پهنه‌بندی فضایی گستره‌های فقر شهری از لحاظ شاخص‌های اقتصادی-اجتماعی مطالعه موردی: شهر شهریار

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه جغرافیای انسانی و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

3 گروه مدیریت شهری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکز، تهران، ایران

10.22059/jhgr.2024.358118.1008593

چکیده

شاخص‌های زیادی در شکل‌گیری پهنه‌های فقر در شهرها تأثیر دارند. در این میان شاخص‌های اقتصادی و اجتماعی تأثیر زیادی در تولید و بازتولید فقر دارند. بر همین مبنا هدف مقاله حاضر تعیین پهنه‌های فقیرنشین در شهر شهریار با استفاده از شاخص‌های اجتماعی-اقتصادی می‌باشد. پژوهش حاضر از لحاظ هدف کاربردی و از نظر روش، توصیفی-تحلیلی است. با استفاده از مدل  AHP به شاخص‌ها وزن داده شده و با استفاده از مدل تاپسیس، سطح‌بندی پهنه‌های فقر در بلوک‌های شهر شهریار مشخص‌شده‌اند. یافته‌های تلفیق تمام شاخص‌های اقتصادی-اجتماعی نشان می‌دهد که ضریب تأثیر شاخص‌های اشتغال، وضع زناشویی، مالکیت مسکن، سواد، وسیله نقلیه و رایانه به ترتیب برابر با 244/0، 184/0، 207/0، 215/0 و 15/0 است. بنابراین، بیشترین ضریب مربوط به اشتغال با امتیاز 244/0 و  کم‌ترین امتیاز مربوط به نوع وسیله نقلیه و رایانه با ضریب 15/0 است.  نتایج  فقر در شهر شهریار از لحاظ شاخص‌های اقتصادی و اجتماعی نشان‌دهنده آن است که  تنها 15 بلوک شامل حدود 10 درصد از کل بلوک‌های شهری شهریار  دارای کیفیت مناسب، 30 بلوک (19 درصد)  دارای کیفیت نسبتاً مناسب، تعداد 43 بلوک(28 درصد)  در وضعیت متوسط،  42 بلوک ( 27 درصد)  در وضعیت نسبتاً نامناسب و در نهایت 24 بلوک( 16 درصد)  در وضعیت نامناسبی قرار دارند. بنابراین 43 درصد بلوک‌های شهر شهریار از لحاظ شاخص‌های اجتماعی و اقتصادی در وضعیت نامناسبی قرار دارند. این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که اشتغال، سواد و مالکیت خانه مهم‌ترین عوامل مؤثر بر مناطق فقیر در شهر هستند، این عوامل توانایی ساکنان را برای بهبود شرایط زندگی، درآمدزایی و دسترسی به خدمات اجتماعی را محدود می‌کند و در نتیجه فقر را در این محله‌ها تداوم می‌بخشد و بازتولید می‌کند. لاجرم باید سیاست‌هایی برای افزایش فرصت‌های شغلی، بهبود نرخ باسوادی و افزایش دسترسی خانواده‌های کم‌درآمد به مسکن اجرا شود. همچنین باید سیاست‌های برنامه‌ریزی و توسعه فضایی برای رفع نابرابری‌های اجتماعی و فضایی در شهر اجرا شود. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Spatial Zoning of Urban Poverty Areas, as Indicated by Socio-Economic Factors: A case study of Shahriar City

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shahram Charkhan 1
  • SeyyedAhmad Hosseinnia 2
  • Mohammad Bayat 3
1 Department of Human Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Design, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
3 Department of Urban Management, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

ABSTRACT
There are various indicators that contribute to the formation of poverty zones in cities. Economic and social indicators also play a role in both the production and reproduction of poverty.The article examines the emergence of poverty zones in Shahryar city by analyzing socio-economic indicators. The study utilizes the AHP and TOPSIS models to assign weights to these indicators and classify the city's blocks into different poverty levels. The analysis reveals that factors such as employment, marital status, home ownership, literacy, vehicle ownership, and computer access significantly impact the socio-economic status of these areas. Among these factors, employment is found to be the most crucial (coefficient 0.244), while vehicle and computer access have the least influence (coefficient 0.15). The findings indicate that only 10% of Shahryar's blocks demonstrate good quality, while 19% are relatively good, 28% are average, 27% are relatively poor, and 16% are in poor condition. In total, 43% of the city's blocks are in disrepair, indicating a high prevalence of poverty. The study concludes that employment, literacy, and home ownership are the primary contributors to poverty in Shahryar. These factors hinder residents' ability to improve their living conditions, generate income, and access social services, thereby perpetuating poverty. To address this issue, the article suggests implementing policies focused on increasing job opportunities, improving literacy rates, and expanding housing access for low-income families. Additionally, the article recommends spatial planning and development policies to create economically vibrant communities and alleviate the socio-economic disadvantages observed in Shahryar's urban areas.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Urban poverty in Shahryar city is a multifaceted issue shaped by a complex interplay of economic, social, and spatial factors. A comprehensive understanding of these factors is imperative for developing effective strategies aimed at alleviating poverty and enhancing the quality of life for residents. This study investigates the socioeconomic indicators that contribute to the formation of poverty zones in Shahryar, with the objective of providing insights that can guide targeted interventions and promote sustainable urban development.
The significance of this research lies in its potential to offer a detailed analysis of the spatial distribution of poverty within Shahryar. By mapping areas most affected by poverty and identifying the underlying socioeconomic causes, this study aims to enable policymakers to strategically allocate resources and design interventions that address the root causes of poverty rather than merely alleviating its symptoms. The research is driven by two central questions: (1) Which socioeconomic indicators have the greatest impact on the formation of urban poverty zones in Shahryar? (2) What is the relationship between these indicators and the spatial distribution of impoverished neighborhoods in Shahryar? Answering these questions is crucial for understanding the factors contributing to poverty concentration and developing effective strategies to break the cycle of urban poverty.
 
Methodology
This research is applied in nature and utilizes a descriptive-analytical method to assess the socioeconomic landscape of Shahryar city. The study employs the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) model to assign weights to the selected indicators and the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) model to stratify the city's blocks based on these indicators. The indicators considered include employment status, marital status, home ownership, literacy rates, vehicle ownership, and computer access. Each indicator's influence was quantified, revealing varying degrees of impact on the formation of poverty zones.
 
Results and discussion
The analysis reveals significant findings regarding the socioeconomic determinants of poverty in Shahryar city. Employment status emerges as the most influential factor, with a coefficient of 0.244. This indicates that employment has the greatest impact on the socioeconomic conditions of residents and underscores the importance of job creation and economic development in alleviating poverty. Without stable employment opportunities, residents are more vulnerable to economic insecurity, exacerbating other forms of social and economic deprivation.
Home ownership and literacy also significantly impact poverty distribution, with coefficients of 0.207 and 0.215, respectively. Home ownership is associated with long-term economic stability and wealth accumulation, making it a vital determinant of socioeconomic status. Literacy plays a crucial role in an individual's ability to secure higher-paying jobs and improve economic prospects. The findings suggest that policies aimed at increasing home ownership and improving literacy rates could effectively contribute to poverty reduction in Shahryar.
In contrast, vehicle ownership and computer access, with coefficients of 0.15 each, show a less significant influence on the emergence of poverty zones. Although these indicators are relevant for assessing material well-being and access to technology, they do not play as central a role in shaping poverty zones compared to employment, home ownership, and literacy. This highlights that while material resources are important, they are not sufficient alone to address the root causes of poverty.
The spatial analysis reveals a stark disparity in socioeconomic conditions within Shahryar city. Only 10% of the city's blocks are identified as having favorable socioeconomic conditions, while approximately 43% are classified as poor or relatively poor. This considerable disparity underscores the unequal distribution of wealth and resources and emphasizes the need for targeted interventions in the most affected areas.
 
Conclusion
This study concludes that socioeconomic indicators, particularly employment, literacy, and home ownership, are pivotal in understanding and addressing urban poverty in Shahryar. These factors not only define the current socioeconomic status of neighborhoods but also perpetuate a cycle of poverty that is difficult to break without targeted interventions.
The research suggests that policies aimed at enhancing job opportunities, improving literacy rates, and expanding access to affordable housing are essential. Additionally, spatial planning and development policies should be implemented to foster economically vibrant communities and reduce spatial disparities in poverty across the city.
 
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.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Poverty Zones
  • Urban poverty
  • Social Indicators
  • Economic Indicators
  • Shahriar City
  1. آزاده‌ای، منصوره اعظم و خواجه صالحانی، افسانه. (1394). تشخص محله و احساس طرد اجتماعی (مطالعه موردی شهر پاکدشت). فصلنامه رفاه اجتماعی، ۱۵ (۵۹)، 118-89.  
  2.  باستانی، سوسن؛ رهنمای، فاطمه و قاضی نژاد، مریم. (1392). طرد اجتماعی (مورد مطالعه: طرد عینی و ذهنی سالمندان شهر تهران). فصلنامه مطالعات و تحقیقات اجتماعی در ایران، 2(4)، 626-599.
  3. خدائی، زهرا و تیموری، سمیه. (1396). تحلیلی بر پراکنش فضایی فقر شهری در نواحی شهر خرم‌آباد. فصلنامه مطالعات توسعه اجتماعی-فرهنگی،  6(3)، 58-33.
  4. رضایی، محمدرضا؛ علیان، مهدی و خاوریان، امیررضا. (1393). شناسایی و ارزیابی گستره‌های فضایی فقر شهری در شهر یزد. پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، 46(3)، 695-677.
  5. زبردست، اسفندیار و رمضانی، راضیه. (1395). سنجش فقر شهری و ارتباط آن با دسترسی به خدمات شهری در شهر قزوین.  نشریه هنرهای زیبا-معماری و شهرسازی، 21(2)، 54-45.
  6. قرقانی پور، سمانه؛ شهریار، علی و شریفی پیچون، محمد. (1402). بررسی نقش عوامل ژئومورفولوژی بر توسعه فیزیکی شهر شهرضا. مطالعات جغرافیایی مناطق خشک، 14(52)، 115-97.
  7.  مهدنژاد، حافظ و بیات، محمد. (1399). تأثیر فقر شهری بر دسترسی به خدمات شهری مطالعه موردی: شهر شهریار. فصلنامه شهر پایدار، 3(3)، 66-51.
  8. مهدنژاد، حافظ و پرهیز، فریاد. (1400). تعیین مکانی پهنه‌های فقر شهری(مورد پژوهی: منطقه 12 کلان‌شهر تهران). فصلنامه پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، 53(1)، 307-321.
  9. مهدنژاد، حافظ و غلامی، علی‌رضا. (1400). تحلیل فضایی فقر شهری از لحاظ شاخص‌های کالبدی(مورد مطالعه: کلان‌شهر اصفهان). فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 12(44)، 38-21.
  10. مهدنژاد، حافظ؛ زنگانه، احمد و سعیدی رضوانی، نوید. (1399). تحلیل همپوشانی پهنه‌بندی مکانی فقر و بافت فرسوده در فضاهای پیراشهر تهران. مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، 2(3)، 192-175.
  11. نیک پور، عامر؛ لطفی، صدیقه و حسنعلی زاده، میلاد. (1398). تحلیل فضایی فقر شهری با روش تحلیل عاملی، نمونه موردی: قائم‌شهر. فصلنامه علمی برنامه‌ریزی فضایی(جغرافیا)، 9(32)، 124-103.
  12. Ahmed, A. U., Hill, R. V., & Naeem, F. (2014). The poorest: Who and where they are? In J. von Braun, & F. W. Gatzweiler (Eds.), Marginality (pp. 85–99). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7061-4 6.
  13. Alkire, S. & Santos, M. E. (2011). Acute multidimensional poverty: a new index for developing countries. Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI).
  14. Alkire, S. (2007). Choosing dimensions: the capability approach and multidimensional poverty, in Kakwani, N. and Silber, J. (Eds), The Many Dimensions of Poverty, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
  15.  Anand, S. and Sen, A. (1997), Concepts of Human Development and Poverty: A Multidimensional Perspective. Human Development Papers, UNDP, New York, NY, pp. 1-19.
  16. Ariyanto, K. (2023). Literature Review: Urban Poverty in a Sociological Perspective. Journal of Social Studies and Humaniora, 2(1), 24-32.
  17. Ataguba, J. E. Ichoku, H. E. Fonta, W. M. (2013). Multidimensional poverty assessment: applying the capability approach. International Journal of Social Economics, 40 (4), 331-354.
  18. Azadehdel, M. A., & Khajeh Salehani, A. (2015). Neighborhood identity and feeling of social exclusion (Case study: Pakdasht city). Social Welfare Quarterly, 15(59), 89-118. [in persian]
  19. Balboni, C., Bandiera, O., Burgess, R., Ghatak, M., & Heil, A. (2022). Why do people stay poor?. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(2), 785–844.
  20. Barrett, C. B., Garg, T., & McBride, L. (2016). Well-being dynamics and poverty traps. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 8(1), 303–327.
  21. Barrett, C.B., & Swallow, B.M. (2006). Fractal poverty traps. Journal of World Development, 34(1), 1–15.
  22. Bastani, S., Rahnama, F., & Ghazinejad, M. (2013). Social exclusion (Case study: Objective and subjective exclusion of the elderly in Tehran). Quarterly of Social Studies and Research in Iran, 2(4), 599-626. [in persian]
  23. Bayram, N., Bilgel, F., & Bilgel, G. N. (2012). Social exclusion and quality of life: An empirical study from Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 105, 109–120.
  24. Brock, K. (2000). An Introduction to Participatory Poverty Assessments. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
  25. Callander, E. J., Schofield, D. J., & Shrestha, R. N. (2012). Towards a holistic understanding of poverty: A new multidimensional measure of poverty for Australia. Health Sociology Review, 21(2), 141‒155
  26. Cano Hila, A.B. (2019). Urban Poverty. In Orum, A(Edit). The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies (pp.1-7), MPublisher: Wiley-Blackwell
  27. Cuesta, J., Devereux, S., Abdulai, A.-G., Gupte, J., Luigi, A., Ragno, L. P., Roelen, K., Sabates-Wheeler, R., & Spadafora, T. (2021). Urban social assistance: Evidence, challenges and the way forward, with application to Ghana. Development Policy Review, 39(3), 360–380
  28. Fitz, D., & Gouri Suresh, S. (2021). Poverty traps across levels of aggregation. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 16(4), 909–953.
  29. Gharghanipour, S., Shahriar, A., & Sharifi Pichon, M. (2023). Investigating the role of geomorphological factors on the physical development of Shahreza city. Geographical Studies of Arid Regions, 14(52), 97-115. [in persian]
  30. Hall, T. (2006). Urban Geography. London & New York: Routledge.
  31. Islam, R. Abdul Ghani, A. B., Zainal Abidin, I., & Rayaiappan, J. M.  (2017). Impact on poverty and income inequality in Malaysia’s economic growth. Problems and Perspectives in Management , 15(1), 55-62.
  32. Janz, T., Augsburg, B., Gassmann, F., & Nimeh, Z. (2023). Leaving no one behind: Urban poverty traps in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 172 (106388), 1-12.
  33. Khodaei, Z., & Teimouri, S. (2017). An analysis of the spatial distribution of urban poverty in the areas of Khorramabad city.  Journal of Socio-Cultural Development Studies, 6(3), 33-58. [in persian]
  34. Kraay, A., & McKenzie, D. (2014). Do poverty traps exist? Assessing the evidence. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), 127–148.
  35. Kwak, S., & Smith, S. C. (2013). Regional agricultural endowments and shifts of poverty trap equilibria: Evidence from Ethiopian Panel Data. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(7), 955–975.
  36. Laderchi, C. R. (2011).  Participatory methods in the analysis of poverty: a critical review. Working Paper Number, 62(2011), 1-16.
  37. Leng, K. S.,  Samsurijan,  M. S.,  Gopal, P. S., Malina Malek, N.  & Hamat, Z. (2018). Urban Poverty Alleviation Strategies from Multidimensional and Multi-Ethnic Perspectives: Evidences from Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia, 36(2), 43–68.
  38. Mahdinejad, H., & Bayat, M. (2020). The impact of urban poverty on access to urban services: A case study of Shahriar city. Journal of Sustainable City, 3(3), 51–66.
  39. Mahdinejad, H., & Gholami, A. R. (2021). Spatial analysis of urban poverty based on physical indicators (Case study: Isfahan metropolis). Urban Research and Planning Quarterly, 12(44), 21–38.
  40. Mahdinejad, H., & Parhiz, F. (2021). Spatial determination of urban poverty zones (Case study: District 12 of Tehran metropolis). Human Geography Research Quarterly, 53(1), 307–321.
  41. Mahdinejad, H., Zanganeh, A., & Saeidi Rezvani, N. (2020). Analysis of spatial overlap between urban poverty zoning and worn-out urban fabric in the peri-urban spaces of Tehran. Journal of Peri-Urban Spaces Development, 2(3), 175–192.
  42. Marwell, N.P & Morrissey, S.L. (2020). Organizations and the Governance of Urban Poverty. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), 233-250.
  43. MehdiNejad, H., & Bayat, M. (2020). The impact of urban poverty on access to urban services (Case study: Shahriar city). Journal of Sustainable City, 3(3), 51-66. [in persian]
  44. MehdiNejad, H., & Gholami, A. R. (2021). Spatial analysis of urban poverty in terms of physical indicators (Case study: Isfahan metropolis). Research and Urban Planning Quarterly, 12(44), 21-38. [in persian]
  45. MehdiNejad, H., & Parhiz, F. (2021). Spatial determination of urban poverty zones (Case study: District 12 of Tehran metropolis). Human Geography Research, 53(1), 307-321. [in persian]
  46. MehdiNejad, H., Zanganeh, A., & Saeidi Rezvani, N. (2020). Analysis of the overlap between spatial zoning of poverty and worn-out textures in the peri-urban areas of Tehran. Journal of Study of Peripheral Urban Spaces, 2(3), 175-192. [in persian]
  47. Mitlin, D. (2004). Understanding urban poverty; what the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers tell us (Vol. 13): Iied.
  48. Nikpour, A., Lotfi, S., & Hasanali Zadeh, M. (2019). Spatial analysis of urban poverty using factor analysis method, case study: Ghaemshahr. Scientific Quarterly of Spatial Planning (Geography), 9(32), 103-124. [in persian]
  49. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) .(2018). Global Multidimensional Poverty Index 2018: The Most Detailed Picture To Date of the World’s Poorest People, University of Oxford, UK.
  50. Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative(OPHI) .(2007). Missing Dimensions of Poverty Data: Background Information of the Indicators and Survey Modules, Department of International Development, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford, Oxford.
  51. Peruzzi, A. (2015). From Childhood Deprivation to Adult Social Exclusion: Evidence from the 1970 British Cohort Study. Social Indicators Research, 1(2),1-20.
  52. Rezaei, M. R., Alian, M., & Khavarian, A. R. (2014). Identification and evaluation of spatial extents of urban poverty in Yazd city. Human Geography Research, 46(3), 677–695.
  53. Rezaei, M. R., Alian, M., & Khavarian, A. R. (2014). Identification and assessment of urban poverty spatial areas in Yazd city. Human Geography Research, 46(3), 677-695. [in persian]
  54. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of human development, 6(1): 93-117.
  55. Santos, M. E.  & Villatoro, P. (2018). A multidimensional poverty index for Latin America. Review of Income and Wealth, 64(1), 52–82.
  56. Santos, M. E. & Villatoro, P. (2019). The Importance of Reliability in the Multidimensional Poverty Index for Latin America (MPI-LA). The Journal of Development Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2019.1663177.
  57. Santos, M. E., Villatoro, P.,  Mancero, X.,  & Gerstenfeld, P. (2015). A Multidimensional Poverty Index for Latin America. OPHI Working Paper, 79(2015), 1-47.
  58. Sulaiman, J., Azman, A., & Khan, Z .(2014). Re-modeling Urban Poverty: A Multidimensional Approach. International Journal of Social Work and Human Services Practice, 2(2), 64-72.
  59. Zabardast, E., & Ramezani, R. (2016). Measuring urban poverty and its relationship with access to urban services in Qazvin city. Fine Arts Journal: Architecture and Urban Planning, 21(2), 45–54. [in persian]