Assessment and evaluation of the objective indicators of urban livability in district of Tabriz metropolitan

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Ph.D. student of geography and urban planning, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran.


Extended Abstract
Urban life capability as a health standard is snatching called comfort and happiness which has recently been the main concern in geography and urban politics. The word livable cities for the first time in 1970 by the national Arts organization in order to achieve their urban ideas and looking for it by other centers and research organizations such as the environmental protection organizations that has done extensive studies regarding the most of American cities was gone. Following the influence of this word in the literature related to this field can be searched in 1975 and the writings of William Marlins on the fields of livable in Saturday Review and Christian Science Monitor magazines. The concept of capabilities has recently been the main concern of geography and urban politics. In recent years research and development has attracted a lot of attention in livable cities. In the meantime, the cities have faced many challenges in economic, social and environmental issues to day.
Tabriz is one of the Iran's oldest cities. Considering the rich historical, economic, cultural, health and industrial backgrounds of Tabriz city, that the city become the first in different areas. To day not only this way the current study aims to assess the environmental sustainability of Tabriz urban environments. It seems that there is a significant difference between the ten regions in terms of livability. Indicators based on this research, we intend to answer this question which is in terms of the livability of ten regions of Tabriz city in different dimensions?
This research, is an applied and descriptive-analytical method and the measurement tool was a questionnaire. The instrument was a questionnaire the statistical population in this research are the experts and urban managers with complete familiarity with the situation of each region, has a number of 140 people. According to the volume of society and Morgan table, 104 people selected by Simple random sampling and the question have taken place. The analyzes the data and final ranking of indexes, T-test and Kruskal-Wallis have been used.
Results and discussion
The findings show that the existing situation of Tabriz livability due to the average total of ten regions in all dimensions is in the low level, with this finding of the research of
Rashidi (1395) who have evaluated the livability of the Tabriz region in comparison with the Osko, Bostanaba, Shabestar and Harris moderat, is alignment.
This findings with the findings of Roustaee (1392) who ranked the region 2 in terms of spatial justice in the distribution of urban services in the first priority is alignment.
Also this finding of research with finding of Zarrabi (1394) that the citizens' satisfaction level of urban environment has examined the ten regions of Tabriz and they have concluded that urban region 2 and 5 have been in the first priority of the level of satisfaction is alignment as well as the results of the research with the results of Mofarah Bonab (1397) that the evaluated and analyzed the stability situation in the ten regions of Tabriz and they concluded that the 8th region is the most stable and the 3rd region is the most unstable region in Tabriz is not aligned and only in terms of the whole ten regions of Tabriz have been evaluated by the average Stability value is aligned.
Due to the increasing development of the life- level of Tabriz metropolis, requiring the review of the existing situation. This research has provided new insight in to the livability of Tabriz metropolis that will detect the priorities of action in the decision space.
The results show that in general the livability of Tabriz is lower than average which is 5th district of Tabriz city with an average rating of 71/10 has the highest livability in the 10 regions and regions 2, 6, 9, 1, 3, 8, 4, 10 and 7 with an average rating of 69/33, 63/30, 63/10, 62/41, 59/92, 51/55, 35/67, 32/88 and 10/10 ranked second to tenth. Also in terms of indicators of urban services and infrastructure, urban environment, urban economics, urban management, urban history and urban community In order 2, 6, 2, 5, 8 and 5 regions were in the first ranking. According to Kruskal-Wallis results a significant difference between the 10 regions Tabriz of in terms of the desirability of livability indicators.
Also, according to the research findings, it is generally concluded that the average obtained in urban services and infrastructure (2/84) is lower than the average and is statistically significant. Because its Sig value is less than 0/05, the average obtained in the urban environment (2/74) is lower than the average and is statistically significant. Because its Sig value is less than 0/05, the average in the urban economy (2/36) is lower than the average and is statistically significant. Because its Sig value is less than 0/05, the average obtained in urban management (2/36) is lower than the average and is statistically significant. Because its Sig value is less than 0/05, the average obtained in urban history (2/39) is lower than the average and is statistically significant. Because its Sig value is less than 0.05 and the average obtained in the urban community dimension (2/98) is lower than the average and is not statistically significant. Because its Sig value (0/650) is greater than 0/05.
The results of Kruskal-Wallis test in Tabriz regions indicate that the results achieved in the significance level of 99% and with an error value of less than 0/01 are statistically significant. Therefore, the results can be obtained by the 99% accepted. In other words, with 99% confidence, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the indicators of biomass in the 10th district of Tabriz.


Main Subjects

  1. بندرآباد، علیرضا، 1390، شهرزیست‏پذیرازمبانیتامعانی، تهران: آذرخش.
  2. حبیبی، محسن، 1379، جامعة مدنی و حیات شهری، مجلة هنرهایزیبا، ش 3.
  3. رشیدی ابراهیم حصاری، اصغر؛ موحد، علی؛ تولایی، سیمین و موسوی، میرنجف، 1395، تحلیل فضایی منطقة کلان‏شهری تبریز با رویکرد زیست‏پذیری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد اهر، فصل‏نامة علمی‏- پژوهشی فضایجغرافیایی، س ۱۶، ش 54، صص ۱۵۵-176.
  4. روستایی، شهریور . بابایی، الی ناز و کاملی فر، زهرا (1392)، ارزیابی عدالت فضایی در پراکنش خدمات شهری) مطالعه موردی: کلانشهر تبریز)، مجلهآمایشجغرافیاییفضا، فصلنامه علمی- پژوهشی دانشگاه گلستان، سال سوم، زمستان، شماره مسلسل دهم.
  5. ساسان‏پور، فرزانه؛ علیزاده، سارا و اعرابی مقدم، حوریه، 1397، قابلیت‏سنجی زیست‏پذیری مناطق شهری ارومیه با مدل RALSPI، نشریة تحقیقاتکاربردیعلومجغرافیایی، س ۱۸، ش 48، صص 241-258.
  6. ساسان‏پور، فرزانه؛ تولایی، سیمین و جعفری اسدآبادی، حمزه، 1394، سنجش و ارزیابی زیست‏پذیری شهری در مناطق بیست‏ودوگانة کلان‏شهر تهران، فصل‏نامة برنامه‏ریزیمنطقهای، س ۵، ش 18، صص 27-42.
  7. سلیمانی مهرنجانی، محمد؛ تولایی، سیمین؛ رفیعیان، مجتبی و زنگانه، احمد، 1395، زیست‏پذیری شهری: مفهوم، اصول، ابعاد، و شاخص‏ها، پژوهش‏هایجغرافیایبرنامهریزیشهری، دورة 4، ش 1، صص 27-50.
  8. سجاسی قیداری، حمدالله؛ صادقلو، طاهره و محمودی، حمیده، 1398، رتبه‏بندی روستاها بر اساس شاخص‏های زیست‏پذیری (مطالعة موردی: دهستان نظام‏آباد شهرستان آزادشهر)، مجلة پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی، دورة 51، ش 1، صص ۱۲۹-144.
  9. سیفالدینی، فرانک، 1373، مسکن حداقل، مجموعهمقالاتسمینارسیاستهایتوسعةمسکندرایران، ج ۱، تهران: انتشارات سازمان ملی زمین و مسکن.
  10. شاهی آقبلاغی، عارف؛ زنگنه، یعقوب؛ خدابنده‏لو، حسن و درودی‏نیا، عباس، 1395، سنجش شاخص‏های کیفیت محیط شهری (مطالعة موردی: مسکن مهر شهر سبزوار)، مطالعاتجغرافیاییمناطقخشک، دورة ۷،  ش ۲۶، صص 54-72.
  11. ضرابی، اصغر؛ علیزاده، جابر؛ رنجبرنیا، بهزاد؛ کاملی‏فر، محمدجواد و احمدیان، مهدی، 1394، ارزیابی سطح رضایت شهروندان از کیفیت محیط شهری (نمونة موردی: مناطق دهگانة تبریز)، نشریة علمی- پژوهشی جغرافیا وبرنامه‏ریزی، س 19، ش 51، صص 193-219.
  12. علی اکبری، اسماعیل و اکبری، مجید (1396)، مدل‏سازی ساختاری‏- تفسیری عوامل مؤثر بر زیست‏پذیری کلان‏شهر تهران، برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا، دوره 21 ،  ش 1، صص1-31
  13. علیجانی، بهلول، 1395، تحلیل فضایی، نشریة تحلیل فضایی مخاطرات محیطی، س ۲، ش 3، صص 1-14.
  14. مجرد، حمیده، 1396، تحلیلفضاییزیست‏پذیریدرمناطقشهرشهریار، پایان‏نامة کارشناسی ارشد، استاد راهنما: علی شماعی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، دانشکدة علوم جغرافیایی، گروه جغرافیای انسانی، رشتة جغرافیا و برنامه‏ریزی شهری.
  15. مفرح بناب، مجتبی؛ مجنونی توتاخانه، علی؛ سلیمانی، علیرضا و آفتاب، احمد، 1397، ارزیابی و تحلیل وضعیت پایداری در کلان‏شهرها (مطالعة موردی: مناطق دهگانة شهر تبریز)، فصل‏نامة تحقیقاتجغرافیایی، س ۳۳، ش ۱، شمارة پیاپی 128، صص 140-157.
  16. میرمقتدایی، مهتا؛ رفیعیان، مجتبی و سنگی، الهام، 1389، مفهوم توسعة میان‏افزا و ضرورت آن در محلات شهری، شهرداری‏ها، ش 89، صص ۴۴-51.
  17. ویتیک، آرنولد، 1385، مبانی زیبایی‏شناسی در محیط شهری، ترجمة جواد مهدی‏زاده، جستارهای شهرسازی، ش 17 و 18، صص 28-39.


18. Bandar Abad, A., 2011, Livable City from Basics to Meanings, Tehran: Azarakhsh Publications.

19. Habibi, M., 2000, Civil Society and Life, Journal of Fine Arts, No. 3.

20. Rashidi Ebrahim Hesari, A.; Movahed, A.; Tullayi, S. and Mousavi, M., 2016, Spatial Analysis of Tabriz Metropolitan Area with livability Approach, Islamic Azad University, Ahar Branch, Geographical Space Journal, Sixteenth Year, No. 54, PP. 155-176.

21. Rural, September. Babaei, Elie Naz and Kamelifar, Zahra (2013), Evaluation of Spatial Justice in the Distribution of Urban Services (Case Study: Tabriz Metropolis), Journal of Spatial Planning, Golestan University Scientific-Research Quarterly, Third Year, Winter, 10th serial number.

22. Sassanpour, F.; Alizadeh, S. and Arabi Moghadam, H., 2018, Assessmentof livability Uromia Urban Area Urban Diversity by RALSPI Model, Journal of Applied Geosciences Research, Eighteenth year, Issue, 48, PP. 241-258.

23. Sasanpour, Farzaneh; Tolai, Simin and Jafari Asadabadi, Hamzee, 2015, Measurement and Evaluation of Urban Viability in Twenty-Two Areas of Tehran Metropolis, Regional Planning Quarterly, Fifth Year, No. 18, PP. 27-42.

24. Soleimani Mehranjani, M.; Tullayi, S.; Rafieian, M. and Zangnee, A., 2016, Urban livability: Concept, Principles, Dimensions and Indicators, Urban Planning Geographic Researches, Vol. 4, No. 1, PP. 27-50.

25. Sajasi Chedar, H.; Sadeghloo, T. and Mahmudi, H., 2019, Rural Ranking Based on livability Indicators (Case Study: Nezam Abad Village, Azad-e Shahr County), Journal of Human Geography Research, Vol. 51, No. 1, PP. 129-144.

26. Saifaddini, F., 1994, Minimum housing, Proceedings of the Seminar on Housing Development Systems in Iran, National Land and Mines News Agency, Vol. I, Tehran.

27. Shahi Aqllaqi, A.; Zanganeh, Y.; Khodabandeh Lo, H. and Doroodinia, A., 2016, Measurement of Urban Quality Indicators (Case Study: Mehr City of Sabzevar), Geographical Study of Arid Areas, Vol. 7, No. 26, PP. 54-72.

28. Zarabi, A.,; Alizadeh, J.; Rangerburnia, B.; Kamilifar, M. and Javad Vahmadian, M., 2015, Evaluation of citizens' satisfaction with the quality of urban environment (case study: District Tabriz), Geographic and Programming Journal, 19th, No. 51, PP. 193-219.

29. Ali Akbari, Esmaeil and Akbari, Majid (2017), Structural-Interpretive Modeling of Factors Affecting the Viability of Tehran Metropolis, Spatial Planning and Planning, Volume 21, Number 1, pp. 1-31.

30. Alijani, B., 2016, Spatial Analysis, Journal of Environmental Spatial Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 3, PP. 1-14.

31. Mojarad, H., 2017, Spatial Analysis of livability in Shahriar Towns, Master's Thesis, Supervisor: Ali Shahi, Geosciences Faculty, Human Geography Department, Geography and Urban Planning.

32. Mofarah Bonab, M.; Immortal Tutakhan, A.; Soleimani, A. and Aftab, A., 2019, Evaluation and analysis of the stability situation in metropolises (Case study: District of Tabriz city), Geographical research quarterly, Year thirty-third, first issue, consecutive number 128.

33. Mir Moghtadai, M.; Rafieian, M. and Sangi, E., 2010, The concept of intermediate expansion and its necessity in urban neighborhoods, Municipalities, No. 89, PP. 44-51.

  1. 34.  Vitik, Arnold, 2006, Fundamentals of Aesthetics in the Urban Environment, translated by Javad Mehdizadeh, Urban Studies, pp. 17 and 18, pp. 28-39.

35. AARP, 2018, Livably communities: An Evaluation Guid, Public policy instituty, Washington.

36. Aulia, Dwira Nirfalini, 2016, A Framework for Exploring Livable Community in Residential Environment. Case Study: Public Housing in Medan, Indonesia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, PP. 336-343.

37. Aluri, Jahnavi, 2017, Livability Index, from Columbia University GSAPP, Prepared for Manhattan Community Board.

38. Badland, H.; Whitzman, L. and Aye, B., 2014, Urban Liveability: Emerging Lesson From Australian for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health, Social Science and Medicine, No. 111, PP. 64-73.

39. Balsas, C., 2004, Measuring the livability of an urban centre: An exploratory study of key performance indicators, Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 19, No. 1, PP. 101-110.

40. Blassingame, L (1998),Sustainable cities: oxymoron, utopia, or inevitability? Social Science Journal, Vol 35, pp. 1-13.

41. Cedar Hill municipality, 2008, City of cedar Hill comprehensives plan 2008 chapter 5: livability, PP. 5-1 to 5-20.

42. Economist Intelligence Unit Limited, 2015,

43. Evans, P., (ed.), 2002, Livable Cities? “Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability University of California Press Ltd”: USA, PP.: 2-30.

44. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F., 1981, Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, PP. 39-50.

45. Kashef, M., 2016, Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries.

46. Larice, M., 2005, Great Neiborhoods: The Livability and morphology of High density neighborhoods in Urban North America, Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley, Professor Michael SouthworthLau leby jasmine & Hashim, Ahmad Hariza, 2010, Liveability dimensions and attributes: their relative importan the eyes of neighbourhood resid dents, Journal of construchion in developing countries.

47. Lynott, Jana; Harrell, Rodney; Guzman, Shannon and Gudzinas, Brad, 2018, The Livability Index: Transforming Communities for All Ages, AARP Public Policy Institute.

48. Lennard, H. L., 1997, Principles for the Livable City in Lennard, S. H., S von Ungern- Sternberg, H. L., Lennard, eds. Making Cities Livable. International Making Cities Livable Conferences, Gondolier Press: California, USA.

49. Lynott ,Jana. Harrell, Rodney. Guzman ,Shannon & Gudzinas, Brad (2018), The Livability Index: Transforming Communities for All Ages, AARP Public Policy Institute.

50. Mc. Nutry, R., 1994, State American community Washington DC: parteners of livable communities (PLC).

51. Norris, Tyler and Pittman, M., 2000, “The health community’s movement and the coalition for heal their cities and communities”, Public health reports, No. 115, PP. 118-124.

52. National Association Of Regional Councils(2003), Livability Literature Review: Synthesis of Current Practice, Washington.

53. Onnom, W.; Tripathi, N.; Nitivattananon, V. and Ninsawat, S., 2018, Development of a Liveable City Index (LCI) Using Multi Criteria Geospatial Modelling for Medium Class Cities in Developing Countries.

54. Pacione, M., 1986, Quality of life in Glasgow: An applied geographical analysis, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 18, No. 11, PP.1499-1520.

55. Pacione, M., 2003, Quality-of-life research in urban geography, Urban Geography, Vol. 24, No. 4, PP. 314–339.

56. Pacione, M., 2005, Quality-of-life research in urban geography, Urban Geography, Vol. 24, No. 4, PP. 314-339.

57. Perogordo Madrid, Daniel, 2007, The Silesia mega polis, European spatial planning.

58. Radcliff, B., 2001, Politics, markets and lifesatis faction: the Political economy of human happiness, American Political science Review.

59. Timmer, Vanessa and Nola- Kate S., 2005, “THE WORLD URBAN FORUM 2006 Vancouver” working group discussion paper internation center for sustainable cities.

60. VonPoll, R., 1997, The perceived quality of the urban residential environment, AMulti-attribute evaluation. Ph-thesis, Groningen: University of Groningen.

Volume 53, Issue 2
July 2021
Pages 545-565
  • Receive Date: 25 July 2019
  • Revise Date: 11 March 2020
  • Accept Date: 11 March 2020
  • First Publish Date: 22 June 2021