Comparative Study of Factors Affecting Quality of Life with Respect to the Urban Scale: the case studies of Tehran, Qazvin, and Zia abad

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of Urban Planning & Design, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

ABSTRACT
Quality of life is a multi-dimensional concept intertwined with the background and living conditions of the people of a country or region; for this reason, the difference in the characteristics of cities can cause a difference in the perception and concept of Qol. One of the most important concepts that causes differences in the characteristics and characteristics of cities is the scale and size of cities. In recent years, it has been observed that measuring the Qol and selecting indicators of the Qol in cities have been done regardless of the scale and size of the cities. Considering the importance of the scale and size of cities in urban planning, this research aims to investigate the relationship between the scale of cities and to explain and measure the concept of qol. In order to achieve the goal of the research, the step-by-step regression analytical method was used. Following this, the cities of Zia abad, Qazvin, and Tehran were selected as study samples of the research due to their different scale and size. The research results indicate that many urban manifestations and relationships can affect the concept of Qol, and one of the most important concepts is the scale and size of cities. This concept, affecting many urban aspects, can cause changes in cities' characteristics and overall identity. Changes in the scale and size of cities can lead to changes in people's perception of the concept of Qol and differences in indicators affecting Qol. Finally, it can be stated that the scale and size of the city have a close relationship with the issue of Qol and how to measure it. A change in it can cause a change in the indicators that affect the Qol and then measure the Qol in cities.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Quality of life is a multi-dimensional concept intertwined with the background and living conditions of the people of a country or region; for this reason, the difference in the characteristics of cities can cause a difference in the perception and concept of quality of life. One of the most important concepts that causes differences in the characteristics and characteristics of cities is the scale and size of cities. Nowadays, in most studies in the field of quality of life, which are conducted in cities with different scales, similar and almost identical indicators are used regardless of the scale and size of the city. The homogenization of quality of life indicators in research shows that the scale and size of the city do not affect the quality of life in cities. The perception of the concept of quality of life by people in all cities is the same regardless of the city's characteristics, scale, and size. Now, considering this issue and the multifaceted nature of the quality of life and the fact that this concept is intertwined with the location and living conditions of the people of a country or region, the question arises whether a change in the scale and size of cities can cause a change in the level of quality of life and effective indicators?
Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between the scale of cities and to explain and measure the concept of quality of life in the city.
 
Methodology
The research method is applied and based on quantitative methods. In order to collect information, the completion of the questionnaire was used to search for people's opinions. The indicators evaluated in the research have been extracted with an emphasis on adaptability to large, medium, and small cities and compliance with the current state of urban development and modern developments by reviewing related texts and sources. In other words, the governing approach of this research is a survey method using a questionnaire about the quality of urban life. Data analysis was done in SPSS software using step-by-step regression method. For sampling in this research, a simple random sampling method is used in which all members have an equal chance to be selected, and the reliability of the questionnaires of each city was calculated based on Cronbach's alpha coefficient.
 
Results and discussion
The findings from the data analysis in this research show that 25 indicators were extracted and identified in Ziaabad, 34 in Qazvin, and 18 in Tehran. Despite the existence of commonalities and differences among the indicators extracted in each city, the difference in the number, type, and nature of the indicators and the non-uniformity of the indicators in each of the urban types show the impact of the scale and size of the city on the perception of the concept of quality of life and the compilation of indicators. The city's scale is closely related to the quality of life and indicators affecting the quality of life. In such a way, the change in the scale and size of the cities causes a change in the characteristics and characteristics of the cities and, finally, a change in the perception of the quality of life in the cities and the difference in important and effective indicators on the quality of life. Thus, the scale of cities is an issue that affects the quality of life from various aspects. Some indicators affecting the quality of life in large-scale cities may not affect the quality of life in small-scale cities. Conversely, some important indicators in small cities may not have any effect in explaining the quality of life in large-scale cities and metropolises. Therefore, the scale of cities is directly related to the perception of the concept of quality of life and the selection of effective indicators of quality of life.
 
Conclusion
The scale and size of cities are issues that, by affecting many aspects of the city, can cause changes in the characteristics and overall identity of cities. Changes in the scale and size of cities can lead to changes in people's perception of the concept of quality of life and differences in indicators affecting quality of life. Therefore, the scale and size of the city have a close relationship with the quality of life and the indicators affecting it. The results of the analysis of this research show that the indicators of the quality of life in the three cities of Ziaabad (small city), Qazvin (medium city), and Tehran (large city), as study samples of the research, are different and diverse due to the difference in the scale and size of the cities. In Ziaabad, as a small example of the scale of the research, the priority is the cultural, social, and administrative areas, and the second priority is the issue of transportation and congestion; the costs of providing housing and environmental pollution have a significant impact on the quality of life. In Qazvin, as an example with a medium scale in the research, indicators of the economic field, facilities and services, urban infrastructure, and social and cultural issues impact the quality of life. As a large-scale example of social and cultural indicators in Tehran, housing traffic and transportation have become the most critical explanatory and effective factors in the quality of life in recent years.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Afshini, A., Ahmadi Baghdadabadi, N. (2019). The Relationship between community Development Planning and Quality of Life in Mehriz City. Urban Studies, 9(30), 33-60. [in Persian]
  2. Ahadnejad, M., Najafi, S., & Mohamadi Torkamani, H. (2020). Analysis of factors Affecting the Urban Life Quality (Case study:Islamabad and Karmandan Neighborhoods City of Zanjan). Journal of Studies of Human Settlements Planning, 15(1), 185-198. [in Persian]
  3. Al-Qawasmi, J., Saeed, M., Asfour, O. S., & Aldosary, A. S. (2021). Assessing Urban Quality of Life: Developing the Criteria for Saudi Cities. Frontiers in Built Environment, 7, 682391. Doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2021.682391
  4. Amiraslani, F. (2021). Analysis of quality of life across Tehran districts based on designated indicators and relational database management system. Urban Governance. Urban Governance, 1(2), 107-114. Doi: 10.1016/j.ugj.2021.09.003
  5. Azadi, S., Aghaei, S. S., & Ghadimi, B. (2022). Gender Differences between Participation in Public Sports and the Quality of Life of the Elderly in Tehran. Sociological studies, 15(54), 81-98. Doi: 10.30495/jss.2021.1932840.1343 [in Persian]
  6. Azimi, S., (2017). Investigating the size of cities and the quality of urban life (case of study: Gilan and Mazandaran provinces). Master's thesis in the field of geography and urban planning, urban planning, University of Tehran. [in Persian]
  7. Barreira, A.P., Amado, C., Santos, S., Andraz, J., & Guimarães, M.H. (2021) Assessment and Determinants of the Quality of Life in Portuguese Cities. International Regional Science Review,44(6):647-683. Doi: 10.1177/0160017620979611
  8. Berger, M. C., Blomquist, G. C., & Peter, K. S. (2008). Compensating differentials in emerging labor and housing markets: Estimates of quality of life in Russian cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(1), 25-55. Doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2007.01.006
  9. Biagi, B., Ladu, M. G., & Meleddu, M. (2018). Urban quality of life and capabilities: An experimental study. Ecological Economics, 150, 137-152. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.011
  10. Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., Ariccio, S., Cancellieri, U. G., & Rahimi, L. (2015). Perceived residential environment quality indicators (PREQIs) relevance for UN-HABITAT City Prosperity Index (CPI). Habitat International, 45, 53-63. Doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.015
  11. Cai, T., Verze, P., & Bjerklund Johansen, T. E. (2021). The Quality of Life Definition: Where Are We Going. Uro, 1(1), 14-22.Doi: 10.3390/uro1010003
  12. Chen, S., Cerin, E., Stimson, R., & Lai, P. C. (2016). An objective measure to assessing urban quality of life based on land use characteristics. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 36, 50-53. Doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2016.09.009
  13. Collados, C., & Duane, T. P. (1999). Natural capital and quality of life: a model for evaluating the sustainability of alternative regional development paths. Ecological economics, 30(3), 441-460. Doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00020-8
  14. Das, D. (2008). Urban quality of life: A case study of Guwahati. social indicators research, 88(2), 297-310. Doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9191-6
  15. Fatahi, A., Khorasani, M.A., & Paydar, A. (2011). Quality of life and human development. Tehran: Eshar al-Tehran. [in Persian]
  16. Forouhar, A., & Hasankhani, M. (2018). Urban renewal mega projects and residents’ quality of life: evidence from historical religious center of Mashhad metropolis. Journal of urban health, 95(2), 232-244. Doi: 10.1007/s11524-017-0224-4
  17. Forouhar, N., & Forouhar, A. (2020). Quality of life in neighbourhoods undergoing renewal. Urbani izziv, 31(2), 101-113. Doi: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2020-31-02-004
  18. Galloway, S., Bell, D., Hamilton, C., & Scullion, A. (2006). Quality of life and well-being: Measuring the benefits of culture and sport: Literature review and thinkpiece. Edinburgh: Analytical Services Division, Scottish Executive Education Department.
  19. Garau, C., & Pavan, V. M. (2018). Evaluating urban quality: Indicators and assessment tools for smart sustainable cities. Sustainability, 10(3), 575. Doi: 10.3390/su10030575
  20. Garcia-Bernabeu, A., Cabello, J. M., & Ruiz, F. (2021). A Reference Point-Based Proposal to Build Regional Quality of Life Composite Indicators. Social Indicators Research, 1-20. Doi: 10.1007/s11205-021-02818-0
  21. Ghanbari, A., Karimzadeh, S., & Taraneh, S. (2022). Evaluating the quality of urban life using remote sensing and GIS - Case study: district number 1 and 2 of Zahedan. Quarterly of Geographical Data (SEPEHR), 31(121), 93-110. Doi: 10.22131/sepehr.2022.252771 [in Persian]
  22. Ghazi Mirsaeed, S. M., Talei, M., Abolhasani, S., & Alishah, E. (2021). The Evaluation of Objective and Subjective Indicators in Order to assess the Quality of Life in Inner Urban Neighborhoods (Case Study: Semnan City). Physical Social Planning, 8(2), 29-44. Doi: 10.30473/psp.2021.51871.2277 [in Persian]
  23. Gholi Motlagh, M., & Darvishi, F. (2021). Urban Quality of Life Survey by Localizing Eurobarometer Indexes (Case Study: the City of Qazvin). Human Geography Research, 53(2), 579-597. Doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2020.289797.1008013 [in Persian]
  24. Goerlich, F. J., & Reig, E. (2021). Quality of life ranking of Spanish cities: A non-compensatory approach. Cities, 109, 102979. Doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102979
  25. Hosseini Abbas Abadi, M., & Taleai, M., (2017). Evaluate the quality of urban life based on the spatial and census data. journal of geomatics science and technology, 6(4), 41-55. Doi: 20.1001.1.2322102.1396.6.4.4.7 [in Persian]
  26. Khajeh Shahkhohi, A., Mahdavi, S., Souri, F., & Samadi, R. (2013). Evaluation and analysis of mental indicators of urban quality of life (case study: kashan city). Urban management, 10(30), 285-296. [in Persian]
  27. Kowaltowski, D., Da Silva, V., Pina, S., Labaki, L., Ruschel, R. & Moreira, D. (2006): Quality of life and sustainability issues as seen by the population of low-income housing in the region of Campinas, Brazil. Habitat International, 30, 1100-1114. Doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.04.003
  28. Macke, J., Casagrande, R. M., Sarate, J. A. R., & Silva, K. A. (2018). Smart city and quality of life: Citizens’ perception in a Brazilian case study. Journal of cleaner production, 182, 717-726. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.078
  29. Marans, R. W. (2015). Quality of urban life & environmental sustainability studies: Future linkage opportunities. Habitat International, 45, 47-52. Doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.019
  30. Marans, R. W., & Stimson, R. (2011). An overview of quality of urban life. Investigating quality of urban life. Springer Netherlands, 1-29. Doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1742-8_1
  31. Massam, B. (2002). Quality of life: public planning and private living. Progress in planning, 58, 141-227. Doi: 10.1016/S0305-9006(02)00023-5
  32. Nejat, S. (2008). quality of life and its measurement. Iranian Journal of Epidemiology, 4(2), 57-62. [in Persian]
  33. Pashazadeh, A., & Jalalian, H. (2018). Evaluating of Life Quality Satisfaction of the Residents in Germi City. Journal of Studies of Human Settlements Planning, 13(1), 145-161. [in Persian]
  34. Patil, G. R., & Sharma, G. (2020). Urban Quality of Life: An assessment and ranking for Indian cities. Transport Policy, 124, 183-191. Doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.11.009
  35. Phillips, D. (2006). Quality of life: Concept, policy and practice. Routledge.
  36. Rabe, N. S., Osman, M. M., Bachok, S., Rosli, N. F., & Abdullah, M. F. (2018). Perceptual study on conventional quality of life indicators. Planning Malaysia, 16, (5). Doi: 10.21837/pmjournal.v16.i5.433
  37. Rahmanian Kushkaki, A. (2019). Investigating the role of social capital in improving the quality of life of citizens (case study: Jahrom city). Research of Nations, 44 (4), 81-101. [in Persian]
  38. Rajabi Amirabad R, Rahmani B. The Role of Urban Spaces in Improving the Life Quality (A Case Study of Malayer). Jgs, 20 (58):319-337. Doi: 10.29252/jgs.20.58.319[in Persian]
  39. Santos, L. D., Martins, I., & Brito, P. (2007). Measuring subjective quality of life: A survey to Porto’s residents. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2(1), 51-64. Doi: 10.1007/s11482-007-9029-z
  40. Talmage, C. A., & Frederick, C. (2019). Quality of life, multimodality, and the demise of the autocentric metropolis: A multivariate analysis of 148 mid-size US cities. Social Indicators Research, 141(1), 365-390. Doi: 10.1007/s11205-017-1829-4
  41. Tiran, J. (2016). Measuring urban quality of life: case study of Ljubljana. Acta geographica Slovenica, 56(1), 57-73. Doi: 10.3986/AGS.828
  42. Turkoglu, H. (2015). Sustainable development and quality of urban life. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 202, 10-14. Doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.203
  43. Ülengin, B., Ülengin, F., & Güvenç, Ü. (2001). A multidimensional approach to urban quality of life: The case of Istanbul. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), 361-374. Doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00047-3
  44. Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2019). Quality-of-life indicators as performance measures. Annals of Tourism Research, 76, 291-300. Doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2018.12.016
  45. Weziak-Bialowolska, D. (2016). Quality of life in cities – Empirical evidence in comparative European perspective. Cities, 58, 87-96. Doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.016
  46. WHO. (1998). WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. Psychol Med, 28 (3), 551–558.
  47. Wish, N. B. (1986). Are we really measuring the quality of life? Well‐being has subjective dimensions, as well as objective ones. American journal of economics and sociology, 45(1), 93-99. Doi: 10.1111/j.1536-7150.1986.tb01906.x
  48. Zebardast, E. (2009). The housing domain of quality of life and life satisfaction in the spontaneous settlements on the Tehran metropolitan fringe. Social Indicators Research, 90(2), 307-324. Doi: 10.1007/s11205-008-9260-5