بررسی شاخص‌های شکوفایی شهری در شهر خرم‌آباد

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.