. 1, PP. 140-149. (In Persian)
26. Shen, L., et al., 2012, An Alternative Model For Evaluating Sustainable Urbanization, Cities, Vol. 29, No. 1, PP. 32–39.
27. Tan, R., et al., 2014, Urban Growth and Its Determinants Across The Wuhan Urban Agglomeration, Central China, Habitat International, Vol. 44, No. 1, PP. 268-281.
28. Tian, L. et al., 2017, Measuring Urban Sprawl and Exploring The Role Planning Plays: A Shanghai Case Study, Land Use Policy, Vol. 67, No. 1, PP. 426–435.
29. Tong, L. et al., 2017, Multi-Order Urban Development Model and Sprawl Patterns: An Analysis in China, 2000 –2010, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 167, No. 1, PP. 386–398.
30. United Nations, 2010, World Urbanization Prospects, The 2009 Revision: Highlights.Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, NewYork.
31. United Nations (Department of Economic and Social Affairs), 2014, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision [Highlights], United Nations, NewYork.
32. United Nations (Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division), 2015, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, United Nations, NewYork.
33. Zhao, P., 2013, Too Complex To Be Managed? New Trends in Peri-Urbanisation and Its Planning in Beijing, Cities, Vol. 30, No. 1, PP. 68–76.
34. Zhou, J., Zhang, X., and Shen, L., 2015, Urbanization Bubble: Four Quadrants Measurement Model, Cities, Vol. 46, No. 1, PP. 8–15.