بررسی شاخص‌های شکوفایی شهری در شهر خرم‌آباد

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه لرستان

چکیده

در سال‌های اخیر تلاش‌های جامعه جهانی برای دستیابی به الگویی بهینه از زندگی شهری منتج به ارائه مدل شکوفایی شهری [1]شده است. شکوفایی نمادی از توسعه یافتگی و حرکت هوشمندانه‌ای است که زوایای مختلف سیستم شهری را تحت تأثیر قرار می‌دهد. شکوفایی دارای شاخص‌هایی است که به نظر بسیاری از محققان بر پایداری اجتماعی به عنوان یکی از ارکان توسعه پایدار تاثیرگذار است. این پژوهش به دنبال بررسی وضعیت شکوفایی شهری و پایداری اجتماعی و شناسایی اثرات شکوفایی در پایداری اجتماعی است. جامعه آماری نواحی24 گانه شهر خرم‌آباد است. حجم نمونه بر اساس فرمول کوکران [2]384 نفر تعیین شد. پس از تکمیل پرسشنامه‌ها با استفاده از آزمون تی[3] تک نمونه‌ای و رگرسیون چند متغیره به تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها پرداخته شد. نتایج نشان داد که شاخص‌های شکوفایی در سطح شهر خرم‌آباد در حد متوسط است. از طرفی نتایج سنجش شاخص‌های پایداری شهری نیز تقریبا در سطح متوسط ارزیابی شد. با این وجود تغییرات در زمینه شاخص‌های اندازه گیری شده در سطح نواحی ملموس است. از طرفی توزیع فضایی امتیازات شکوفایی شهری و پایداری اجتماعی در سطح نواحی بیانگر همبستگی (873/0r=)  بین این دو مفهوم است. چنانکه به ترتیب نواحی که دارای امتیاز بالاتری و یا پایین‌تری از حد متوسط در زمینه شکوفایی بوده‌اند عمدتا در زمینه پایداری اجتماعی نیز چنین رویه‌ای داشته‌اند. همچنین بر اساس نتایج رگرسیون خطی شاخص‌های بهره‌وری با 383/0، کیفیت زندگی با352/0، زیر ساخت297/0، پایداری زیست محیطی 204/0، و دربرگیرندگی و شمول اجتماعی با 186/0 به ترتیب بیشترین اثر را در پایداری اجتماعی داشته‌اند.
 
*نویسنده مسئول، تلفن: 09188183025                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Email: Abbasi.h@lu.ac.ir
[1].CPI
[2] .Cochran
[3] .T

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigation of city prosperity indicators in Khorramabad city

نویسنده [English]

  • Hamed Abbasi
چکیده [English]

Introduction

The rapid growth of population in the world, especially in developing countries, has led to many problems. Issues that, more than anything else, have led to the physical expansion of cities, the decline in the quality of the urban environment, and instability.
in 2012, UN-Habitat a new approach to urban development. A holistic and integrated approach to promote welfare and play a public role. This new approach helps cities better manage the city's future in the economic, political, social and environmental spheres. This approach, called urban prosperity,
A prosperous city is one that provides productivity, infrastructure, quality of life, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability.
On the other hand, in many cities, the degree of social stability of citizens and urban areas depends on the indicators of urban prosperity prevailing in those areas.
A sustainable city achieves a dynamic balance between economic, environmental and socio-cultural components.
Accordingly, in this study, urban prosperity and social sustainability as well as the effect of urban prosperity on social sustainability in Khorramabad are investigated.

Methodology
The research method is descriptive-analytical in nature and applied in terms of purpose. Research data were collected in two ways: documentary and field.The statistical population of the study is the residents of Khorramabad, which was selected as a sample size using Cochran's formula of 364 people by simple random method.Questionnaires were designed according to the number of population among the residents of 24 districts of Khorramabad.Multivariate t-test was used to measure the variables of urban prosperity and social sustainability and multivariate regression test was used to evaluate the effect of urban prosperity indicators on social sustainability in Khorramabad.

Results and discussion
The results showed that the indicators of prosperity in the city of Khorramabad are moderate. The value of the test in the research variables is 3 and the average of the infrastructure and environmental sustainability index variable according to Table 3 is more than 3. In this regard, the average index of productivity, quality of life and social inclusion is less than 3. Therefore, according to the significance level, which is less than 0.05, it can be said that the situation of urban prosperity in terms of infrastructure and environmental sustainability indicators is moderately to high. In terms of productivity, inclusion and social inclusion, the status of urban prosperity is evaluated downwards and the mean of the quality of life index variable is less than 3 because the lower limit is negative and the upper limit is positive, so the average value obtained by the test is (3). And there is no significant difference between them. Therefore, it can be said that the situation of quality of life index in Khorramabad is evaluated as moderate.
On the other hand, the results of measuring urban sustainability indicators were also evaluated at an average level. Given that the value of the test in the research variables is 3 and the average of the social stability index variable is dependence coefficient, social interaction, social capital status, honesty in social behaviors and participation in local activities according to Table 4, so It can be said that the social stability of these indicators in the city of Khorramabad is assessed as above average. In this regard, the average of the variables of responsibility and civil or institutional trust according to the table is less than 3 because the lower limit is negative and the upper limit is positive, so the average value obtained by the test is equal to (3) and there is no significant difference between them. Therefore, these variables are evaluated as average. Also, the variables of satisfaction with the level of access to services, sense of belonging, interpersonal trust, hours of volunteering, transparency, insurance, social justice and education and research according to the table are less than 3 because the lower and upper limits are both negative. And the significance level is less than 0.05, so the mean obtained is less than the value of test (3) and there is no significant difference between them. Therefore, the status of social stability of these variables in the city of Khorramabad has a low status.
On the other hand, the spatial distribution of urban prosperity scores and social stability at the district level indicates the correlation (r = 0.873) between these two concepts. In other words, the areas that had a higher or lower than average score in terms of prosperity, mainly in the field of social sustainability, had the same procedure. Also, based on the results of linear regression, productivity indices with 0.383, quality of life with 0.352, infrastructure 0.297, environmental sustainability 0.204, and social inclusion with 0.186, respectively, have had the greatest effect on social sustainability.

Conclusion
The results of the tests show that the concept of urban prosperity, which has been mentioned by the international community, has a challenge in the city of Khorramabad. This challenge arises from at least two cases;
1. Low level of score of some indicators from the middle level such as productivity and inclusion and social inclusion;
2. Imbalance and harmony between the dimensions (wheel blades) of prosperity.
The results showed that the indicators of prosperity in the city of Khorramabad are moderate. On the other hand, the results of measuring urban sustainability indicators were also evaluated at an average level. However, changes in the indicators measured at the area level are tangible. On the other hand, the spatial distribution of urban prosperity scores and social stability at the district level indicates the correlation (r = 0.873) between these two concepts. As in the case of areas with higher or lower than average scores in terms of prosperity, mainly in the field of social sustainability have had the same procedure. Also, based on the results of linear regression, productivity indices with 0.383, quality of life with 0.352, infrastructure 0.297, environmental sustainability 0.204, and social inclusion with 0.186 had the most effect on social sustainability, respectively.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Sustainability"
  • Prosperity"
  • Regression"
  • Khorramabad"
  • "
  • Urban
  1. احدنژاد، محسن؛ حاضری، صفیه؛ مشکینی، ابوالفضل و پیری، عیسی ،1397، شناسایی عوامل کلیدی مؤثر بر شکوفایی شهری با رویکرد آیندهنگاری (مطالعه موردی: کلانشهر تبریز)، پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهری، سال9، شماره پیاپی32 ، 30-15.
  2. برزگر، صادق؛ بخشی، امیر و حیدری، محمدتقی،1398، تبیین پایداری اجتماعی- اقتصادی در شهرهای کوچک با رویکرد توسعه پایدار(نمونه: شهرهای کوچک شمال ایران). فصلنامه مجلس و راهبرد، سال 26، شماره97 ،38-5.
  3. پریزادی، طاهر؛ مصطفوی صاحب، سوران و محمدنژاد، سمیه ،1396، آینده نگری نظام سکونتگاهی در برنامه‌ریزی سناریومبنا؛
    بهبود برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش منطقه‌ای (مورد مطالعه: استان اصفهان) آمایش سرزمین، دورۀ نهم، شمارۀ اول،110-81.
  4. حسینی، سیدهادی ،1393، تحلیل و ارزیابی سطح پایداری اجتماعی در شهر نوشهر، جغرافیا و پایداری محیط، پیاپی12، 61-57.
  5. دانش‌پور، حمید رضا؛ سعیدی رضوانی، نوید و بذرگر، محمد رضا ،1397، ارزیابی مناطق یازده گانه شهر شیراز به لحاظ شاخص شکوفایی شهری با استفاده از مدل FAHP، پژوهشهای‌ برنامه ریزی شهری، دوره9، شماره 33، 32-17.
  6. دانش‌پور، حمید رضا؛ سعیدی رضوانی، نوید و بذرگر، محمد رضا ،1399، ارزیابی امکان قرارگیری شاخص دسترسی در میان شاخصهای اصلی شکوفایی شهری( مطالعه موردی: شهر شیراز)، پژوهشهای‌جغرافیای‌انسانی،‌دورۀ52 ،شمارۀ2، 476-457.
  7. صفایی‌پور، مسعود؛ ملکی، سعید؛ حاتمی‌نژاد، حسین و مدانلو جویباری، مسعود ،1396، ارزیابی و سنجش شاخص­های شکوفایی شهری (CPI) در کلانشهر اهواز، جغرافیا و پایداری محیط، شماره پیاپی22، 47-35.
  8. ضرغامی، اسماعیل(1389) اصول پایداری اجتماعی مجتمع های مسکونی در شهرهای ایرانی ـ اسلامی، فصلنامه شهر ایرانی اسلامی؛شماره2، 118-103.
  9. عبداله‌زاده، مهدی؛ رهنما، محمدرحیم؛ اجزاءشکوهی و موسوی،میرنجف،1399، ارزیابی شاخصهای پایداری اجتماعی در شهرهای استان آذربایجان غربی، پژوهش های جغرافیای انسانی، دوره52، شماره4، 1273-1257.
  10. ملکی، سعید و دامن باغف صفیه،1392، ارزیابی شاخصهای توسعه پایدار شهری با تأکید بر شاخصهای اجتماعی، کالبدی و خدمات شهری (مطالعه موردی: مناطق هشتگانه شهراهواز). فصلنامه مطالعات برنامه‌ریزی شهری، سال اول، شماره ی سوم،پاییز 1392 ، صفحات 54-29.
  11. نخستین احمدی، مریم ،1396، تبیین الگوی شکوفایی شهر(مطالعه موردی شهر قزوین)، راهنما، احمد پوراحمد و کرامت‌اله زیاری، رشته جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران.
  12. نسترن، مهین؛ قاسمی، وحید و هادیزاده برزگر، صادق ،1392، ارزیابی شاخص‌های پایداری اجتماعی با استفاده از فراینده تحلیل سلسله مراتبی شبکه، فصلنامه جامعه شناسی کاربردی، سال 24، شماره پیاپی(51)،173-155.
  13. واعظ زاده،ساجده؛ نقدی،اسدالله و ایاسه،علی ،1394، مؤلفه‌های پایداری اجتماعی در برنامه‌های توسعه ایران، مجله مطالعات توسعه اجتماعی ایران، سال هفتم، شماره دوم،59-45.
  14. Abdullahzadeh, Mehdi; Rahnama, Mohammad Rahim; Components of Shokoohi and Mousavi, Mir Najaf ,2020, Evaluation of social sustainability indicators in the cities of West Azerbaijan province, Human Geography Research, Volume 52, Number 4, 1273-1257.
  15. Ahdenjad, M. Hazeri, S. Meshkini, A. Piri, I., 2018, Identifying Key Factors Affecting Urban Prosperity with Futuristic Approach (Case Study: Tabriz Metropolis), Urban Research and Planning, Volume 9, Number 32, 15-30.
  16. Arbab, P. ,2017, City Prosperity Initiative Index: Using AHP Method to Recalculate the Weights of Dimensions and Sub-Dimensions in Reference to Tehran Metropolis. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(4), 289-289.
  17. Barron, L., & Gauntlett, E. ,2002, Housing and sustainable communities indicators project: Stage 1 report–model of social sustainability. WACOSS Housing and Sustainable Communities Indicators Project.
  18. Barzegar, S. Bakhshi, A. Heidari, M. T., 2019 , Explaining socio-economic sustainability in small cities with a sustainable development approach (sample: small towns in northern Iran). Quarterly Journal of Parliament and Strategy, Volume 26, Number 97, 5-38.
  19. Daneshpour, H. R. Saeedi Rezvani, N. Bazargar, M.R., 2020, Assessing the possibility of placing the access index among the main indicators of city prosperity (Case study: Shiraz), Human Geographic Research, Vol52, No.2, 457-476.
  20. Daneshpour, Hamid Reza; Saeedi Rezvani, Navid and Bazargar, Mohammad Reza, 2018, Evaluation of eleven regions of Shiraz in terms of city prosperity index using FAHP model, Urban Planning Research, , Vol9, No.33, 17-32.
  21. Dempsey, N.; Brown, C. and Bramely, G., 2012, The key to sustainable urban development in uk
    cities? The influence of density on social sustainability, Volume77,No.77, PP. 89-
    141, www.elsevier.com/ locate/pplann.
  22. DFID,2002,"Indicators for Socially Sustainable Development. http:// org/info/does/wassdindbr.pdf
  23. Forman, E. H., & Selly, M. A. ,2001, Decision by objectives: how to convince others that you are right. World Scientific.
  24. Goodland, R.,2003, Sustainability Human, Social, Economic and Environmental, World Bank Washington DC, USA.
  25. GTZ Project Office ,2004, "Chance for Socially Sustainable Development", Programme Office for Social and Ecological Standards, Email: social-ecological-standards@gtz.de.
  26. Hosseini, S. H., 2014, Analysis and evaluation of the level of social sustainability in Nowshahr, Geography and environmental sustainability, Vol 12,57-61.
  27. http://www.sustainabilityindictorsh.org/about/AboutISIN.html
  28. Littig, B. and Griessler, E., 2005, Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International journal of sustainable development, 8(1-2), pp.65-79.
  29. London: Earthscan.
  30. Maleki, S. and Daman Baghf S., 2013, Evaluation of Sustainable Urban Development Indicators with Emphasis on Social, Physical and Urban Services Indicators (Case Study: Eight Areas of Ahvaz). Quarterly Journal of Urban Planning Studies, Volume 1, Number 3, 29-54.
  31. Meng, Q.,2018, Fracking equity: A spatial justice analysis prototype. Journal of Land Use Policy, 70(5): 10-15.
  32. Murphy, K., 2012, The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework for policy analysis. Sustainability: Science, practice and policy, 8(1), pp.15-29.
  33. Nakhostin Ahmadi, M., 2017, Explaining the pattern of the city's prosperity (Case study of Qazvin), Supervisor, Ahmad Pourahmad and Keramatollah Ziari, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran.
  34. Nastaran, M. Ghasemi, V. Hadizadeh Barzegar, S., 2013, Evaluation of social sustainability indicators using the network hierarchical analysis process, Quarterly Journal of Applied Sociology, Volume 24, No. 51,155-173.
  35. Pacione, M., 2003, Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social geographical perspective. Landscape and urban planning, 65(1-2), pp.19-30.
  36. Pittman, S. J., Rodwell, L. D., Shellock, R. J., Williams, M., Attrill, M. J., Bedford, J., ... & McQuatters-Gollop, A. ,2019, Marine parks for coastal cities: A concept for enhanced community well-being, prosperity and sustainable city living. Marine Policy, 103, 160-171.
  37. Polese, ,  &  Stren,  R.  E.  (Eds.).  ,2000,The  social  sustainability  of  cities:  Diversity  and  the management of change. University of Toronto Press.
  38. Prizadi,T. Mostafavi, S. S. Mohammadnejad, S., 2017, Futurism of the settlement system in scenario-based planning; Improving regional planning and planning (Case study: Isfahan province) Land management, Vol 9, No. 1,81-110.
  39. Rafiaani, P., Kuppens, T., Van Dael, M., Azadi, H., Lebailly, P., & Van Passel, S. ,2018, Social sustainability assessments in the biobased economy: Towards a systemic approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 1839-1853.
  40. Safaeipour, M. Maleki, S. Hatami Nejad, H. Madanloo Joybari, M., 2017, Evaluation and measurement of urban prosperity indices (CPI) in Ahvaz metropolis, Geography and Environmental Sustainability, Vol 22, 35-47.
  41. Sands ,G. ,2015,Measuring the prosperity of cities, Habitat International 45,1-2.
  42. Science for Environment Policy, IN-DEPTH REPORT:Indicators for Sustainable Cities(2018), http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy.
  43. Thomassen, G., Van Dael, M., Lemmens, B., & Van Passel, S. ,2017,A review of the sustainability of algal-based biorefineries: Towards an integrated assessment framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, 876-887.
  44. Un- Habitat, 2016, The City Prosperity Initiative, United Nations Human Settlements Programme,
  45. UNDP ,1998, Capacity Asseessment and Devwlopment: In a Systems and Strategic
    Management Context, Technical Advisory Paper No. 3, Management Development and
    Governance Division, Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP: New York, USA,
  46. UN-Habitat, 2012, "State of the World's Cities Report 2012/2013: Prosperity Of Cities”,
    United Nations Humman Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), Nairobi.
  47. Waezzadeh, Sajedeh; Naqdi, Assadollah and Ayaseh, Ali, 2015, Components of social sustainability in Iran's development programs, Iranian Journal of Social Development Studies, Volume 7, Number 2, 59-45.
  48. Weingaertner, C., & Moberg, A. ,2014, Exploring social sustainability: Learning from perspectives on urban development and companies and products. Sustainable Development, 22(2), 122-133.
  49. Widok, A., 2009, Social Sustainability: Theories, Concepts, Practicability, Berlin: Shaker verlag.
  50. Zarghami, I.,2011, Principles of Social Sustainability of Residential Complexes in Iranian-Islamic Cities, Iranian Islamic City Quarterly; No. 2, 118-103.
دوره 54، شماره 2
اردیبهشت 1401
صفحه 599-615
  • تاریخ دریافت: 04 آبان 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 17 اسفند 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 17 اسفند 1399
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 17 اسفند 1399