Study of Urban Livability in Twenty-two Districts of Tehran Metropolitan

Abstract

        The term urban livability refers to the needs and capacities of its members meet the requirements of society. A non-viable society is indifferent to the needs of the community and not respected to their wishes. Livability is generally divided into three economic, social and environmental dimension, which each has separate indicators. Dimensions and parameters for this study are also based on the literature of the world livability. The purpose of this study was investigating urban livability in twenty-two districts of Tehran metropolitan. The data of this descriptive-analytical research were collected by using a questionnaire that its reliability about 831/0 was approved. Due to the high number of population Cochran's formula was used to determine sample size that they were 385 from three groups of citizens, municipalities and private executives sector living in 22 regions of Tehran metropolitan. EXCEL, ARCGIS and SPSS Software were used to analyze data in order to extract the final score and the mean score per item of questionnaire. In the final stage, Kruskal-Wallis test was used to check the viability and ranking of the 22 districts. The results showed that among the 22 districts, the first and the third discrete with the average rank 75/353 and 65/301 for environmental dimension, 75/287 and 88/292 for the social and 76/294 for the economic were the most viable areas. On the other hand, the twentieth district with an average rating of 90/29 for environmental dimension, 90/34 for social and 35 for economic had the lowest viability among the 22 studied districts. In other words, it could be argued that the first and third districts had the best life quality but the twentieth discrete had the least living standards for residents among the twenty-two studied areas of Tehran metropolitan.

Keywords

• livability
• Twenty-two regions
• Tehran

---

Full Text

Study of Urban Livability in Twenty-two Districts of Tehran Metropolitan

 

F. Sasanpour

Asisstant Prof. of Geography and Urban Planning, University of Kharazmi, Tehran, Iran

S. Tavalaiy

Prof. of Geography and Urban Planning, University of Kharazmi, Tehran, Iran

H. Jafari Asasabadi[1]

M.A in Geography and Urban Planning, University of Kharazmi, Tehran, Iran

 

Abstract

        The term urban livability refers to the needs and capacities of its members meet the requirements of society. A non-viable society is indifferent to the needs of the community and not respected to their wishes. Livability is generally divided into three economic, social and environmental dimension, which each has separate indicators. Dimensions and parameters for this study are also based on the literature of the world livability. The purpose of this study was investigating urban livability in twenty-two districts of Tehran metropolitan. The data of this descriptive-analytical research were collected by using a questionnaire that its reliability about 831/0 was approved. Due to the high number of population Cochran's formula was used to determine sample size that they were 385 from three groups of citizens, municipalities and private executives sector living in 22 regions of Tehran metropolitan. EXCEL, ARCGIS and SPSS Software were used to analyze data in order to extract the final score and the mean score per item of questionnaire. In the final stage, Kruskal-Wallis test was used to check the viability and ranking of the 22 districts. The results showed that among the 22 districts, the first and the third discrete with the average rank 75/353 and 65/301 for environmental dimension, 75/287 and 88/292 for the social and 76/294 for the economic were the most viable areas. On the other hand, the twentieth district with an average rating of 90/29 for environmental dimension, 90/34 for social and 35 for economic had the lowest viability among the 22 studied districts. In other words, it could be argued that the first and third districts had the best life quality but the twentieth discrete had the least living standards for residents among the twenty-two studied areas of Tehran metropolitan.

 

Keywords: Livability, Twenty-two regions, Tehran.

---

[1] . Corresponding author: [e-mail], Tel: [phone]

References

1. بندرآباد، علیرضا (1390): شهر زیست پذیر از مبانی تا معنا، انتشارات آذرخش، چاپ اول، تهران
2. خراسانی، محمدامین (1391): «تبیین زیست پذیری روستاهای پیرامون شهری با رویکرد کیفیت زندگی مطالعه موردی شهرستان ورامین»، رساله دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی روستایی، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
3. رهنمایی، محمدتقی و سیدموسی پور موسوی (1385): «بررسی ناپایداری‌های امنیتی کلانشهر تهران بر اساس شاخص‌های توسعه پایدار شهری»، مجله پژوهش‌های جغرافیایی، شماره 57، تهران، صص 193-173.
4. دهقان بنادکی، فاطمه (1389): «بررسی نحوه توزیع مکانی فضاهای سبز شهری در منطقه 11 شهر تهران»، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی شهری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکز، تهران.
5. مرکز آمار ایران (90، 85، 75، 65): سرشماری عمومی نفوس و مسکن کلانشهر تهران، تهران.
   1. A Summary of the Livability Ranking and Overview, prepare for opportunity, (2012): Economist Intelligence Unit.
   2. Cedar Hill muni ci pality (2008): city of cedar Hill comprehensives plan 2008 chapter 5: livability, pp. 5-1 to 5-20.
   3. Cities P., (2003): “A sustainable urban system”: the long term plan for greater Vancouver, cannada, cities plus.
   4. Evans, P., (ed.), (2002): Livable Cities? “Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability University of California Press Ltd”: USA, pp.: 2-30.
   5. Landry, C., (2000): Urban Vitality: A New source of Urban Competitiveness, prince claus fund journal, ARCHIS issue Urban Vitality / Urban Heroes.
   6. Larice, M,Z (2005): “great neighborhoods: the livability and morphology high density neighborhoods in urban north America”, PHD.
   7. Mc Nutry. R. H. and C. page. Eds (1994): state American community Washington DC: parteners of livable communities (PLC).
   8. Mc. Nulty: R.h (1998): whats livability? Presenation a conference sponsored by the seoul (south, Korea) metro Politian.
   9. Norris, Tyler and M. Pittman (2000): “the health community’s movement and the coalition for heal their cities and communities”, public health reports 115: 118-124.
   10. Ottawa county planning commission, (2004): Ottawa county urban smart growth, planning and grants department.
   11. Perogordo Madrid, Daniel (2007): “the Silesia mega polis, European spatial planning.
   12. Radcliff, B., (2001): Politics, markets and lifesatis faction: the Political economy of human happiness, American Political science Review.
   13. Timmer Vanessa and nola- Kate S,. (2005): “THE WORLD URBAN FORUM 2006 Vancouver” working group discussion paper internation center for sustainable cities.
   14. Wheeler, M. (2001): Planning Sustainable and livability cities, Stephen
   15. www.camsys.com/kb experts-livability. Htms.