Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 1 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(1): 19-25 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/01/1 | Accepted: 2023/03/12 | Published: 2023/03/20
Received: 2023/01/1 | Accepted: 2023/03/12 | Published: 2023/03/20
How to cite this article
Akbari M, Jouzaryan F, Molavi E, Eltyaminiya R, Hashemi Ana S. Ranking of Building and Housing Conditions in Iran's Provinces Using the Preference Selection Index. GeoRes 2023; 38 (1) :19-25
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1449-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1449-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 Literature and Human Sciences, Yasouj University, Yasuj, Iran
2- Department of Economics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
3- Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran
4- Department of Political Science, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
2- Department of Economics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
3- Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran
4- Department of Political Science, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (130 Views)
Introduction
Currently, almost 30% of the urban population in Asia and the Pacific, over 570 million people, live in dwellings deemed inadequate by the United Nations [Salzer et al., 2016]. Consequently, accommodating the urban poor has become a major challenge for developing countries during the process of urbanization. To address this issue, affordable housing has been placed on the agenda of many governments aiming to improve the living conditions of low-income families [Gan et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2015]. On the other hand, improving quality of life represents a core goal of sustainable development, and quality of life is assessed through multiple dimensions and indicators. The housing dimension is one of the most significant factors influencing quality of life [Streimikiene, 2015]. Housing is also an essential component of sustainable development [Winston & Eastaway, 2007], being one of the key public policy areas that influence urban development, and thus holds significant potential to contribute to sustainability [Tosics, 2004].
In general, sustainable development is described as a form of development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [Lin et al., 2015]. In this study, sustainability can be defined as the development of affordable housing to meet the housing needs of low-income groups [Li et al., 2016]. However, sustainability issues are often overlooked when addressing housing shortages, particularly in developing countries [Ross et al., 2010]. Housing plays a crucial role in the economic development of every country and is regarded as the largest fixed asset of households. The need for housing is not only a fundamental human necessity but also an indicator of the standard of living. Today, it is widely recognized that housing must be comfortable, affordable, reasonable, and environmentally compatible [Henilane, 2016]. Since the mid-twentieth century, virtually all governments, socialist and liberal alike, have recognized the necessity of intervening in urban housing markets to support low-income families [Wakely, 2014].
Across the globe, the provision of adequate housing is one of the key challenges faced by policymakers and planners, and the world today is facing a global housing crisis. The degree to which desirable housing conditions are achieved, both in urban and rural areas, is considered one of the indicators of economic and social development in different countries. In this study, the housing indicators of Iran’s provinces are analyzed using the Preference Selection Index.
Himmelberg et al. [2005] have concluded that housing price dynamics are a local phenomenon and that national-level data obscure important economic differences between cities. Cattaneo et al. [2007] found that despite the importance of the housing sector for improving people’s welfare, there is limited evidence on the causal impact of housing improvement programs on human health and well-being, and few studies have been conducted in this area. Dwyer [2007] has concluded that urban development theories in the United States indicate that higher-income groups tend to occupy newer homes, whereas lower-income groups are concentrated in older ones. Thus, the housing system reflects broader structural patterns and potential changes in response to major factors such as the sharp rise in income inequality at the end of the twentieth century. Winston and Eastaway [2007] called for greater attention to the significance of housing dimensions and their measurement through social indicators.
Haffner and Boumeester [2010] have found that between 2002 and 2006, housing in the Netherlands became more expensive, a trend confirmed by various measures. Cost-to-income ratios calculated for households indicated that average housing costs increased for both renters and homeowners across most income groups. Azevedo et al. [2010] have concluded that in developing countries such as Brazil, social housing is almost exclusively financed through public resources, and due to the lack of urban planning and limited financial resources, emphasis is placed primarily on reducing quantitative housing deficits. Lin [2011] found that affordable housing development has become an important issue in China. Unlike Western countries, where social welfare systems and public housing schemes have been established for decades, welfare systems in many Asian countries remain weak, particularly in serving large low-income populations. The gap between rich and poor is substantial, and many low-income households cannot afford to purchase their own homes.
Streimikiene [2015] has demonstrated that housing indicators reflecting quality of life can be measured using indicators related to housing quality, environmental quality, and housing costs. The study presented a conceptual framework for assessing housing dimensions within quality of life. Henilane [2016] has concluded that housing is one of the most vital components of human life, providing shelter, safety, and a place for rest. However, there is no single, unified definition of housing in Latvia. Salzer et al. [2016] emphasize the need for comprehensive and sustainable social housing development in developing countries across Asia, Latin America, and Africa, providing a framework for how sustainable construction practices can become mainstream.
Gan et al. [2017] have found that rapid urbanization poses a serious challenge for accommodating the poor, particularly in developing countries such as China, where affordable housing programs began only a few years ago and are expected to expand in the coming years. They argue that cost and time are two critical elements in affordable housing projects. Fani et al. [2020] have found that regarding sustainable housing indicators, the Punak neighborhood is relatively better off than the Atabak neighborhood; however, both neighborhoods are far from achieving ideal sustainable housing conditions. Marsousi et al. [2021] have concluded that there is spatial inequality in the distribution of housing physical indicators across Tehran’s 22 districts.
The economic literature has paid special attention to the concept of housing; however, no universally accepted definition exists. Scholars interpret housing in different ways. For example, Smith defines housing as a tangible asset with potential returns. Researchers emphasize that historically, the concept of housing has been linked to physical phenomena, and national policies for housing provision have typically been tied to construction costs, which may vary depending on building materials, housing standards, and construction quality [Henilane, 2016]. The concept of housing is broad, encompassing both physical characteristics and satisfaction levels [Streimikiene, 2015]. Housing fulfills a basic human need by providing a setting for social and physical activities [Lin, 2011]. Over time, the interpretation of housing has evolved with changes in policy, economics, and other domains. Cultural and contextual understandings define housing as “shelter for people.” Commercial culture defines it as a building or structure that complies with laws and regulations and serves as a dwelling for individuals or families. A similar definition is found in the Macmillan Dictionary, which describes housing as buildings for people to live in [Henilane, 2016].
Since the post–World War II economic boom, real estate markets have experienced price volatility. Housing became more expensive in many countries from the early twenty-first century onward [Haffner & Boumeester, 2010], widening the gap between high- and low-income groups. For low-income households, homeownership has become an unattainable dream [Lin, 2011]. In general, while good housing conditions are desirable, high housing costs have become a major concern for families in many countries [Streimikiene, 2015].
Currently, housing accounts for the largest share of household expenditures, and several factors contribute to housing shortages in high-cost areas. These include land scarcity, restrictive land-use regulations, environmental constraints, inadequate infrastructure, expensive construction materials, community opposition to high-density development, and limited credit and financing. The severity of these barriers varies from place to place [Pamela et al., 2016].
For governments, providing affordable housing is both necessary and critical. Many governments worldwide have recognized this need and taken steps toward addressing it [Lin, 2011]. The issue of reducing housing prices has reappeared on the global policy agenda [Moore & Skaburskis, 2004; Quigley & Raphael, 2004]. Affordable housing typically refers to dwellings that are financially accessible to eligible families whose income levels are insufficient to secure adequate housing in the open market [Winston & Eastaway, 2007].
The primary objective of affordable housing programs is to improve housing conditions, particularly for low-income families, through government initiatives [Azevedo et al., 2010]. Although many affordable housing schemes have been launched, debates remain regarding whether these programs have actually improved the cost burden of low-income households. For example, living in affordable housing may increase other related expenses such as healthcare, energy, and transportation [Gan et al., 2017].
Indicators are highly useful tools for developing and monitoring the effectiveness and outcomes of policies. They measure, simplify, and communicate essential issues and trends, helping people understand the nature of sustainable development challenges and their interrelationships. Indicators not only serve as tools for measuring progress but also raise awareness among citizens and policymakers and help individuals understand their own needs [Streimikiene, 2015].
Achieving desirable housing conditions is regarded as one of the indicators of economic and social development in different countries. This study aims to rank the status of housing and building conditions in Iran using the Preference Selection Index (PSI).
Methodology
In this explanatory retrospective study, the indicators of the construction and housing industry in 31 provinces of Iran in 2019 were analyzed. The required data were collected from the Statistical Yearbook of Iran for the year 2019 [Statistics Center of Iran, 2018]. The selected indicators of the construction and housing sector, which allow for the examination of issues and conditions of human settlements [Saldaña-Márquez et al., 2019], were as follows:
Findings
The calculated difference and deviation values of the construction and housing industry indicators in Iran for the year 2019 were analyzed.
The results of the Preference Selection Index (PSI) ranking for the construction and housing industry across the provinces of Iran were evaluated.
Based on the PSI weights, the provinces of Iran were classified into four categories: low, moderate, high, and very high levels.
Discussion
Indicators of the building and housing sector serve as tools that enable the study of human settlement conditions and provide a basis for their monitoring. These indicators are also regarded as valuable resources for promoting sustainable policy-making. It is essential to consider such indicators throughout the planning process, as the characteristics of residential urban environments can significantly influence their livability.
Using the Preference Selection Index (PSI), the weights of the studied indicators were calculated. By multiplying the weight of each indicator by the standardized matrix, the weighted normalized matrix was obtained, and finally, the PSI scores were derived from this matrix.
The PSI results indicated that Tehran Province (score: 0.7076) and Isfahan Province (score: 0.5747) are grouped together in the category of very high preference index, reflecting a favorable status of construction and housing indicators in these provinces.
Khorasan Razavi (0.3426), Khuzestan (0.3120), Fars (0.2779), Kermanshah (0.2736), West Azerbaijan (0.2396), Yazd (0.2344), Kerman (0.2217), Alborz (0.2157), South Khorasan (0.2138), and Hormozgan (0.1970) fall under the high preference index category, suggesting a relatively good condition of building and housing indicators in these provinces.
The results further showed that East Azerbaijan (0.1653), Gilan (0.1602), Qom (0.1558), Hamedan (0.1292), Markazi (0.1221), Mazandaran (0.1121), Kurdistan (0.1082), Zanjan (0.1028), Ardabil (0.1021), Sistan and Baluchestan (0.1010), Lorestan (0.0946), Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari (0.0920), North Khorasan (0.0896), and Qazvin (0.0848) are classified in the moderate preference index category. These 13 provinces occupied an intermediate level nationwide in terms of housing and construction indicators.
Bushehr (0.0632), Golestan (0.0624), Semnan (0.0537), Ilam (0.0303), and Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad (0.0276) were grouped under the low preference index category. These five provinces exhibit weak performance in construction and housing indicators, with minimal growth in this sector.
The findings of this study are consistent with those of Fani et al. (2020), whose inferential analyses demonstrated a significant disparity between two neighborhoods regarding sustainable urban housing indicators. Both neighborhoods were found to lack favorable conditions for sustainable housing, and their mean values failed to meet sustainability standards, leading to the formation of unstable residential environments.
Similarly, the results align with Marsousi et al. (2021), who have found out that in Tehran, there is no optimal and balanced distribution of accessibility to physical housing indicators. The spatial distribution pattern of housing indicators across the city’s 22 districts is clustered, concentrated mainly in northern areas such as Districts 1, 3, and 2, which obtained TOPSIS scores of 0.855, 0.447, and 0.385, respectively, ranking first to third. Geographically, the distribution of physical housing indicators declines from the northern to the southern, eastern, and western districts. The overall conclusion of that study indicates the existence of spatial inequality in the distribution of physical housing indicators across Tehran’s districts.
A major challenge in Iran’s construction and housing sector stems primarily from the lack of coherent and integrated planning. The failure of policies adopted in this area has led to a construction recession, which not only failed to reduce housing prices but also intensified the surge in rent and purchase costs. Currently, housing-related financial facilities have minimal impact on promoting construction activities or facilitating homeownership, particularly for low-income groups. To restore the effectiveness of these facilities, fundamental macroeconomic reforms must be prioritized.
Moreover, it is necessary to distribute resources across Iran in a balanced and equitable manner. Concentrating most national resources in a few metropolitan areas inevitably drives population migration from underdeveloped regions toward these limited urban zones. Such concentration disrupts the balance between housing supply and demand, ultimately exacerbating the housing crisis.
Conclusion
Housing indicators are regarded as valuable tools for promoting sustainable policy-making. It is essential to consider these indicators throughout the urban and regional planning process, as the characteristics of residential urban environments can profoundly influence their livability and overall quality of life.
Acknowledgments: None declared.
Ethical Permission: None declared.
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
Authors’ Contributions: Akbari M (First Author), Methodologist/Principal Researcher/Statistical Analyst (60%); Jouzaryan F (Second Author), Assistant Researcher/Introduction Writer/Statistical Analyst (10%); Molavi E (Third Author), Assistant Researcher/Introduction Writer (10%); Eltiyaminia R (Fourth Author), Assistant Researcher/Discussion Writer (10%); Hashemi Ana SK (Fifth Author), Assistant Researcher/Statistical Analyst (10%)
Funding: None declared.
Currently, almost 30% of the urban population in Asia and the Pacific, over 570 million people, live in dwellings deemed inadequate by the United Nations [Salzer et al., 2016]. Consequently, accommodating the urban poor has become a major challenge for developing countries during the process of urbanization. To address this issue, affordable housing has been placed on the agenda of many governments aiming to improve the living conditions of low-income families [Gan et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2015]. On the other hand, improving quality of life represents a core goal of sustainable development, and quality of life is assessed through multiple dimensions and indicators. The housing dimension is one of the most significant factors influencing quality of life [Streimikiene, 2015]. Housing is also an essential component of sustainable development [Winston & Eastaway, 2007], being one of the key public policy areas that influence urban development, and thus holds significant potential to contribute to sustainability [Tosics, 2004].
In general, sustainable development is described as a form of development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs [Lin et al., 2015]. In this study, sustainability can be defined as the development of affordable housing to meet the housing needs of low-income groups [Li et al., 2016]. However, sustainability issues are often overlooked when addressing housing shortages, particularly in developing countries [Ross et al., 2010]. Housing plays a crucial role in the economic development of every country and is regarded as the largest fixed asset of households. The need for housing is not only a fundamental human necessity but also an indicator of the standard of living. Today, it is widely recognized that housing must be comfortable, affordable, reasonable, and environmentally compatible [Henilane, 2016]. Since the mid-twentieth century, virtually all governments, socialist and liberal alike, have recognized the necessity of intervening in urban housing markets to support low-income families [Wakely, 2014].
Across the globe, the provision of adequate housing is one of the key challenges faced by policymakers and planners, and the world today is facing a global housing crisis. The degree to which desirable housing conditions are achieved, both in urban and rural areas, is considered one of the indicators of economic and social development in different countries. In this study, the housing indicators of Iran’s provinces are analyzed using the Preference Selection Index.
Himmelberg et al. [2005] have concluded that housing price dynamics are a local phenomenon and that national-level data obscure important economic differences between cities. Cattaneo et al. [2007] found that despite the importance of the housing sector for improving people’s welfare, there is limited evidence on the causal impact of housing improvement programs on human health and well-being, and few studies have been conducted in this area. Dwyer [2007] has concluded that urban development theories in the United States indicate that higher-income groups tend to occupy newer homes, whereas lower-income groups are concentrated in older ones. Thus, the housing system reflects broader structural patterns and potential changes in response to major factors such as the sharp rise in income inequality at the end of the twentieth century. Winston and Eastaway [2007] called for greater attention to the significance of housing dimensions and their measurement through social indicators.
Haffner and Boumeester [2010] have found that between 2002 and 2006, housing in the Netherlands became more expensive, a trend confirmed by various measures. Cost-to-income ratios calculated for households indicated that average housing costs increased for both renters and homeowners across most income groups. Azevedo et al. [2010] have concluded that in developing countries such as Brazil, social housing is almost exclusively financed through public resources, and due to the lack of urban planning and limited financial resources, emphasis is placed primarily on reducing quantitative housing deficits. Lin [2011] found that affordable housing development has become an important issue in China. Unlike Western countries, where social welfare systems and public housing schemes have been established for decades, welfare systems in many Asian countries remain weak, particularly in serving large low-income populations. The gap between rich and poor is substantial, and many low-income households cannot afford to purchase their own homes.
Streimikiene [2015] has demonstrated that housing indicators reflecting quality of life can be measured using indicators related to housing quality, environmental quality, and housing costs. The study presented a conceptual framework for assessing housing dimensions within quality of life. Henilane [2016] has concluded that housing is one of the most vital components of human life, providing shelter, safety, and a place for rest. However, there is no single, unified definition of housing in Latvia. Salzer et al. [2016] emphasize the need for comprehensive and sustainable social housing development in developing countries across Asia, Latin America, and Africa, providing a framework for how sustainable construction practices can become mainstream.
Gan et al. [2017] have found that rapid urbanization poses a serious challenge for accommodating the poor, particularly in developing countries such as China, where affordable housing programs began only a few years ago and are expected to expand in the coming years. They argue that cost and time are two critical elements in affordable housing projects. Fani et al. [2020] have found that regarding sustainable housing indicators, the Punak neighborhood is relatively better off than the Atabak neighborhood; however, both neighborhoods are far from achieving ideal sustainable housing conditions. Marsousi et al. [2021] have concluded that there is spatial inequality in the distribution of housing physical indicators across Tehran’s 22 districts.
The economic literature has paid special attention to the concept of housing; however, no universally accepted definition exists. Scholars interpret housing in different ways. For example, Smith defines housing as a tangible asset with potential returns. Researchers emphasize that historically, the concept of housing has been linked to physical phenomena, and national policies for housing provision have typically been tied to construction costs, which may vary depending on building materials, housing standards, and construction quality [Henilane, 2016]. The concept of housing is broad, encompassing both physical characteristics and satisfaction levels [Streimikiene, 2015]. Housing fulfills a basic human need by providing a setting for social and physical activities [Lin, 2011]. Over time, the interpretation of housing has evolved with changes in policy, economics, and other domains. Cultural and contextual understandings define housing as “shelter for people.” Commercial culture defines it as a building or structure that complies with laws and regulations and serves as a dwelling for individuals or families. A similar definition is found in the Macmillan Dictionary, which describes housing as buildings for people to live in [Henilane, 2016].
Since the post–World War II economic boom, real estate markets have experienced price volatility. Housing became more expensive in many countries from the early twenty-first century onward [Haffner & Boumeester, 2010], widening the gap between high- and low-income groups. For low-income households, homeownership has become an unattainable dream [Lin, 2011]. In general, while good housing conditions are desirable, high housing costs have become a major concern for families in many countries [Streimikiene, 2015].
Currently, housing accounts for the largest share of household expenditures, and several factors contribute to housing shortages in high-cost areas. These include land scarcity, restrictive land-use regulations, environmental constraints, inadequate infrastructure, expensive construction materials, community opposition to high-density development, and limited credit and financing. The severity of these barriers varies from place to place [Pamela et al., 2016].
For governments, providing affordable housing is both necessary and critical. Many governments worldwide have recognized this need and taken steps toward addressing it [Lin, 2011]. The issue of reducing housing prices has reappeared on the global policy agenda [Moore & Skaburskis, 2004; Quigley & Raphael, 2004]. Affordable housing typically refers to dwellings that are financially accessible to eligible families whose income levels are insufficient to secure adequate housing in the open market [Winston & Eastaway, 2007].
The primary objective of affordable housing programs is to improve housing conditions, particularly for low-income families, through government initiatives [Azevedo et al., 2010]. Although many affordable housing schemes have been launched, debates remain regarding whether these programs have actually improved the cost burden of low-income households. For example, living in affordable housing may increase other related expenses such as healthcare, energy, and transportation [Gan et al., 2017].
Indicators are highly useful tools for developing and monitoring the effectiveness and outcomes of policies. They measure, simplify, and communicate essential issues and trends, helping people understand the nature of sustainable development challenges and their interrelationships. Indicators not only serve as tools for measuring progress but also raise awareness among citizens and policymakers and help individuals understand their own needs [Streimikiene, 2015].
Achieving desirable housing conditions is regarded as one of the indicators of economic and social development in different countries. This study aims to rank the status of housing and building conditions in Iran using the Preference Selection Index (PSI).
Methodology
In this explanatory retrospective study, the indicators of the construction and housing industry in 31 provinces of Iran in 2019 were analyzed. The required data were collected from the Statistical Yearbook of Iran for the year 2019 [Statistics Center of Iran, 2018]. The selected indicators of the construction and housing sector, which allow for the examination of issues and conditions of human settlements [Saldaña-Márquez et al., 2019], were as follows:
- Building permits issued for construction by structural framework and main construction materials in urban areas (steel structures);
- Building permits issued for construction by structural framework and main construction materials in urban areas (reinforced concrete structures);
- Building permits issued for the construction of single-story buildings in urban areas;
- Building permits issued for the construction of two-story buildings in urban areas;
- Building permits issued for the construction of three-story buildings in urban areas;
- Building permits issued for the construction of four-story buildings in urban areas;
- Building permits issued for the construction of buildings with five or more stories in urban areas;
- Building permits issued for the construction of single-unit residential buildings in urban areas;
- Building permits issued for the construction of two-unit residential buildings in urban areas;
- Building permits issued for the construction of three-unit residential buildings in urban areas;
- Building permits issued for the construction of four-unit residential buildings in urban areas;
- Building permits issued for the construction of residential buildings with five or more units in urban areas;
- Number of government-constructed residential units in urban areas;
- Number of cooperative-constructed residential units in urban areas;
- Number of residential units for underprivileged families constructed by the Housing Foundation of the Islamic Revolution;
- Number of residential units under construction by the Housing Charity Association;
- Number of residential units completed by the Housing Charity Association;
- Number of housing cooperative companies.
- identification of objectives, criteria, and alternatives;
- formulation of the decision matrix;
- normalization of the decision matrix;
- computation of the deviation value for each criterion;
- calculation of the mean deviation for each criterion;
- determination of the overall preference value (criterion weights); and
- calculation of the final Preference Selection Index and ranking of the alternatives [Jian & Ying, 2017].
Findings
The calculated difference and deviation values of the construction and housing industry indicators in Iran for the year 2019 were analyzed.
The results of the Preference Selection Index (PSI) ranking for the construction and housing industry across the provinces of Iran were evaluated.
Based on the PSI weights, the provinces of Iran were classified into four categories: low, moderate, high, and very high levels.
Discussion
Indicators of the building and housing sector serve as tools that enable the study of human settlement conditions and provide a basis for their monitoring. These indicators are also regarded as valuable resources for promoting sustainable policy-making. It is essential to consider such indicators throughout the planning process, as the characteristics of residential urban environments can significantly influence their livability.
Using the Preference Selection Index (PSI), the weights of the studied indicators were calculated. By multiplying the weight of each indicator by the standardized matrix, the weighted normalized matrix was obtained, and finally, the PSI scores were derived from this matrix.
The PSI results indicated that Tehran Province (score: 0.7076) and Isfahan Province (score: 0.5747) are grouped together in the category of very high preference index, reflecting a favorable status of construction and housing indicators in these provinces.
Khorasan Razavi (0.3426), Khuzestan (0.3120), Fars (0.2779), Kermanshah (0.2736), West Azerbaijan (0.2396), Yazd (0.2344), Kerman (0.2217), Alborz (0.2157), South Khorasan (0.2138), and Hormozgan (0.1970) fall under the high preference index category, suggesting a relatively good condition of building and housing indicators in these provinces.
The results further showed that East Azerbaijan (0.1653), Gilan (0.1602), Qom (0.1558), Hamedan (0.1292), Markazi (0.1221), Mazandaran (0.1121), Kurdistan (0.1082), Zanjan (0.1028), Ardabil (0.1021), Sistan and Baluchestan (0.1010), Lorestan (0.0946), Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari (0.0920), North Khorasan (0.0896), and Qazvin (0.0848) are classified in the moderate preference index category. These 13 provinces occupied an intermediate level nationwide in terms of housing and construction indicators.
Bushehr (0.0632), Golestan (0.0624), Semnan (0.0537), Ilam (0.0303), and Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad (0.0276) were grouped under the low preference index category. These five provinces exhibit weak performance in construction and housing indicators, with minimal growth in this sector.
The findings of this study are consistent with those of Fani et al. (2020), whose inferential analyses demonstrated a significant disparity between two neighborhoods regarding sustainable urban housing indicators. Both neighborhoods were found to lack favorable conditions for sustainable housing, and their mean values failed to meet sustainability standards, leading to the formation of unstable residential environments.
Similarly, the results align with Marsousi et al. (2021), who have found out that in Tehran, there is no optimal and balanced distribution of accessibility to physical housing indicators. The spatial distribution pattern of housing indicators across the city’s 22 districts is clustered, concentrated mainly in northern areas such as Districts 1, 3, and 2, which obtained TOPSIS scores of 0.855, 0.447, and 0.385, respectively, ranking first to third. Geographically, the distribution of physical housing indicators declines from the northern to the southern, eastern, and western districts. The overall conclusion of that study indicates the existence of spatial inequality in the distribution of physical housing indicators across Tehran’s districts.
A major challenge in Iran’s construction and housing sector stems primarily from the lack of coherent and integrated planning. The failure of policies adopted in this area has led to a construction recession, which not only failed to reduce housing prices but also intensified the surge in rent and purchase costs. Currently, housing-related financial facilities have minimal impact on promoting construction activities or facilitating homeownership, particularly for low-income groups. To restore the effectiveness of these facilities, fundamental macroeconomic reforms must be prioritized.
Moreover, it is necessary to distribute resources across Iran in a balanced and equitable manner. Concentrating most national resources in a few metropolitan areas inevitably drives population migration from underdeveloped regions toward these limited urban zones. Such concentration disrupts the balance between housing supply and demand, ultimately exacerbating the housing crisis.
Conclusion
Housing indicators are regarded as valuable tools for promoting sustainable policy-making. It is essential to consider these indicators throughout the urban and regional planning process, as the characteristics of residential urban environments can profoundly influence their livability and overall quality of life.
Acknowledgments: None declared.
Ethical Permission: None declared.
Conflict of Interest: None declared.
Authors’ Contributions: Akbari M (First Author), Methodologist/Principal Researcher/Statistical Analyst (60%); Jouzaryan F (Second Author), Assistant Researcher/Introduction Writer/Statistical Analyst (10%); Molavi E (Third Author), Assistant Researcher/Introduction Writer (10%); Eltiyaminia R (Fourth Author), Assistant Researcher/Discussion Writer (10%); Hashemi Ana SK (Fifth Author), Assistant Researcher/Statistical Analyst (10%)
Funding: None declared.
Keywords:
References
1. Azevedo NJD, Silva JJR, Silva PMW (2010). Definition of indicators for sustainable social housing in search of a model. International Journal for Housing Science. 34(2):79-92. [Link]
2. Cattaneo MD, Galiani S, Gertler PJ, Martinez S, Titiunik R (2007). Housing, health and happiness. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. 1(1):75-105. [Link] [DOI:10.1257/pol.1.1.75]
3. Dwyer RE (2007). Expanding homes and increasing inequalities: U.S. housing development and the residential segregation of the affluent. Social Problems. 54(1):23-46. [Link] [DOI:10.1525/sp.2007.54.1.23]
4. Fani Z, Koozegar L, Samani Majd A (2020). Comparative analysis of sustainable housing indices in old and new urban texture (Case study: Texture of Atabak and Punak neighborhoods in Tehran). Research and Urban Planning. 11(42):137-152. [Persian] [Link]
5. Gan X, Zuo J, Wu P, Wang J, Chang R, Wen T (2017). How affordable housing becomes more sustainable? A stakeholder study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 162:427-437. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.048]
6. Haffner M, Boumeester H (2010). The affordability of housing in the Netherlands: A increasing income gap between renting and owning. Housing Studies. 25(6):799-820. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/02673037.2010.511472]
7. Henilane I (2016). Housing concept and analysis of housing classification. Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management. 4:168-179. [Link] [DOI:10.1515/bjreecm-2016-0013]
8. Himmelberg C, Mayer C, Sinai T (2005). Assessing high house prices: Bubbles, fundamentals and misperceptions. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 19(4):67-92. [Link] [DOI:10.1257/089533005775196769]
9. Jian S, Ying S (2017). Preference selection index method for machine selection in a flexible manufacturing cell. MATEC Web of Conferences. 139(00167):1-4. [Link] [DOI:10.1051/matecconf/201713900167]
10. Li D, Chen Y, Chen H, Guo K, Eddie CMH, Jay Y (2016). Assessing the integrated sustainability of a public rental housing project from the perspective of complex eco-system. Habitat International. 53:546-555. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.01.001]
11. Lin Y, Zhang X, Geertman S (2015). Toward smart governance and social sustainability For Chinese migrant communities. Journal of Cleaner Production. 107(16):389-399. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.074]
12. Lin J (2011). The development of affordable housing: a case study in Guangzhou city, China, department of real estate and construction management division of building and real estate economics. Stockholm: Master of Science Thesis. [Link]
13. Maniya K, Bhatt MG (2010). A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference selection index method. Materials and Design. 31(4):1785-1789. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.matdes.2009.11.020]
14. Marsousi N, Ali Akbari I, Sefahan A, Bustan Ahmadi V (2021). Spatial analysis of physical characteristics of urban housing with emphasis on inequality within the region (Case study: 22 districts of Tehran metropolis). Quarterly of Research and Urban Planning. 12(45):36-21. [Persian] [Link]
15. Moore E, Skaburskis A (2004). Canada's increasing housing affordability burdens. Housing Studies. 19(3):395-413. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/0267303042000204296]
16. Pamela M, Blumenthal John R, McGinty Pendall R (2016). Strategies for increasing housing supply in high-cost cities. Washington DC: Urban Institute. [Link]
17. Quigley JM, Raphael S (2004). Is housing unaffordable: Why isn't it more affordable? Journal of Economic Perspectives. 18(1):191-214. [Link] [DOI:10.1257/089533004773563494]
18. Ross N, Bowen PA, Lincoln D (2010). Sustainable housing for low-income communities: lessons for South Africa in local and other developing world cases. Construction Management and Economics. 28(5):433-449. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/01446190903450079]
19. Saldaña Márquez H, Gámez García DC, Gómez Soberón JM, Arredondo Rea SP, Corral Higuera R, Gómez Soberón MC (2019). Housing indicators for sustainable cities in middle-income countries through the residential urban environment recognized using single-family housing rating systems. Sustainability. 11(16):1-29. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su11164276]
20. Salzer C, Wallbaum H, Lopez LF, Kouyoumji JL (2016). Sustainability of social housing in Asia: A holistic multi-perspective development process for Bamboo-based construction in the Philippines. Sustainability. 8(2):1-26. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su8020151]
21. Statistics Center of Iran [Internet]. Statistical yearbook of the country (2018). Tehran: Publications of the Directorate of Public Relations and International Cooperation [Cited 2022, 14 August]. Available from: https://www.amar.org.ir/english/Iran-Statistical-Yearbook/Statistical-Yearbook-2018-2019. [Persian] [Link]
22. Streimikiene D (2015). Quality of life and housing. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(2):140-145. [Link] [DOI:10.7763/IJIET.2015.V5.491]
23. Tosics I (2004). European urban development: Sustainability and the role of housing. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 19:67-90. [Link] [DOI:10.1023/B:JOHO.0000017707.53782.90]
24. Wakely P (2014). Urban public housing strategies in developing countries: Whence and whither paradigms, policies, programmes and projects. London: Development Planning Unit, The Bartlett University College London. [Link]
25. Winston N, Eastaway MP (2007). Sustainable housing in the urban context: International Sustainable development indicator sets and housing. Social Indicators Research. 87(2):211-221. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11205-007-9165-8]