Analysis of divergence and gap of income groups in terms of housing in Isfahan metropolis

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Seyed Jamaleddin Asadabadi University, Asadabad, Iran

2 Ph.D. in Geography and Urban Planning, Isfahan, Iran


Extended Abstract
Housing plays an essential role in the economic development of any country and constitutes % 10-20 of the total economic activity of each country and is also the largest fixed asset of households. The need for housing is not only one of the basic human foundations, but also the standard of living of the people.  Global access to housing has been on the agenda for sustainable development. The right to adequate housing for all urban residents is one of the most important factors in promoting inclusive urban development. In order to promote this right, proponents of urban rights have emphasized the urgent need for real estate agencies, government leaders and municipalities to move forward in urban space through a comprehensive approach to housing development projects.  As affordable housing can provide for low-income urban groups. Accordingly, the aim of the present research is quantitative and qualitative indicators analysis of housing in the metropolis of Isfahan.
The present study is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of method. The statistical population is related to the legal boundaries of Isfahan in 2016. SAW and Topsis models have been used to the data analysis. In this research, have used 16 indicator for status of quantitative and qualitative housing indicators of low-income groups in Isfahans. Quantitative and qualitative indicators of housing for low-income groupshave been analyzed including the type of occupation, infrastructure level, quality of buildings, type of materials, number of rooms and household dimensions, housing facilities in Isfahan.
Results and discussion
The total percentage of ownership has increased from %76.2 to %61.5 from 2007 to 2016. However, the share of tenants has increased from %16.6 to %26.3, which is almost double. This indicates the downward trend of this index during the study period.  The amount of rent in the first four deciles was 20.15, 35, 15.7, 25, respectively in 2007 In 2016, it has increased to %57.7, %35.9, %27.5, and % 15. An important point in this regard is the promotion of this index for the fourth decile of the target community. The infrastructure average of residential units in the lower deciles has been decreasing in all deciles from 2007 to 2016. The important point is the large distance between the lower deciles and the upper deciles. While on average %62.8 of the quality of buildings in Isfahan is acceptable, but this index is equal to %36.3 among low-income groups, which is very inappropriate. This shows that the useful life of residential units occupied by these groups is lower than other income groups.  The residential units materials of low-income groups are less resistant than other income groups in Isfahan.  The number of rooms average per household for low-income groups is 2.6. This figure is 2.9 for middle-income groups and 3.2 for high-income groups in Isfahan. While there are only 0.63 room for a person in the lower income grouss, this figure is equal to 1.3 rooms for a wealthy person. Therefore, the results analysis of the individual-to-room index has showed that there is 1.6 people per room in a low-income household. Also, there are 0.78 people for a room in the high-income group. On the other hand, the household dimension is also higher in low-income groups than in other income groups. In terms of housing facility index, the percentage of lower income groups is lower than others. The results of SAW and Topsis models also confirm the quantitative and qualitative status of housing indicators among income groups. The SAW and Topsis score for lower-income groups is lower than the average, and the high rate of change among income groups has indicated divergence and gaps between income groups. Therefore, according to the results of the calculations of SAW and Topsis models, it can be said that the quantitative and qualitative status of housing indicators among low-income groups in Isfahan is not in a good situation.
Examination of housing indicators of low-income groups has shown   the low quality of housing in this group in Isfahan. While the average ownership in high-income groups in Isfahan is %70 and for low-income groups is % 35. Therefore, the type of ownership of the owner is lower among the low-income groups of Isfahan than other groups. The average per capita of housing in low-income deciles has been 55 square meters over the past five years. During the same period, this index was equal to 105 square meters for high-income groups. This indicates a declining per capita in low-income deciles. A study of the quality of buildings has showed that %31.3 of low-income housing groups are destructive and only %36.3 are acceptable. However, the percentage of destructive housing in high-income groups is only %8. This indicates a high rate of destruction in the homes of low-income groups, which exacerbates their need for adequate housing. In terms of materials, Residential houses of low-income groups in Isfahan has made of brick or iron and stone (%67) and 10% of metal frame (%8) or concrete (%2). Therefore, the level of their destruction has increased due to the low resistance of the housing materials of low-income groups. So the need for better quality housing is felt more for this class. Per capita room of low-income groups is 0.63 in the city of Isfahan while this rate is 0.85 for medium-income groups and 1.28 for high-income groups. Housing facilities are less suitable among low-income groups. Improper location of low-income groups has exacerbated environmental problems and reduced access to urban facilities and services. n addition, according to the results of calculations of SAW and Topsis methods, it can be said that the quantitative and qualitative status of housing indicators among low-income groups in Isfahan is not in a good situation.


Main Subjects

  1. برادران، مراد؛ غفاری، غلامرضا؛ ربیعی، علی و زاهدی مازندرانی، محمدجواد. (1398). دولت و سیاست‌گذاری مسکن در ایران بعد از انقلاب اسلامی ایران. فصلنامه برنامه‌ریزی رفاه و توسعه اجتماعی، 38، 218-179.
  2. توکلی نیا، جمیله و ضرغامی، سعید. (1397). آسیب‌شناسی برنامه‌های ملی پنجم و ششم توسعه اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی کشور در زمینه تأمین مسکن گروه‌های کم‌درآمد شهری. فصلنامه مطالعات ساختار و کارکرد شهری، 5(16)، 82-47.
  3. رضایی آدریانی، سهیلا و احمدی، حسن. (1399). تحلیل و ارزیابی شاخص‌های کمی و کیفی مسکن در شهرستان‌های استان اصفهان، فصلنامه آمایش محیط، 13(49)، 44-23.
  4. سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه کشور. (1368). قانون برنامه پنج‌ساله اول توسعه اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی جمهوری اسلامی ایران (1368-1372). تهران: سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه کشور.
  5. سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه کشور. (1374). قانون برنامه پنج‌ساله دوم توسعه اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی جمهوری اسلامی ایران (۱۳۷۸-۱۳۷۴). تهران: سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه کشور.
  6. سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه کشور. (1379). قانون برنامه پنج‌ساله سوم توسعه اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی جمهوری اسلامی ایران (1379-1383). تهران: سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه.
  7. سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه کشور. (1384). قانون برنامه پنج‌ساله چهارم توسعه اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی جمهوری اسلامی ایران (۱۳۸۸-۱۳۸۴). تهران: سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه کشور.
  8. سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه کشور. (1390). قانون برنامه پنج‌ساله پنجم توسعه اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی جمهوری اسلامی ایران (1390-1394). تهران: سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه کشور.
  9. سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه کشور. (1396). قانون برنامه پنج‌ساله ششم توسعه اقتصادی، اجتماعی و فرهنگی جمهوری اسلامی ایران (1396-1400). سازمان برنامه‌وبودجه کشور.
  10. هادی­زاده زرگر، صادق؛ هاشمی امری، وحید و مسعود، محمد. (1392). سنجش توسعه‌یافتگی مناطق شهری اصفهان در بخش مسکن. مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری و منطقه‌ای، 5(17)، 100-85.
  11. Berto, , Cechet, G., Stival, C. A., & Rosato, P. (2020). Affordable Housing vs. Urban Land Rent in Widespread Settlement Areas. Journal of Sustainability, 12, 1-21.
  12. Collinson, R., Ellen, I. G., & Ludwig, J. (2015). Low-income Housing Policy. Economics of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, 2, 1-20.
  13. Edadan, N. (2013). Market-based Mass Housing Development Strategy for Sustainable Inclusiveness of Cities in India: Challenges and Opportunities. Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA).
  14. Emmanuel, J. (2012). Housing Quality To the Low Income Housing Producers in Ogbere. Ibadan, Nigeria. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, 483-494.
  15. Henilane, I. (2016). Housing Concept and Analysis of Housing Classification. Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management, 4, 168–179.
  16. Housing Europe. (2011). Housing Europe Review 2012. Brussels: CECODHAS Housing Europe’s Observatory.
  17. Jevons, W. S. (1871). The Theory of Political Economy. London: Macmillan and Co.
  18. Jiboye, A.D. (2011). Achieving Sustainable Housing Development in Nigeria: A Critical Challenge to Governance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(9), 121-132.
  19. Jonkman, A., Janssen-Jansen, L., & Schilder, F. (2018). Rent increase strategies and distributive justice: the socio-spatial effects of rent control policy in Amsterdam. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 33, 653–673.
  20. Lin, J. (2011). The Development of Affordable Housing-A Case Study in Guangzhou City, China, Master of Science Thesis, Department of Real Estate and Construction Management Division of Building and Real Estate Economics,
  21. Litman, T. (2020). Affordable Accessible Housing in a Dynamic City; Why and How to Increase Affordable Housing in Accessible Neighborhoods, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
  22. Liu, E., Martin, C., & Easthope, H. (2019). Poor-quality housing and low-income households: Review of evidence and options for reform, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW Built Environment, UNSW Sydney, NSW 20152, Australi.
  23. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan and Co.
  24. Mosha, A.C. (2013). Low-Income access to urban land and housing in Botswana. Journal of Urban Forum, 24, 137–154.
  25. Nallathiga, R. (2010). Affordable Housing in Urban Areas: The Need, Measures and Interventions, Conference: 7th Thinkers and Writers Forum of 27th Skoch Summit, At Hotel Shangri-La, New Delhi.
  26. Pivo, G. (2013). The Definition of Affordable Housing: Concerns and Related Evidence, e University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
  27. Ricardo, D. (1817). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street
  28. Sekoboto, L., & Landman, K. (2019). Searching for more than just a house? The extent to which government provided RDP housing compared to self-help housing empower poor communities in South Africa. Journal of Urban Forum, 30, 97–113.
  29. Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd.
  30. Ugonabo, C. U. & Emoh, F. (2013). The Major Challenges To Housing Development And Delivery In Anambra State Of Nigeria, Civil and Environmental Research, 3(4), 1-18.
  31. Uwayezu, & de Vries, W. T. (2020). Access to A ordable Houses for the Low-Income Urban Dwellers in Kigali: Analysis Based on Sale Prices. Journal of Land, 9(85), 1-32.
  32. Uwayezu, E., & de Vries, T.W. (2018). Indicators for Measuring Spatial Justice and Land Tenure Security for Poor and Low Income Urban Dwellers. Journal of Land, 7, 1-34.
  33. van den Nouwelant, R., Davison, G., Gurran, N., & Pinnegar, S. (2015). Delivering a ordable housing through the planning system in urban renewal contexts: Converging Government roles in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. Journal Australian Planner, 52, 77–89.
Volume 54, Issue 4
December 2022
Pages 1281-1302
  • Receive Date: 25 June 2020
  • Revise Date: 13 September 2021
  • Accept Date: 16 September 2021
  • First Publish Date: 16 September 2021