Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 2 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(2): 233-243 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2022/11/23 | Accepted: 2023/03/12 | Published: 2023/04/30
Received: 2022/11/23 | Accepted: 2023/03/12 | Published: 2023/04/30
How to cite this article
Lotfollahian H, Ghafari Gilandeh A, Yazdani M. Indicators of the Quality of Urban Life in Five Regions of Ardabil City. GeoRes 2023; 38 (2) :233-243
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1398-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1398-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:
1- Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Social Sciences, Mohaghegh Ardabili University, Ardabil, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (85 Views)
Introduction
The third millennium is the era of urbanization. On the one hand, the city, as the foundation of human civilization, plays a fundamental role in creating citizens’ sense of satisfaction, shaping lifestyles, and determining their quality of life. On the other hand, despite its great achievements for humanity, the city has also generated challenges such as population density, severe air pollution, continuous urban sprawl, and disproportionate urban development relative to population growth, conditions often referred to as “urban disease,” which negatively affect citizens’ lives. In response to these adverse effects, managerial approaches have emerged to ensure the enhancement of quality of life [Musa et al., 2015; Shamaei & Shahsavar, 2017; Wann-Ming, 2019].
With the rapid expansion of urban populations and the growing shift from quantitative standards toward qualitative perspectives, issues such as urban quality of life have been raised, which can be analyzed at different scales, domains, and dimensions [Serag El Din et al., 2013; Marsousi et al., 2016; Bandarabad & Ahmadinezhad, 2014]. The concept of quality of life is one of the new approaches to the reform and advancement of development. Under the influence of this concept, a new perspective in urban planning has emerged, emphasizing that urban planning should address not only physical objectives but also the qualitative needs of urban residents. Initially, this concept was confined to health, environmental, and psychological issues; however, over the past two decades, it has evolved into a multidimensional concept. Since the 1940s, the notion of quality of life has entered studies across various disciplines, including geography [Velibeyoglu, 2014; Hosseini & Bagherian, 2015; Rajabi Amirabad et al., 2018; Beriaji et al., 2018; Pacione, 2003].
Quality of life is an interdisciplinary, multidimensional, and dynamic concept, composed of both objective and subjective dimensions. It is influenced by geographical context, time, and the value system of society, and refers to an individual’s sense of satisfaction with life conditions. Planning to improve quality of life is thus linked both to objective statistics and indicators of citizens’ lives, and to their subjective and psychological perceptions of living conditions [Ghalibaf et al., 2011; Fanni et al., 2015]. Objective indicators concern tangible aspects of urban life and can be defined across various dimensions [Mojtaba Zadeh Khanghahi & Azadi, 2015], while subjective approaches deal with individuals’ perceptions and attitudes toward their lives [Badri & Gharanjik, 2014]. Moreover, the quality of life of people and places depends on multiple factors that must be identified. Failure to recognize such factors in different domains can reduce life satisfaction and, over time, deprive society of its productive and capable human resources [Veysi Nab & Babaei, 2018].
The most suitable approach to measuring urban quality of life is the simultaneous use of both objective and subjective indicators; neglecting either of them leads to deficiencies in planning [Salari Sardari et al., 2013; Soleymani et al., 2012]. Accordingly, assessing quality of life can help evaluate policies, rank places, formulate strategies for urban management and planning, and facilitate the understanding and prioritization of social issues by planners and urban managers to enhance citizens’ quality of life. Furthermore, quality of life findings can be used to reassess previous political strategies and to design future planning policies. Hence, assessing urban quality of life is essential for guiding, controlling, and achieving sustainable urban development and for meeting the city’s basic needs [Karkehabadi, 2017]. Studying and comparing quality of life indicators over time can also reveal improvements or stagnation in people’s living conditions [Rezaeenoor et al., 2018].
Research on quality of life smooths the relationship between local authorities and citizens by fostering constructive interaction that enables the interpretation and discussion of key issues. In fact, one of the most important goals of studying quality of life in urban areas is to identify community needs and to ensure equitable access for all groups and neighborhoods to urban facilities and benefits [Bastanian Shahgoli et al., 2018]. Neglecting quality of life, however, may have harmful consequences for urban areas [Zarrabi et al., 2014]. Thus, understanding the level of quality of life at the neighborhood scale and recognizing disparities among them is a crucial concern for urban planners. Today, the equitable distribution of quality-of-life indicators such as housing quality, transportation and communication, access to daily needs, urban facilities, safety, and security at the neighborhood level requires the attention of urban managers and planners [Zarabi et al., 2017]. Urban areas are the primary centers of economic, social, and political growth in every country, proving themselves to be the most attractive spaces for wealth creation, employment, creativity, and innovation. Nevertheless, they face major challenges such as physical and environmental degradation, social deprivation, insecurity, unemployment, housing shortages, and traffic congestion, all of which significantly reduce urban quality of life [Ghorbani et al., 2013].
Indeed, research on the quality of life of urban residents can address the major challenges faced by policymakers and urban planners, such as rapid population growth, the provision of necessary urban infrastructure, and meeting the evolving needs of citizens, while also assessing the culture of sustainability among city residents [Marans, 2015].
The concept of quality of life entered geographical literature with spatial and regional approaches in the 1970s [Pacione, 2003]. In Iran, such studies began in the 1960s and 1970s, when rapid urbanization started and urban problems began to emerge [Faraji & Azimi, 2017]. Shaterian et al. have found that among the examined indicators, environmental factors had the highest factor loadings, while leisure and recreation had the lowest [Shaterian et al., 2020]. Ghadiri et al. show that there were differences in quality of life across neighborhoods in the city of Kuhbanan, with the Dahmir neighborhood being the most deprived and thus requiring priority in planning [Ghadiri et al., 2021]. Saremi et al. have demonstrated that urban development indicators in Boroujerd were generally unfavorable, with livability being the only relatively positive indicator. Their findings further revealed that weaknesses in internal strategic factors outweighed strengths, and opportunities were greater than external threats. Consequently, they argued that urban managers must not only better recognize requirements, needs, and resources, but also gain citizens’ trust to foster improvements in quality of life [Saremi et al., 2022].
Residents’ perception of quality of life in cities depends on their choices, access to services, time allocation, and the social interactions they enjoy [Biagi et al., 2018]. Faria et al., in an effort to overcome common limitations of existing evaluation methods and to establish a more informed, consistent, and transparent system, have combined cognitive mapping with attractiveness measurement. This process created a constructive approach and incorporated both objective and subjective dimensions into the decision-making framework [Faria et al., 2018].
Since only a limited number of studies have examined quality of life in Ardabil, it is necessary to conduct a systematic investigation of the city’s five districts to fill the existing gap for urban planners.
In recent decades, the rapid growth of population and migration to Ardabil as a provincial center has led to accelerated urban expansion, exposing the city, like many other Iranian cities, to numerous economic, social, and environmental challenges. This growth has not been aligned with the city’s internal needs and capacities. The elliptical shape of Ardabil, combined with issues such as the expansion of informal settlements, housing shortages, insufficient urban infrastructure, and inadequate planning, suggests that in the near future Ardabil will face serious challenges, making it increasingly difficult to sustain livability. Therefore, strategic and principled planning is required to overcome this situation.
Assessing quality of life in Ardabil’s neighborhoods with a future-oriented perspective can contribute to policy evaluation, place ranking, and the development of urban management and planning strategies. It also facilitates understanding and prioritizing social issues for planners and managers to improve citizens’ living standards. Furthermore, findings from this assessment can be used to revisit previous political strategies and to design future planning policies. Thus, it can be argued that measuring quality of life in Ardabil’s neighborhoods is essential for directing, controlling, and achieving sustainable development, as well as for meeting the city’s fundamental needs. Accordingly, this study examined and evaluated quality-of-life indicators in Ardabil. The aim was to analyze these indicators and classify different urban areas based on their relative access to them.
Methodology
The present study is applied in purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of methodology. It was conducted in 2022 in the city of Ardabil and its five districts. Data were collected through both library research and fieldwork. The statistical population of the study included all residents and citizens of Ardabil, and the sample size was determined using simple random sampling based on Cochran’s formula. At a 95% confidence level, the sample size was calculated as 384 individuals, who were then selected using simple random sampling.
To measure urban quality-of-life indicators in Ardabil’s neighborhoods, a questionnaire comprising 39 items was used, structured on a Likert scale and covering nine components: economic, social, cultural, physical (built environment), health, safety, transportation, education, and environment. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. For data analysis, the study employed the Kruskal-Wallis model, T-tests, and exploratory factor analysis.
Findings
Reliability of the Urban Quality of Life Scale
Internal consistency was used to examine the reliability of the urban quality-of-life scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated for the overall urban quality-of-life score and its dimensions. The Cronbach’s alpha for the total urban quality-of-life score was 0.93, while for the individual components it ranged from 0.70 to 0.75. The environmental and economic indicators had the highest reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75, whereas cultural and transportation indicators had the lowest at 0.70. Among the 384 respondents, 166 individuals (43.2%) were female and 218 individuals (56.8%) were male; regarding marital status, 215 respondents (55.7%) were married and 169 respondents (44.3%) were single.
Economic Component of Urban Quality of Life
The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test indicated that differences among Ardabil’s five districts in terms of satisfaction with income inequality and employment status were significant at α=0.05. For employment status, District 4 had the highest mean rank (206.57), while for satisfaction with income disparity, District 1 had the highest mean rank (208.80). Other economic indicators did not show significant differences at this alpha level.
Social Component of Urban Quality of Life
Data analysis for the social dimension at α=0.05 showed significant differences among the five districts regarding awareness of neighborhood events and interpersonal trust. For neighborhood awareness, District 5 had the highest mean rank (225.44), while for interpersonal trust, District 1 had the highest mean rank (228.32). Other social indicators did not demonstrate significant differences.
Cultural and Physical (Built Environment) Components of Urban Quality of Life
Analysis of cultural and physical dimensions revealed no significant differences among the five districts for cultural indicators at α = 0.05. In the physical dimension, only the residential unit conditions (number of rooms, facilities, etc.) differed significantly among districts. District 5 had the best status in this indicator with a mean rank of 219.79.
Health Component of Urban Quality of Life
For the health dimension, the five districts showed significant differences in satisfaction with street and pedestrian pathway quality and satisfaction with healthcare costs at α<0.05. District 5 had the highest mean rank for both indicators, indicating the best conditions.
Safety and Security Component of Urban Quality of Life
Results for the safety component indicated significant differences among districts in all security indicators at α < 0.05. The greatest differences were observed in neighborhood conflicts, satisfaction with safety regarding natural disasters, and the presence of abandoned or crime-prone areas, with significance levels of 0.003, 0.004, and 0.006, respectively. Districts 1 and 5 had the highest mean ranks and thus the best conditions for these indicators.
Transportation Component of Urban Quality of Life
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences among districts in terms of urban transportation facilities and sidewalk quality for elderly and disabled pedestrians. District 1 had the best status in both indicators.
Education Component of Urban Quality of Life
For the education dimension, all three examined indicators showed significant differences among districts. The best performance was found in Districts 1, 5, and 1, with mean ranks of 217.26, 215.53, and 222.68, respectively.
Environmental Component of Urban Quality of Life
For environmental indicators, significant differences were observed for traffic noise and the availability of recyclable waste collection centers. The best conditions were in Districts 1 and 5, with mean ranks of 223.54 and 218.97, respectively. Other environmental indicators did not show significant differences.
Overall Status of the Nine Urban Quality-of-Life Components
The Kruskal-Wallis test (α=0.05) indicated significant differences among the five districts in Ardabil. District 2 performed better in economic, social, health, and safety indicators, while District 5 had better status in cultural, transportation, and environmental indicators.
Mean, Standard Deviation, and T-values of Urban Quality-of-Life Indicators
Analysis of means, standard deviations, and T-values for Ardabil’s urban quality-of-life indicators at σ=0.001 and df = 381 showed that safety and security, along with economic indicators, were in a favorable condition, whereas cultural, transportation, physical (built environment), education, and social indicators were in an unfavorable state.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis revealed that nine factors explained a total of 55.476% of the total variance. Specifically, the first factor (economic) accounted for 29.30% of the shared variance, the second factor (social) 5.931%, the third (cultural) 3.461%, the fourth (physical) 3.124%, the fifth (health) 3.028%, the sixth (security) 2.816%, the seventh (transportation) 2.686%, the eighth (education) 2.589%, and the ninth (environment) 2.535% of the shared variance.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to assess urban quality-of-life indicators in the five districts of Ardabil. The findings indicate significant differences among the districts in terms of access to quality-of-life indicators. Similarly, studies by Mohamadi, Shahin, Ghaderi et al., Shatrian et al., and Moazen & Alizadeh Aghdam have reported differences in the distribution of quality-of-life indicators across urban spaces [Mohamadi, 2021; Shahin, 2022; Ghaderi et al., 2021; Shatrian et al., 2020; Moazen & Alizadeh Aghadam, 2012]. Furthermore, Ghaderi et al., Salimirad et al., Beriaji et al., Nazmfar & Mohammadi, and Hasani Nejad et al. have emphasized disparities among urban districts in access to quality-of-life indicators within a single city [Ghaderi et al., 2021; Salimirad et al., 2012; Beriaji et al., 2018; Nazmfar & Mohammadi, 2017; Hasani Nejad et al., 2016].
The unfavorable status of quality-of-life indicators highlights a major challenge for urban management in implementing good governance and achieving sustainable urban development. Urban governance entails the involvement of all urban stakeholders in city management through mechanisms that promote urban excellence and citizen well-being, rather than leaving public and private domains solely under governmental control. The source of power and legitimacy in urban governance lies in the participation of all citizens across all sectors of civil society. Mutisya and Yarime emphasize the role of citizens in promoting effective urban governance [Mutisya & Yarime, 2014].
Given the importance of creating sustainable cities, where improving quality of life is a key component, managers and urban authorities in Ardabil can enhance residents’ quality of life by improving social, educational, physical (built environment), transportation, and cultural indicators. Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are proposed:
Conclusion
The quality-of-life indicators in the five districts of Ardabil are not at a desirable level, which has led to a reduction in residents’ quality of life and fostered dissatisfaction among citizens. Unequal distribution of urban facilities and services, the absence of standardized urban land-use practices across districts, and deficiencies in quality-of-life indicators—particularly in social, educational, physical (built environment), transportation, and cultural domains—have contributed to citizens’ dissatisfaction.
Acknowledgments: The authors sincerely thank all personnel of Ardabil Municipality, particularly the Statistics and Information Department, for their assistance.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Author Contributions: Lotfollahian H (first author), Main Researcher (50%); Ghafari Gilandeh A (second author), Assistant Researcher (35%); Yazdani MH (third author), Assistant Researcher (15%).
Funding: The research was funded entirely through personal expenses.
The third millennium is the era of urbanization. On the one hand, the city, as the foundation of human civilization, plays a fundamental role in creating citizens’ sense of satisfaction, shaping lifestyles, and determining their quality of life. On the other hand, despite its great achievements for humanity, the city has also generated challenges such as population density, severe air pollution, continuous urban sprawl, and disproportionate urban development relative to population growth, conditions often referred to as “urban disease,” which negatively affect citizens’ lives. In response to these adverse effects, managerial approaches have emerged to ensure the enhancement of quality of life [Musa et al., 2015; Shamaei & Shahsavar, 2017; Wann-Ming, 2019].
With the rapid expansion of urban populations and the growing shift from quantitative standards toward qualitative perspectives, issues such as urban quality of life have been raised, which can be analyzed at different scales, domains, and dimensions [Serag El Din et al., 2013; Marsousi et al., 2016; Bandarabad & Ahmadinezhad, 2014]. The concept of quality of life is one of the new approaches to the reform and advancement of development. Under the influence of this concept, a new perspective in urban planning has emerged, emphasizing that urban planning should address not only physical objectives but also the qualitative needs of urban residents. Initially, this concept was confined to health, environmental, and psychological issues; however, over the past two decades, it has evolved into a multidimensional concept. Since the 1940s, the notion of quality of life has entered studies across various disciplines, including geography [Velibeyoglu, 2014; Hosseini & Bagherian, 2015; Rajabi Amirabad et al., 2018; Beriaji et al., 2018; Pacione, 2003].
Quality of life is an interdisciplinary, multidimensional, and dynamic concept, composed of both objective and subjective dimensions. It is influenced by geographical context, time, and the value system of society, and refers to an individual’s sense of satisfaction with life conditions. Planning to improve quality of life is thus linked both to objective statistics and indicators of citizens’ lives, and to their subjective and psychological perceptions of living conditions [Ghalibaf et al., 2011; Fanni et al., 2015]. Objective indicators concern tangible aspects of urban life and can be defined across various dimensions [Mojtaba Zadeh Khanghahi & Azadi, 2015], while subjective approaches deal with individuals’ perceptions and attitudes toward their lives [Badri & Gharanjik, 2014]. Moreover, the quality of life of people and places depends on multiple factors that must be identified. Failure to recognize such factors in different domains can reduce life satisfaction and, over time, deprive society of its productive and capable human resources [Veysi Nab & Babaei, 2018].
The most suitable approach to measuring urban quality of life is the simultaneous use of both objective and subjective indicators; neglecting either of them leads to deficiencies in planning [Salari Sardari et al., 2013; Soleymani et al., 2012]. Accordingly, assessing quality of life can help evaluate policies, rank places, formulate strategies for urban management and planning, and facilitate the understanding and prioritization of social issues by planners and urban managers to enhance citizens’ quality of life. Furthermore, quality of life findings can be used to reassess previous political strategies and to design future planning policies. Hence, assessing urban quality of life is essential for guiding, controlling, and achieving sustainable urban development and for meeting the city’s basic needs [Karkehabadi, 2017]. Studying and comparing quality of life indicators over time can also reveal improvements or stagnation in people’s living conditions [Rezaeenoor et al., 2018].
Research on quality of life smooths the relationship between local authorities and citizens by fostering constructive interaction that enables the interpretation and discussion of key issues. In fact, one of the most important goals of studying quality of life in urban areas is to identify community needs and to ensure equitable access for all groups and neighborhoods to urban facilities and benefits [Bastanian Shahgoli et al., 2018]. Neglecting quality of life, however, may have harmful consequences for urban areas [Zarrabi et al., 2014]. Thus, understanding the level of quality of life at the neighborhood scale and recognizing disparities among them is a crucial concern for urban planners. Today, the equitable distribution of quality-of-life indicators such as housing quality, transportation and communication, access to daily needs, urban facilities, safety, and security at the neighborhood level requires the attention of urban managers and planners [Zarabi et al., 2017]. Urban areas are the primary centers of economic, social, and political growth in every country, proving themselves to be the most attractive spaces for wealth creation, employment, creativity, and innovation. Nevertheless, they face major challenges such as physical and environmental degradation, social deprivation, insecurity, unemployment, housing shortages, and traffic congestion, all of which significantly reduce urban quality of life [Ghorbani et al., 2013].
Indeed, research on the quality of life of urban residents can address the major challenges faced by policymakers and urban planners, such as rapid population growth, the provision of necessary urban infrastructure, and meeting the evolving needs of citizens, while also assessing the culture of sustainability among city residents [Marans, 2015].
The concept of quality of life entered geographical literature with spatial and regional approaches in the 1970s [Pacione, 2003]. In Iran, such studies began in the 1960s and 1970s, when rapid urbanization started and urban problems began to emerge [Faraji & Azimi, 2017]. Shaterian et al. have found that among the examined indicators, environmental factors had the highest factor loadings, while leisure and recreation had the lowest [Shaterian et al., 2020]. Ghadiri et al. show that there were differences in quality of life across neighborhoods in the city of Kuhbanan, with the Dahmir neighborhood being the most deprived and thus requiring priority in planning [Ghadiri et al., 2021]. Saremi et al. have demonstrated that urban development indicators in Boroujerd were generally unfavorable, with livability being the only relatively positive indicator. Their findings further revealed that weaknesses in internal strategic factors outweighed strengths, and opportunities were greater than external threats. Consequently, they argued that urban managers must not only better recognize requirements, needs, and resources, but also gain citizens’ trust to foster improvements in quality of life [Saremi et al., 2022].
Residents’ perception of quality of life in cities depends on their choices, access to services, time allocation, and the social interactions they enjoy [Biagi et al., 2018]. Faria et al., in an effort to overcome common limitations of existing evaluation methods and to establish a more informed, consistent, and transparent system, have combined cognitive mapping with attractiveness measurement. This process created a constructive approach and incorporated both objective and subjective dimensions into the decision-making framework [Faria et al., 2018].
Since only a limited number of studies have examined quality of life in Ardabil, it is necessary to conduct a systematic investigation of the city’s five districts to fill the existing gap for urban planners.
In recent decades, the rapid growth of population and migration to Ardabil as a provincial center has led to accelerated urban expansion, exposing the city, like many other Iranian cities, to numerous economic, social, and environmental challenges. This growth has not been aligned with the city’s internal needs and capacities. The elliptical shape of Ardabil, combined with issues such as the expansion of informal settlements, housing shortages, insufficient urban infrastructure, and inadequate planning, suggests that in the near future Ardabil will face serious challenges, making it increasingly difficult to sustain livability. Therefore, strategic and principled planning is required to overcome this situation.
Assessing quality of life in Ardabil’s neighborhoods with a future-oriented perspective can contribute to policy evaluation, place ranking, and the development of urban management and planning strategies. It also facilitates understanding and prioritizing social issues for planners and managers to improve citizens’ living standards. Furthermore, findings from this assessment can be used to revisit previous political strategies and to design future planning policies. Thus, it can be argued that measuring quality of life in Ardabil’s neighborhoods is essential for directing, controlling, and achieving sustainable development, as well as for meeting the city’s fundamental needs. Accordingly, this study examined and evaluated quality-of-life indicators in Ardabil. The aim was to analyze these indicators and classify different urban areas based on their relative access to them.
Methodology
The present study is applied in purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of methodology. It was conducted in 2022 in the city of Ardabil and its five districts. Data were collected through both library research and fieldwork. The statistical population of the study included all residents and citizens of Ardabil, and the sample size was determined using simple random sampling based on Cochran’s formula. At a 95% confidence level, the sample size was calculated as 384 individuals, who were then selected using simple random sampling.
To measure urban quality-of-life indicators in Ardabil’s neighborhoods, a questionnaire comprising 39 items was used, structured on a Likert scale and covering nine components: economic, social, cultural, physical (built environment), health, safety, transportation, education, and environment. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. For data analysis, the study employed the Kruskal-Wallis model, T-tests, and exploratory factor analysis.
Findings
Reliability of the Urban Quality of Life Scale
Internal consistency was used to examine the reliability of the urban quality-of-life scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated for the overall urban quality-of-life score and its dimensions. The Cronbach’s alpha for the total urban quality-of-life score was 0.93, while for the individual components it ranged from 0.70 to 0.75. The environmental and economic indicators had the highest reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75, whereas cultural and transportation indicators had the lowest at 0.70. Among the 384 respondents, 166 individuals (43.2%) were female and 218 individuals (56.8%) were male; regarding marital status, 215 respondents (55.7%) were married and 169 respondents (44.3%) were single.
Economic Component of Urban Quality of Life
The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test indicated that differences among Ardabil’s five districts in terms of satisfaction with income inequality and employment status were significant at α=0.05. For employment status, District 4 had the highest mean rank (206.57), while for satisfaction with income disparity, District 1 had the highest mean rank (208.80). Other economic indicators did not show significant differences at this alpha level.
Social Component of Urban Quality of Life
Data analysis for the social dimension at α=0.05 showed significant differences among the five districts regarding awareness of neighborhood events and interpersonal trust. For neighborhood awareness, District 5 had the highest mean rank (225.44), while for interpersonal trust, District 1 had the highest mean rank (228.32). Other social indicators did not demonstrate significant differences.
Cultural and Physical (Built Environment) Components of Urban Quality of Life
Analysis of cultural and physical dimensions revealed no significant differences among the five districts for cultural indicators at α = 0.05. In the physical dimension, only the residential unit conditions (number of rooms, facilities, etc.) differed significantly among districts. District 5 had the best status in this indicator with a mean rank of 219.79.
Health Component of Urban Quality of Life
For the health dimension, the five districts showed significant differences in satisfaction with street and pedestrian pathway quality and satisfaction with healthcare costs at α<0.05. District 5 had the highest mean rank for both indicators, indicating the best conditions.
Safety and Security Component of Urban Quality of Life
Results for the safety component indicated significant differences among districts in all security indicators at α < 0.05. The greatest differences were observed in neighborhood conflicts, satisfaction with safety regarding natural disasters, and the presence of abandoned or crime-prone areas, with significance levels of 0.003, 0.004, and 0.006, respectively. Districts 1 and 5 had the highest mean ranks and thus the best conditions for these indicators.
Transportation Component of Urban Quality of Life
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences among districts in terms of urban transportation facilities and sidewalk quality for elderly and disabled pedestrians. District 1 had the best status in both indicators.
Education Component of Urban Quality of Life
For the education dimension, all three examined indicators showed significant differences among districts. The best performance was found in Districts 1, 5, and 1, with mean ranks of 217.26, 215.53, and 222.68, respectively.
Environmental Component of Urban Quality of Life
For environmental indicators, significant differences were observed for traffic noise and the availability of recyclable waste collection centers. The best conditions were in Districts 1 and 5, with mean ranks of 223.54 and 218.97, respectively. Other environmental indicators did not show significant differences.
Overall Status of the Nine Urban Quality-of-Life Components
The Kruskal-Wallis test (α=0.05) indicated significant differences among the five districts in Ardabil. District 2 performed better in economic, social, health, and safety indicators, while District 5 had better status in cultural, transportation, and environmental indicators.
Mean, Standard Deviation, and T-values of Urban Quality-of-Life Indicators
Analysis of means, standard deviations, and T-values for Ardabil’s urban quality-of-life indicators at σ=0.001 and df = 381 showed that safety and security, along with economic indicators, were in a favorable condition, whereas cultural, transportation, physical (built environment), education, and social indicators were in an unfavorable state.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis revealed that nine factors explained a total of 55.476% of the total variance. Specifically, the first factor (economic) accounted for 29.30% of the shared variance, the second factor (social) 5.931%, the third (cultural) 3.461%, the fourth (physical) 3.124%, the fifth (health) 3.028%, the sixth (security) 2.816%, the seventh (transportation) 2.686%, the eighth (education) 2.589%, and the ninth (environment) 2.535% of the shared variance.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to assess urban quality-of-life indicators in the five districts of Ardabil. The findings indicate significant differences among the districts in terms of access to quality-of-life indicators. Similarly, studies by Mohamadi, Shahin, Ghaderi et al., Shatrian et al., and Moazen & Alizadeh Aghdam have reported differences in the distribution of quality-of-life indicators across urban spaces [Mohamadi, 2021; Shahin, 2022; Ghaderi et al., 2021; Shatrian et al., 2020; Moazen & Alizadeh Aghadam, 2012]. Furthermore, Ghaderi et al., Salimirad et al., Beriaji et al., Nazmfar & Mohammadi, and Hasani Nejad et al. have emphasized disparities among urban districts in access to quality-of-life indicators within a single city [Ghaderi et al., 2021; Salimirad et al., 2012; Beriaji et al., 2018; Nazmfar & Mohammadi, 2017; Hasani Nejad et al., 2016].
The unfavorable status of quality-of-life indicators highlights a major challenge for urban management in implementing good governance and achieving sustainable urban development. Urban governance entails the involvement of all urban stakeholders in city management through mechanisms that promote urban excellence and citizen well-being, rather than leaving public and private domains solely under governmental control. The source of power and legitimacy in urban governance lies in the participation of all citizens across all sectors of civil society. Mutisya and Yarime emphasize the role of citizens in promoting effective urban governance [Mutisya & Yarime, 2014].
Given the importance of creating sustainable cities, where improving quality of life is a key component, managers and urban authorities in Ardabil can enhance residents’ quality of life by improving social, educational, physical (built environment), transportation, and cultural indicators. Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are proposed:
- Implement measures to improve healthcare, safety, and security services to enhance the quality of life of residents in peripheral neighborhoods.
- Increase income and ensure job security, as key factors affecting quality of life in Districts 2, 3, and 4 of Ardabil.
- Develop short- and long-term plans to improve residents’ quality of life and take necessary actions to achieve the intended objectives.
- Strengthen and equip the public transportation system.
Conclusion
The quality-of-life indicators in the five districts of Ardabil are not at a desirable level, which has led to a reduction in residents’ quality of life and fostered dissatisfaction among citizens. Unequal distribution of urban facilities and services, the absence of standardized urban land-use practices across districts, and deficiencies in quality-of-life indicators—particularly in social, educational, physical (built environment), transportation, and cultural domains—have contributed to citizens’ dissatisfaction.
Acknowledgments: The authors sincerely thank all personnel of Ardabil Municipality, particularly the Statistics and Information Department, for their assistance.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Author Contributions: Lotfollahian H (first author), Main Researcher (50%); Ghafari Gilandeh A (second author), Assistant Researcher (35%); Yazdani MH (third author), Assistant Researcher (15%).
Funding: The research was funded entirely through personal expenses.
Keywords:
References
1. Badri SA, Gharanjik M (2014). The relation between ethnic-cultural characteristics and subjective indicators of quality of life case study: South Jabarby rural district, Torkman County. Housing and Rural Environment. 33(146):43-58. [Persian] [Link]
2. Bandarabad A, Ahmadinezhad F (2014). Assessment of quality of life with emphasis on the principles of habitable cities in the region 22 of Tehran. Research and Urban Planning. 5(16):55-74. [Persian] [Link]
3. Bastanian Shahgoli M, Panahi A, Abdollahzadeh Taraf A (2018). Evaluating the indicators of urban life quality in old and new textures of Tabriz (case study: Koch-e Bagh and Marzdaran). Journal of Sociology Studies. 11(39):73-89. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.006]
4. Beriaji F, Hataminejad H, Iqbali N (2018). Spatial inequalities and its effect on the quality of urban life (case study: Districts 1 and 19 of Tehran. New Attitudes in Human Geography. 11(3):1-23. [Persian] [Link]
5. Biagi B, Ladu MG, Meleddu M (2018). Urban quality of life and capabilities: An experimental study. Ecological Economics. 150:137-152. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.04.011]
6. Fanni Z, Heydari S, Aghaei P (2015). The evaluation of urban life quality, with emphasis on gender, case Study: Ghorveh City. Journal of Urban Ecology Researches. 6(12):65-78. [Persian] [Link]
7. Faraji A, Azimi A (2017). Satisfaction measurement of quality of life in informal settlements, case study: Bojnourd. Journal of Urban Ecology Researches. 8(16):89-100. [Persian] [Link]
8. Faria PA, Ferreira FA, Jalali MS, Bento P, António NJ (2018). Combining cognitive mapping and MCDA for improving quality of life in urban areas. Cities. 78:116-127. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.006]
9. Ghadiri M, Hekmatnia H, Seifollahi M (2021). Analyzing the quality of life indicators in urban neighborhoods case study: Koh-Banan City. Human Geography Research Quarterly. 53(2):409-426. [Persian] [Link]
10. Ghalibaf MB, Roustaie M, Ramzanzadeh Lasboyee M, Taheri MR (2011). Assessment urban quality of life (case study: Yaftabad). Geography. 9(31):33-53. [Persian] [Link]
11. Ghorbani Z, Khakpoor B, Mafi E (2013). Analysis of the spatial distribution of the quality of life in the Chalus City. Research and Urban Planning. 4(13):1-18. [Persian] [Link]
12. Hosseini SH, Bagherian K (2015). An analysis on constituent component of quality of life in Nowshahr. 7(27):55-78. [Persian] [Link]
13. Hasani Nejad A, Mosayebi S, Hasani Nejad A (2016). Assessing the quality of life indicators in urban neighborhoods (case study: Haji Abad, Fars). Journal of Geography and Regional Development. 14(1):165-184. [Persian] [Link]
14. Karkehabadi Z (2017). Comparative comparison of urbanism quality according to enviromental index (case study: Semnan worn out and new urban textures). Quarterly of Geography & Regional Planning. 6(25):33-48. [Persian] [Link]
15. Ghaderi P, Karimian Bostani M, Hafez Reza Zadeh M (2021). Spatial distribution analysis of the combined indicators of the urban life quality (case study: Chabahar city). Journal of New Attitudes in Human Geography. 13(2):211-231. [Persian] [Link]
16. Marans RW (2015). Quality of urban life & environmental sustainability studies: Future linkage opportunities. Habitat International. 45(1):47-52. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.019]
17. Marsousi N, Farhudi RA, Lajevardi A (2016). The cultural and social quality of life in Iran's cities. Journal of Urban Ecology Researches. 6(12):79-94. [Persian] [Link]
18. Mojtaba Zadeh Khanghahi H, Azadi Z (2015). Urban management in improve the quality of life (case study: 7 area of Tehran). Quarterly Geography & Regional Planning. 5(18):137-149. [Persian] [Link]
19. Mohamadi P (2021). The study of physical, social and economic index effect on quality of life on the level of satisfaction of Shahrekord citizens. Journal of Geography and Planning. 25(76):249-259. [Persian] [Link]
20. Moazen A, Alizadeh Aghdam MB (2012). Urban quality of life, a model for assessing and ranking Iran's provinces, using cluster analysis. Iranian Journal of Sociology. 13(3):149-174. [Persian] [Link]
21. Mutisya E, Yarime M (2014). Moving towards urban sustainability in Kenya: A framework for integration of environment economic social and governance dimensions. Sustainability Science. 9(2):205-215. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11625-013-0223-7]
22. Musa HD, Yacob MR, Abdullah AM, Ishak MY (2015). Delphi method of developing environmental well-being indicators for the evaluation of urban sustainability in Malaysia. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 30:244-249. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.proenv.2015.10.044]
23. Nazmfar H, Mohammadi C (2017). Evaluate the quality of urban life in eleven localities in the Region 2 City of Ardabil. Quarterly Journal of Environmental Based Territorial Planning. 10(36):69-92. [Persian] [Link]
24. Pacione M (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing-a social geographical perespective. Landscape and Urban Planning. 65(1-2):19-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00234-7]
25. Rajabi Amirabad R, Rahmani B, Shams M, Malek Hosseini A (2018). A comparative study of the quality of life in the objective dimension of Imamzadeh and Rajaei neighborhoods of Malair city. New Perspectives in Human Geography. 11(2):401-414. [Persian] [Link]
26. Rezaeenoor J, Hatami A, Talesh Kazemi A (2018). Evaluating life quality in urban areas using ISM, FAHP, WASPAS techniques (case study: Qom City). Physical Social Planning. 5(2):26-46. [Persian] [Link]
27. Salari Sardari F, Heydari Moghadam M, Sobhani N, Arefi A (2013). Investigating the components of life quality in urban spaces (case study: Lamard City). Journal of Urban Landscape Research. 1(2):53-91. [Persian] [Link]
28. Saremi M, Arbabi Sabzevari A, Adibi Saedi Nezhad F (2022). Promotion strategy of the quality of life in city development strategies a case study of Borujerd City. Geographical Researches. 37(4):367-376. [Persian] [Link]
29. Serag El Din H, Shalaby A, Elsayed Farouh H, Elariane S (2013). Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood. Housing and Building National Research Center Journal. 9(1):86-92. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.02.007]
30. Salimirad S, Karimian Bostani M, Anvari M (2012). Evaluation and analysis of quality of life components in urban areas (case study: Zahedan City). Quarterly Journal of Geography and Regional Planning. 12(1):255-267. [Persian] [Link]
31. Shahin S (2022). Assessing the urban quality of life (case study: Manzareh town of Khomeini Shahr). Journal of Geography and Environmental Studies. 10(40):101-122. [Persian] [Link]
32. Shamaei A, Shahsavar A (2017). Assessment the quality of life in new towns (case study: New town of Parand). Quarterly Geographical Journal of Territory. 14(54):1-15. [Persian] [Link]
33. Shaterian M, Heidary Sorshjani R, Falahat F (2020). Evaluation of quality of life indexes with approach healthy city (case study: worn fabric of Kashan City). Urban Social Geography. 7(1):65-80. [Persian]. [Link]
34. Soleymani M, Mansourian H, Barati Z (2012). The evaluation of quality of life in transitional neighborhood (case study: Darvazeh Shamiran District No. 12, Tehran). Journal of Geography. 11(38):51-75. [Persian] [Link]
35. Velibeyoglu H (2014). Assessing subjective quality of urban life at neighborhood scale [dissertation]. Izmir: İzmir Institute of Technology. [Link]
36. Veysi Nab B, Babaei F (2018). Determining satisfaction with the quality of life in urban distressed areas and evaluating its relationship with social trust (case study of Jajyn Neighborhood Ardabil). Quarterly Geographical Journal of Territory. 15(57):123-141. [Persian]. [Link]
37. Wann-Ming W (2019). Constructing urban dynamic transportation planning strategies for improving quality of life and urban sustainability under emerging growth management principles. Sustainable Cities and Society. 44:275-290. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.015]
38. Zarabi A, Rakhshaninasab H, SargolzaeiJavan T (2017). Spatial analysis of the indices of life quality in the surrounding neighborhoods of Zahedan City using VIKOR decision-making Model. Spatial Planning. 6(4):45-64. [Persian]. [Link]
39. Zarrabi A, Razmpori A, Alizadehasl J, Nouri M (2014). Measuring and evaluating the quality of Life Index in Medium Cities (case study: Yasuj City). Spatial Planning. 4(3):15-36. [Persian] [Link]