Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 36, Issue 3 (2021)
GeoRes 2021, 36(3): 243-252 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2021/02/6 | Accepted: 2021/05/22 | Published: 2021/09/21
Received: 2021/02/6 | Accepted: 2021/05/22 | Published: 2021/09/21
How to cite this article
Akbari M. Applying Kodas Technique to Measure Urban Infrastructure in Metropolises of Iran. GeoRes 2021; 36 (3) :243-252
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1077-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1077-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Authors
M. Akbari
Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Yasuj University, Yasuj, Iran
Abstract (1120 Views)
Aims: Due to the rapid expansion of urban areas, the lack of urban infrastructure in the country's metropolises is strongly felt. This infrastructure, in parallel with urban development, is vital for improving the quality of life in the country's metropolises. The present study was conducted using the CODAS multi-indicator technique with the aim of analyzing indicators related to urban infrastructure in Iranian metropolises.
Methodology: The present analytical-comparative study was conducted using the information obtained through the statistics of Tehran in 2019. 10 metropolises of Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz, Qom, Kermanshah and Hamedan, Rasht, Zahedan, and Kerman to study the indicators of the number of health services under the supervision of the municipality, the number of indoor sports facilities, the number of fire stations, the number of firefighters, the number of firefighting operations Fire, number of operated metro stations, the total number of parks, number of urban and forest parks, number of open parking lots and multi-story car parks owned by the municipality, number of simple and mechanized overpass bridges, number of open sports spaces, number of fuel stations CNG, owned by the municipality and the private sector, selected a number of permanent and temporary fruit and vegetable markets. Using Excel software, the weights of the indices were analyzed through the Shannon entropy model and used in the CODAS decision technique.
Findings: The highest Euclidean distance belonged to the Tehran metropolis (0.242) and the lowest Euclidean distance belonged to the Zahedan metropolis (0.009). According to the amount of h_ik obtained from THE CODAS technique, metropolises of Tehran (9.254), Mashhad (0.297), Isfahan (0.198), Shiraz (-0.131), Qom (-0.771), Hamedan (-1.555), Kermanshah (-1.960), Kerman (-2.143), Rasht (-2.199), and Zahedan (-2.496) were ranked first to tenth, respectively. The results showed that the Tehran metropolis was far away 8.957, 9.056, 9.385, 10.025, 11.214, 11.453, 10.809, 11.75, and 11.397 scores compared to Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz, Qom, Kermanshah, Rasht, Hamedan, Zahedan, and Kerman were, respectively.
Conclusion: The difference in scores obtained from the CODAS technique indicates the inequality of the studied metropolises in the amount of urban infrastructure in them.
Methodology: The present analytical-comparative study was conducted using the information obtained through the statistics of Tehran in 2019. 10 metropolises of Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz, Qom, Kermanshah and Hamedan, Rasht, Zahedan, and Kerman to study the indicators of the number of health services under the supervision of the municipality, the number of indoor sports facilities, the number of fire stations, the number of firefighters, the number of firefighting operations Fire, number of operated metro stations, the total number of parks, number of urban and forest parks, number of open parking lots and multi-story car parks owned by the municipality, number of simple and mechanized overpass bridges, number of open sports spaces, number of fuel stations CNG, owned by the municipality and the private sector, selected a number of permanent and temporary fruit and vegetable markets. Using Excel software, the weights of the indices were analyzed through the Shannon entropy model and used in the CODAS decision technique.
Findings: The highest Euclidean distance belonged to the Tehran metropolis (0.242) and the lowest Euclidean distance belonged to the Zahedan metropolis (0.009). According to the amount of h_ik obtained from THE CODAS technique, metropolises of Tehran (9.254), Mashhad (0.297), Isfahan (0.198), Shiraz (-0.131), Qom (-0.771), Hamedan (-1.555), Kermanshah (-1.960), Kerman (-2.143), Rasht (-2.199), and Zahedan (-2.496) were ranked first to tenth, respectively. The results showed that the Tehran metropolis was far away 8.957, 9.056, 9.385, 10.025, 11.214, 11.453, 10.809, 11.75, and 11.397 scores compared to Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz, Qom, Kermanshah, Rasht, Hamedan, Zahedan, and Kerman were, respectively.
Conclusion: The difference in scores obtained from the CODAS technique indicates the inequality of the studied metropolises in the amount of urban infrastructure in them.
Keywords:
References
1. Arimah B (2017). Infrastructure as a catalyst for the prosperity of African cities. Procedia Engineering. 198:245-266. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.159]
2. Asikhia MO, Uyoyoghene OT (2011). Urban infrastructure and quality of life: A case study of warri metropolis. The Nigerian Journal of Research and Production. 19(2):1-10. [Link]
3. Asoka GWN, Thuo ADM, Bunyasi MM (2013). Effects of population growth on urban infrastructure and services: A case of Eastleigh neighborhood Nairobi, Kenya. Journal of Anthropology & Archaeology. 1(1):41-56. [Link]
4. Blumenstock J, Maldeniya D, Lokanathan S (2017). Understanding the impact of urban infrastructure: New insights from population-scale data. ICTD Proceedings. (4):1-12. [Link] [DOI:10.1145/3136560.3136575]
5. Buhaug H, Urdal H (2013). An urbanization bomb? Population growth and social disorder in cities. Global Environmental Change. 23(1):1-10. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.016]
6. Collier P, Venables AJ (2016). Urban infrastructure for development. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 32(3):391-409. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/oxrep/grw016]
7. Denpaiboon C, Selanon P, Denpaiboon K (2019). Inequality in urban infrastructure accessibility to slum settlements: A case study of Bangkok metropolitan. Thai Journal of East Asian Studies. 23(1):34-56. [Link]
8. Dong L, Wang Y, Scipioni A, Park HS, Ren J (2018). Recent progress on innovative urban infrastructures system towards sustainable resource management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 128:355-359. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.020]
9. Du H, Liu D, Lu Z, Crittenden J, Mao G, Wang S, et al (2019). Research development on sustainable urban infrastructure from 1991 to 2017: A bibliometric analysis to inform future innovations. Earth's Future. 7(7):718-733. [Link] [DOI:10.1029/2018EF001117]
10. Faraji Rad A, Pashapour H, Pourakarami M, Muslimi A (2016). Comparative study of Iranian metropolises in terms of sustainable development indicators. Journal of Urban Studies. 3(8):125-146. [Persian] [Link]
11. Judyta W (2016). Urban infrastructure facilities as an essential public investment for sustainable cities-indispensable but unwelcome objects of social conflicts case study of warsaw Poland. Transportation Research Procedia. 16:553-565. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.052]
12. Keshavarz Ghorabaee M, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J (2016). A New Combinative Distance-Based Assessment (CODAS) Method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research. 50(3):25-44. [Link]
13. Koirala MP (2018). Urban infrasttructure projects and challenges, risk identifying for emerging new cities of Nepal. International Journal of Research-Granthaalayah. 6(12):97-108. [Link] [DOI:10.29121/granthaalayah.v6.i12.2018.1086]
14. Martos A, Pacheco‐Torres R, Ordonez J, Jadraque‐Gago E (2016). Towards successful environmental performance of sustainable cities: Intervening sectors: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 57:479-495. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.095]
15. Monsef AA, Sameti M, Mousavi Madani M (2016). Ranking of eight metropolises of Iran in terms of level of development using the method of hierarchical analysis process and taxonomy in 2011. Journal of Development Economy and Planning. 5(2):1-24. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.serd.5.16.1]
16. Neuman M (2012). Infrastructure planning for sustainable cities. Geographica Helvetica. 66(2):100-107. [Link] [DOI:10.5194/gh-66-100-2011]
17. Taqvaei M, Akbari M (2009). Spatial analysis of development indicators in regional metropolis of Iran. Geography. 7(20-21):97-111. [Persian] [Link]
18. Tripathi S (2017). Relationship between infrastructure and population agglomeration in urban India: An empirical assessment [Report]. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute; Report NO:731. [Link]
19. Turok I, McGranahan G (2013). Urbanization and economic growth: The arguments and evidence for Africa and Asia. Environment and Urbanization. 25(2):465-482. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0956247813490908]
20. tmicto.tehran.ir [Internet] (2019). Tehran: Information and Communication Technology Organization [Link]
21. [cited 2019 Jan 1]. Available from: https://tmicto.tehran.ir/. [Persian] [Link]
22. Udoudo FP, Udoidem JO (2017). Urban Infrastructure Provision in Nigeria: A critique of the funding strategy. Saudi Journal of Business and Management Studies. 2(3):256-263. [Link]
23. Zavrl MS, Zeren MT (2010). Sustainability of urban infrastructures. Sustainability. 2:2950-2964. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su2092950]