Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 3 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(3): 343-354 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/03/12 | Accepted: 2023/08/13 | Published: 2023/08/23
Received: 2023/03/12 | Accepted: 2023/08/13 | Published: 2023/08/23
How to cite this article
Asadoullahtabar N, Marsousi N, Divsalar A, Shokri Firoozjah P. Measuring the Economic and Social Stability of the Cities of Mazandaran Province During Two Census Periods of 2006 and 2021. GeoRes 2023; 38 (3) :343-354
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1450-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1450-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, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (203 Views)
Introduction
One of the defining features of our era is the urbanization of populations, the rapid increase in urban populations, and consequently the expansion of both small and large cities [Gilbert & Gagler, 1997], which have undergone transformations under the influence of various factors [Seto et al., 2012]. This trend has intensified over the past few decades, to the extent that, for the first time in 2006, the number of people living in cities equaled those living outside them. United Nations projections estimate that by 2030, more than 60% of the world’s population will live in urban areas. Despite occupying only about 2% of the Earth’s surface, cities host over half of the world’s population, which is growing at an annual rate of nearly 55 million people [Egger, 2005]. In total, with overall population growth, urbanization in the next three decades will add 2.5 billion people to cities [United Nations, 2019].
As a result of rapid urbanization, the rise of socio-economic inequalities, unplanned construction, uncontrolled urban sprawl, and imbalances in urban services in developing countries have produced a wide range of heterogeneous living conditions, leading to significant changes in spatial structures and intensifying spatial disparities in cities [Abdi, 2000; Ahem, 2013]. These conditions have brought consequences such as rising urban poverty, environmental pollution (e.g., air and water pollution), increased sewage, soil contamination from urban and industrial waste, shortages of urban services, lack of drinking water resources, the expansion of slums and informal settlements, and illegal housing [Hall & Pag, 2002]. Such challenges highlight the necessity of deliberate planning and the design of suitable living environments for cities, with special attention to sustainability issues [Guillermina et al., 2018].
To prevent environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources, the concept of sustainable development was introduced in the 1970s as a key principle in national and international policymaking [Vouvaki & Xepapadeas, 2008], emphasizing geographical equity [Wong, 2018]. This principle manifests in dimensions such as environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, social sustainability, and physical sustainability. Globally, some scholars in urban and regional planning have emphasized social, economic, and environmental indicators in the study of sustainable development [Bagstad & Shammin, 2012], arguing that sustainability in urban regions emerges within the framework of development itself [Wiek & Kay, 2015].
Examining the indicators of sustainable development in its various dimensions provides an appropriate criterion for identifying urban challenges and deficiencies in achieving economic welfare and socio-cultural health of residents, ultimately leading to urban and regional sustainable development and residents’ satisfaction [Huang et al., 2015; Maleki, 2012]. The concept of sustainable development represents an inspiring paradigm that governments, organizations, and citizens have embraced over the past half-century, with strategies developed to achieve its goals and assess sustainability levels. Furthermore, sustainability has evolved from an abstract concept into a measurable one; therefore, indicators have been introduced to evaluate progress toward sustainability across different periods [Kutay & Tektufekci, 2016]. These indicators include economic, social, cultural, physical, and environmental dimensions, and must be pursued without threatening the environment, built systems, and social structures, and without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs [World Bank, 2010]. Thus, the improvement of economic, social, cultural, and environmental indicators aligns with sustainable development goals and promotes urban sustainability. Ignoring sustainability principles in urban planning, however, exacerbates existing problems and deficiencies, creating gaps between urban areas in terms of service provision and resulting in urban instability and resident dissatisfaction [Huang et al., 2015].
Sustainable development, therefore, is a guiding principle and an inspiring paradigm influenced by multiple factors, with strategies offered for its achievement and measurement. The use of diverse indicators constitutes one of the most essential tools of assessment, with each society adopting frameworks tailored to its specific conditions. Consequently, examining the dimensions of sustainable development and evaluating them is a fundamental priority. Among the critical issues in urban sustainability is the consideration of indicators and factors fostering social sustainability. Neighborhoods, as physical-social units, play an important role in the sustainability of cities. Enhancing social sustainability requires creating conditions that facilitate urban renewal, increase participation, improve safety, and raise residents’ satisfaction [Allahgholipour & Ziyari, 2023]. The livability of urban neighborhoods and residents’ satisfaction across economic, social, and physical dimensions contribute significantly to the vitality and sustainability of urban structures. A higher socio-economic status of citizens enhances livability, while lower socio-economic conditions reduce it [Hosseinzadeh et al., 2021]. Factors such as sustainable employment, equitable distribution of transport infrastructure, and adequate housing are key economic determinants of livability, with strong influence on overall urban quality of life [Nikpour & Yarahmadi, 2020]. Low density, inefficiency of urban management systems, high travel demand, reliance on private vehicles, and the negative effects of vehicle traffic on safety, air and noise pollution, use and quality of public spaces, and the densification of peripheral areas all reflect crucial factors influencing sustainability in different urban dimensions [Staricco & Brovarone, 2022; Al-Thani et al., 2019; Martinez et al., 2021].
The motivation behind this research lies in the existing problems, particularly in cities, that reveal the lack of fulfillment of sustainability characteristics. To enable better planning across regions, it is necessary to classify areas based on their level of "accessibility to resources and services," so that planning can be aligned with their degree of advantage or disadvantage. Applying quantitative methods and criteria to categorize settlements within spatial systems not only reveals disparities between them but also serves as a basis for determining the necessary services and reducing inequalities across settlements. Given the inherent complexity of cities and the multiple dimensions of their impacts, identifying the key factors essential for achieving urban sustainability becomes critical.
The counties of Mazandaran province exhibit high population growth rates, leading to unequal urban spaces and imbalances in access to development indicators. Therefore, in order to measure sustainability, broader and more comprehensive parameters were employed to assess economic and social sustainability in the study area. Accordingly, economic and social sustainability were examined using parameters such as: number of banking units, number of workshops, unemployment rate, employment rate, employed female population, employed male population, household housing conditions, household income, household expenditures, child labor under the age of 10, active population in agriculture, active population in industry, service sector employees, industrial workshops with more than 10 workers per thousand people, development projects per thousand people, land prices, number of tenant households, number of tourists, energy (resource) consumption, per capita housing, number of informal occupations, annual growth rate and job opportunity distribution, population density, literate male population, literate female population, average household size, number of hospitals, number of schools, number of pharmacies, number of libraries, number of green and recreational spaces, social identity, number of universities and higher education institutions, public safety (crime rates), number of healthcare centers, public participation, and distribution of social services.
The main objective of this study was to assess, rank, classify, and compare the trends of economic and social sustainability, as well as to identify changes in sustainability levels among the counties. By identifying the regional needs for achieving sustainable development, the study seeks to provide a foundation for systematic planning and essential policy actions.
Methodology
The present study is quantitative in nature and was conducted using a causal-comparative method across the counties of Mazandaran province over two time periods, 2006–2021. Mazandaran province covers an area of approximately 23,756.4 km², equivalent to 1.46% of the country’s total area. In 2021, the province consisted of 22 counties, 57 cities, 57 districts, 132 rural districts, and 3,645 villages. According to the 2021 census, the province had a population of 3,283,577 people, of which 57% lived in urban areas and 43% in rural areas. The relative population density of the province was 135 persons per square kilometer, which is high compared to the national population-to-area ratio.
Given the nature of the data, this study falls under documentary research, using statistics from the National Statistical Center and governmental agencies. The statistical population for identifying indicators consisted of 30 experts in the field of urban planning. Responses were collected through questionnaires with inferential questions. The validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by expert review, while reliability was established through a pilot test and Cronbach’s alpha, with a coefficient of 0.81. Questionnaire data were analyzed using the Sustainability Barometer and ELECTRE techniques. For synthesis, conclusions, and evaluation of city rankings across various models, the Copeland technique was employed.
The economic and social parameters analyzed in Mazandaran province included: number of banking units, number of workshops, unemployment rate, employment rate, employed female population, employed male population, household housing status, household income, household expenditures, child labor under age 10, active agricultural population, active industrial population, employed service sector population, industrial workshops with more than 10 workers per 1,000 people, development projects per 1,000 people, land prices, number of tenant households, number of tourists, energy consumption (resources), per capita housing, number of informal occupations, annual growth rate and job opportunity distribution, population density, literate male population, literate female population, household size, number of hospitals, number of schools, number of pharmacies, number of libraries, number of green and recreational spaces, number of universities and higher education institutions, public safety (crime rates), number of healthcare centers, public participation, and distribution of social services.
All stages of data processing were carried out using Excel 2016 and SPSS 22. Ultimately, the assessment of urban sustainability in Mazandaran province was performed through the aforementioned models, which possess high scientific validity in this field. Below is a brief description of each model.
Sustainability Barometer Model
This tool provides a systematic method for organizing and integrating indicators so that users can make accurate conclusions regarding human and ecosystem conditions [Khodabakhshi & Nezafat, 2018]. Alongside the formulation of sustainable development indicators in Agenda 21, the United Nations Commission published a list of indicators encompassing social and economic dimensions [Moldan & Bilharz, 2002]. This model divides sustainability into four levels: Level 1: Unsustainable (0–0.2); Level 2: Potentially Unsustainable (Weak) (0.2–0.4); Level 3: Moderate (0.4–0.6); Level 4: Sustainable (0.6–1).
ELECTRE Model
The ELECTRE technique emerged in the late 1980s and has been widely recognized as one of the MADM (Multi-Attribute Decision-Making) methods. Its foundation lies in outranking relations, meaning it does not necessarily lead to a full ranking of options but may instead eliminate alternatives. In this method, after transforming the decision matrix into a weighted dimensionless matrix, sets of concordant and discordant indices with positive and negative aspects are created. Subsequently, an effective concordance matrix is developed, representing the dominance ordering of different alternatives, which allows for the elimination of ineffective options [Mirfakhredini et al., 2011].
Findings
Descriptive Statistics of Mazandaran Counties in Terms of Social Sustainability Indicators
The descriptive statistics of Mazandaran counties regarding social indicators revealed that in the cities of Juybar, Chalous, Galugah, Mahmoudabad, Neka, Nur, and Nowshahr, no development occurred in green and recreational spaces between 2006 and 2021 (a 15-year period). The cities of Babolsar, Sari, Savadkuh, Qaemshahr, and Nur experienced the greatest fluctuations in population density. Only in the cities of Amol, Babol, Babolsar, and Sari was one library added over the 15 years, while no action was taken in other cities. In terms of health centers, Juybar experienced very high growth, almost a leap, while Savadkuh showed the lowest growth (only two units). The number of schools and universities increased across all cities. In terms of public safety, all cities except Nur experienced a declining trend. Regarding civic participation, all cities showed a decrease. Concerning the distribution of social services per capita, only Amol, Ramsar, Qaemshahr, and Neka showed growth. The cities of Tonekabon and Chalous had no significant changes, while the rest of the cities experienced a decline in services.
Social Sustainability of Mazandaran Counties in 2006 Based on the Sustainability Barometer
It should be noted that in 2006 Mazandaran province had 16 counties, whereas by 2021, the number had increased to 22. The assessment of social indicators based on the sustainability barometer showed that in the 2006 census, the counties of Sari and Qaemshahr, with values of 0.731 and 0.686 respectively, were in a sustainable state. They were followed by Babol, Amol, Babolsar, and Behshahr with medium sustainability, while the rest of the counties were in a weakly sustainable state. Galugah and Savadkuh were categorized as unsustainable. In other words, in 2006, 12.5% of the counties were sustainable, 12.5% unsustainable, and the largest share 50% were in a weakly sustainable condition. The key reasons for unsustainability among counties were the low number of hospitals and high population density.
Social Sustainability of Mazandaran Counties in 2021 Based on the Sustainability Barometer
This section analyzes the value of each social sustainability indicator. The analysis indicated that Amol and Babol counties, with values of 0.76 and 0.67 respectively, had the highest sustainability levels. Babolsar, Behshahr, and Tonekabon were moderately sustainable, while Sari and Qaemshahr were weakly sustainable. The remaining counties were classified as unsustainable. A comparison of the two census periods, 2006 and 2021, demonstrates that the number of unsustainable cities increased. In 2021, about 68% of counties were unsustainable, only 9% (Amol and Babol) were sustainable, and nearly 13% had moderate sustainability. This highlights the lack of urban development in social indicators. The primary reasons for unsustainability in 2021 were the low number of pharmacies and hospitals.
Descriptive Statistics of Mazandaran Counties in Terms of Economic Sustainability Indicators
A comparison of economic indicators across Mazandaran’s cities between 2006 and 2021 shows that Tonekabon and Galugah not only did not experience an increase in banking units but also saw a noticeable decline. The number of construction projects per 1,000 people increased in Savadkuh, Juybar, and Nowshahr, while other cities showed no significant changes. The number of workshops in Tonekabon nearly doubled and grew significantly in Chalous and Nowshahr, whereas Galugah and Nur faced sharp declines. Employment rates dropped significantly in Behshahr, Sari, Savadkuh, Galugah, Mahmoudabad, Neka, Nur, and Nowshahr, with no city experiencing growth in employment. Regarding job opportunities, Ramsar, Nowshahr, and Juybar moved from having no opportunities in 2006 to noticeable growth in 2021. Other cities did not face declines. Tourism grew substantially across the province.
Economic Sustainability of Mazandaran Counties in 2006 Based on the Sustainability Barometer
Analysis of economic indicators in 2006 revealed that Sari and Qaemshahr were sustainable, while Babol, Babolsar, Amol, Behshahr, and Chalous had medium sustainability. Galugah and Savadkuh were unsustainable. In total, 12.5% of counties were sustainable, 31.5% moderately sustainable, and 43.75% weakly sustainable. The high number of banking units contributed to sustainability, while high unemployment and the low number of workshops were major causes of economic unsustainability.
Economic Sustainability of Mazandaran Counties in 2021 Based on the Sustainability Barometer
From an economic perspective, Babol and Amol, with values of 0.78 and 0.66, ranked first and second in sustainability. Babolsar, Behshahr, and Tonekabon were moderately sustainable, while Sari and Qaemshahr were weakly sustainable. Other counties were unsustainable. The 2021 economic indicators mirrored the social results, with only 9% of counties sustainable, 13% moderately sustainable, and 68.18% unsustainable.
ELECTRE Model
In this study, to rank counties in economic and social dimensions, a decision matrix with 40 columns and 38 rows was first constructed. The relative weights of criteria were then determined to reflect their importance. Using these weights, counties were ranked via the ELECTRE method. Results showed that Sari ranked first in both social and economic indicators during both census years, while Mahmoudabad and Fereydunkenar ranked last in 2006 and 2021, respectively.
Economic indicators in 2006 placed Sari and Babol first, and Savadkuh last. Similarly, in 2021, Sari ranked first and Savadkuh last in economic performance.
Given that different techniques may yield varying rankings for the same issue, integrative approaches such as rank averaging, Copeland’s method, and vector methods can be employed to resolve inconsistencies. In this study, Copeland’s method was used. This method identifies the number of wins and losses for each criterion. If a criterion prevails over another in pairwise comparisons by majority vote, it is marked with M; if no majority or a tie occurs, it is marked with X. Here, M indicates row superiority over column, while X represents column superiority. The final Copeland score is obtained by subtracting losses from wins.
Discussion
In the present study, in order to determine the sustainability level of the counties of Mazandaran Province, their degree of sustainability was examined in two economic and social dimensions over two census periods, 2006 and 2021. Examining and understanding the conditions of urban areas, as well as their development potentials and constraints in terms of sustainability and sustainable development, is a necessity for formulating plans and programs. Neglecting this issue extends the consequences to higher regional, national, and international levels [Barzegar et al., 2019]. Due to the sharp social–economic disparities and the imbalance in the distribution of urban services, spatial inequalities among cities have intensified. Therefore, the use of social and economic indicators can serve as a suitable criterion both for determining the position of regions and as a tool for addressing deficiencies and challenges in achieving sustainable urban development. Given that sustainability criteria and indicators do not have equal values and significance, and there is no clear threshold for precisely determining their weight, the Copeland technique was employed in this study to integrate the criteria and indicators.
Enhancement of economic and social indicators based on sustainable development is not possible without taking into account and assessing the existing situation. Ignoring this issue leads to the failure of sustainable development programs. The inequitable distribution of facilities across the province has resulted in the non-realization of sustainability and hindered sustainable development in certain counties. The findings of this study are consistent with those of Damanbagh and Maleki, Barzegar et al., and Shokri et al., which have indicated that factors such as the poor quality of public services, low urban performance in service indicators, and cultural diversity had the greatest impact on social instability [Malaki & Damanbagh, 2013; Barzegar et al., 2019; Ranjbar et al., 2021]. Similarly, the findings are in line with those of Nikpoor et al., who have considered the distribution of healthcare services to be effective in urban sustainability [Nikpoor et al., 2017].
The results of this study and similar research demonstrate that providing appropriate strategies for sustainable urban development within urban development plans requires a comprehensive understanding of existing problems and challenges. Therefore, in addition to better recognition of needs and available resources, an equitable and justice-oriented distribution of urban services and infrastructures, both economic and social, across counties proportional to their population is essential to prevent the consequences and challenges of urbanization, including high unemployment rates, expansion of informal employment, low public security, weak social participation, high tenancy rates, elevated levels of social harm, increasing poverty, and other related issues.
Conclusion
In terms of parameters related to sustainability dimensions, there exists a significant gap among the counties of the province. Sari and Babol were identified as the most advantaged counties, while Mahmoudabad and Savadkuh were the least advantaged. The most important social and economic indicators that contributed to social and economic unsustainability included population density, the low number of healthcare centers, pharmacies, and hospitals relative to the population, high unemployment rates, and the limited number of manufacturing workshops.
Acknowledgments: The authors hereby express their gratitude to governmental agencies, professors, and specialists for their cooperation in responding to the questionnaire.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported.
Conflict of Interest: This article is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author entitled “Analysis of Socio-Economic Flows in the Spatial System of the Urban Network with a Network-Based Approach: A Case Study of the Cities of the Mazandaran Plain” in the field of Geography and Urban Planning, conducted under the supervision of the first and third authors and the consultation of the fourth author at Payame Noor University.
Authors’ Contributions: Asadoullahtabar N (first author), Principal Researcher/Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (30%); Marsousi N (second author), Principal Researcher/Statistical Analyst (30%); Divsalar A (third author), Principal Researcher/Discussion Writer (30%); Shokri Firouozjah P (fourth author), Methodologist (10%)
Funding: The costs of the article were covered by the student and financed from personal resources.
One of the defining features of our era is the urbanization of populations, the rapid increase in urban populations, and consequently the expansion of both small and large cities [Gilbert & Gagler, 1997], which have undergone transformations under the influence of various factors [Seto et al., 2012]. This trend has intensified over the past few decades, to the extent that, for the first time in 2006, the number of people living in cities equaled those living outside them. United Nations projections estimate that by 2030, more than 60% of the world’s population will live in urban areas. Despite occupying only about 2% of the Earth’s surface, cities host over half of the world’s population, which is growing at an annual rate of nearly 55 million people [Egger, 2005]. In total, with overall population growth, urbanization in the next three decades will add 2.5 billion people to cities [United Nations, 2019].
As a result of rapid urbanization, the rise of socio-economic inequalities, unplanned construction, uncontrolled urban sprawl, and imbalances in urban services in developing countries have produced a wide range of heterogeneous living conditions, leading to significant changes in spatial structures and intensifying spatial disparities in cities [Abdi, 2000; Ahem, 2013]. These conditions have brought consequences such as rising urban poverty, environmental pollution (e.g., air and water pollution), increased sewage, soil contamination from urban and industrial waste, shortages of urban services, lack of drinking water resources, the expansion of slums and informal settlements, and illegal housing [Hall & Pag, 2002]. Such challenges highlight the necessity of deliberate planning and the design of suitable living environments for cities, with special attention to sustainability issues [Guillermina et al., 2018].
To prevent environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources, the concept of sustainable development was introduced in the 1970s as a key principle in national and international policymaking [Vouvaki & Xepapadeas, 2008], emphasizing geographical equity [Wong, 2018]. This principle manifests in dimensions such as environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, social sustainability, and physical sustainability. Globally, some scholars in urban and regional planning have emphasized social, economic, and environmental indicators in the study of sustainable development [Bagstad & Shammin, 2012], arguing that sustainability in urban regions emerges within the framework of development itself [Wiek & Kay, 2015].
Examining the indicators of sustainable development in its various dimensions provides an appropriate criterion for identifying urban challenges and deficiencies in achieving economic welfare and socio-cultural health of residents, ultimately leading to urban and regional sustainable development and residents’ satisfaction [Huang et al., 2015; Maleki, 2012]. The concept of sustainable development represents an inspiring paradigm that governments, organizations, and citizens have embraced over the past half-century, with strategies developed to achieve its goals and assess sustainability levels. Furthermore, sustainability has evolved from an abstract concept into a measurable one; therefore, indicators have been introduced to evaluate progress toward sustainability across different periods [Kutay & Tektufekci, 2016]. These indicators include economic, social, cultural, physical, and environmental dimensions, and must be pursued without threatening the environment, built systems, and social structures, and without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs [World Bank, 2010]. Thus, the improvement of economic, social, cultural, and environmental indicators aligns with sustainable development goals and promotes urban sustainability. Ignoring sustainability principles in urban planning, however, exacerbates existing problems and deficiencies, creating gaps between urban areas in terms of service provision and resulting in urban instability and resident dissatisfaction [Huang et al., 2015].
Sustainable development, therefore, is a guiding principle and an inspiring paradigm influenced by multiple factors, with strategies offered for its achievement and measurement. The use of diverse indicators constitutes one of the most essential tools of assessment, with each society adopting frameworks tailored to its specific conditions. Consequently, examining the dimensions of sustainable development and evaluating them is a fundamental priority. Among the critical issues in urban sustainability is the consideration of indicators and factors fostering social sustainability. Neighborhoods, as physical-social units, play an important role in the sustainability of cities. Enhancing social sustainability requires creating conditions that facilitate urban renewal, increase participation, improve safety, and raise residents’ satisfaction [Allahgholipour & Ziyari, 2023]. The livability of urban neighborhoods and residents’ satisfaction across economic, social, and physical dimensions contribute significantly to the vitality and sustainability of urban structures. A higher socio-economic status of citizens enhances livability, while lower socio-economic conditions reduce it [Hosseinzadeh et al., 2021]. Factors such as sustainable employment, equitable distribution of transport infrastructure, and adequate housing are key economic determinants of livability, with strong influence on overall urban quality of life [Nikpour & Yarahmadi, 2020]. Low density, inefficiency of urban management systems, high travel demand, reliance on private vehicles, and the negative effects of vehicle traffic on safety, air and noise pollution, use and quality of public spaces, and the densification of peripheral areas all reflect crucial factors influencing sustainability in different urban dimensions [Staricco & Brovarone, 2022; Al-Thani et al., 2019; Martinez et al., 2021].
The motivation behind this research lies in the existing problems, particularly in cities, that reveal the lack of fulfillment of sustainability characteristics. To enable better planning across regions, it is necessary to classify areas based on their level of "accessibility to resources and services," so that planning can be aligned with their degree of advantage or disadvantage. Applying quantitative methods and criteria to categorize settlements within spatial systems not only reveals disparities between them but also serves as a basis for determining the necessary services and reducing inequalities across settlements. Given the inherent complexity of cities and the multiple dimensions of their impacts, identifying the key factors essential for achieving urban sustainability becomes critical.
The counties of Mazandaran province exhibit high population growth rates, leading to unequal urban spaces and imbalances in access to development indicators. Therefore, in order to measure sustainability, broader and more comprehensive parameters were employed to assess economic and social sustainability in the study area. Accordingly, economic and social sustainability were examined using parameters such as: number of banking units, number of workshops, unemployment rate, employment rate, employed female population, employed male population, household housing conditions, household income, household expenditures, child labor under the age of 10, active population in agriculture, active population in industry, service sector employees, industrial workshops with more than 10 workers per thousand people, development projects per thousand people, land prices, number of tenant households, number of tourists, energy (resource) consumption, per capita housing, number of informal occupations, annual growth rate and job opportunity distribution, population density, literate male population, literate female population, average household size, number of hospitals, number of schools, number of pharmacies, number of libraries, number of green and recreational spaces, social identity, number of universities and higher education institutions, public safety (crime rates), number of healthcare centers, public participation, and distribution of social services.
The main objective of this study was to assess, rank, classify, and compare the trends of economic and social sustainability, as well as to identify changes in sustainability levels among the counties. By identifying the regional needs for achieving sustainable development, the study seeks to provide a foundation for systematic planning and essential policy actions.
Methodology
The present study is quantitative in nature and was conducted using a causal-comparative method across the counties of Mazandaran province over two time periods, 2006–2021. Mazandaran province covers an area of approximately 23,756.4 km², equivalent to 1.46% of the country’s total area. In 2021, the province consisted of 22 counties, 57 cities, 57 districts, 132 rural districts, and 3,645 villages. According to the 2021 census, the province had a population of 3,283,577 people, of which 57% lived in urban areas and 43% in rural areas. The relative population density of the province was 135 persons per square kilometer, which is high compared to the national population-to-area ratio.
Given the nature of the data, this study falls under documentary research, using statistics from the National Statistical Center and governmental agencies. The statistical population for identifying indicators consisted of 30 experts in the field of urban planning. Responses were collected through questionnaires with inferential questions. The validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by expert review, while reliability was established through a pilot test and Cronbach’s alpha, with a coefficient of 0.81. Questionnaire data were analyzed using the Sustainability Barometer and ELECTRE techniques. For synthesis, conclusions, and evaluation of city rankings across various models, the Copeland technique was employed.
The economic and social parameters analyzed in Mazandaran province included: number of banking units, number of workshops, unemployment rate, employment rate, employed female population, employed male population, household housing status, household income, household expenditures, child labor under age 10, active agricultural population, active industrial population, employed service sector population, industrial workshops with more than 10 workers per 1,000 people, development projects per 1,000 people, land prices, number of tenant households, number of tourists, energy consumption (resources), per capita housing, number of informal occupations, annual growth rate and job opportunity distribution, population density, literate male population, literate female population, household size, number of hospitals, number of schools, number of pharmacies, number of libraries, number of green and recreational spaces, number of universities and higher education institutions, public safety (crime rates), number of healthcare centers, public participation, and distribution of social services.
All stages of data processing were carried out using Excel 2016 and SPSS 22. Ultimately, the assessment of urban sustainability in Mazandaran province was performed through the aforementioned models, which possess high scientific validity in this field. Below is a brief description of each model.
Sustainability Barometer Model
This tool provides a systematic method for organizing and integrating indicators so that users can make accurate conclusions regarding human and ecosystem conditions [Khodabakhshi & Nezafat, 2018]. Alongside the formulation of sustainable development indicators in Agenda 21, the United Nations Commission published a list of indicators encompassing social and economic dimensions [Moldan & Bilharz, 2002]. This model divides sustainability into four levels: Level 1: Unsustainable (0–0.2); Level 2: Potentially Unsustainable (Weak) (0.2–0.4); Level 3: Moderate (0.4–0.6); Level 4: Sustainable (0.6–1).
ELECTRE Model
The ELECTRE technique emerged in the late 1980s and has been widely recognized as one of the MADM (Multi-Attribute Decision-Making) methods. Its foundation lies in outranking relations, meaning it does not necessarily lead to a full ranking of options but may instead eliminate alternatives. In this method, after transforming the decision matrix into a weighted dimensionless matrix, sets of concordant and discordant indices with positive and negative aspects are created. Subsequently, an effective concordance matrix is developed, representing the dominance ordering of different alternatives, which allows for the elimination of ineffective options [Mirfakhredini et al., 2011].
- Step 1: Form the decision-making matrix
- Step 2: Determine the criterion weight vector
- Step 3: Form the concordance matrix
- Step 4: Determine the discordance matrix
- Step 5: Form the concordance dominance matrix
- Step 6: Form the final dominance matrix
- Step 7: Eliminate options with lower preference and select the optimal option
Findings
Descriptive Statistics of Mazandaran Counties in Terms of Social Sustainability Indicators
The descriptive statistics of Mazandaran counties regarding social indicators revealed that in the cities of Juybar, Chalous, Galugah, Mahmoudabad, Neka, Nur, and Nowshahr, no development occurred in green and recreational spaces between 2006 and 2021 (a 15-year period). The cities of Babolsar, Sari, Savadkuh, Qaemshahr, and Nur experienced the greatest fluctuations in population density. Only in the cities of Amol, Babol, Babolsar, and Sari was one library added over the 15 years, while no action was taken in other cities. In terms of health centers, Juybar experienced very high growth, almost a leap, while Savadkuh showed the lowest growth (only two units). The number of schools and universities increased across all cities. In terms of public safety, all cities except Nur experienced a declining trend. Regarding civic participation, all cities showed a decrease. Concerning the distribution of social services per capita, only Amol, Ramsar, Qaemshahr, and Neka showed growth. The cities of Tonekabon and Chalous had no significant changes, while the rest of the cities experienced a decline in services.
Social Sustainability of Mazandaran Counties in 2006 Based on the Sustainability Barometer
It should be noted that in 2006 Mazandaran province had 16 counties, whereas by 2021, the number had increased to 22. The assessment of social indicators based on the sustainability barometer showed that in the 2006 census, the counties of Sari and Qaemshahr, with values of 0.731 and 0.686 respectively, were in a sustainable state. They were followed by Babol, Amol, Babolsar, and Behshahr with medium sustainability, while the rest of the counties were in a weakly sustainable state. Galugah and Savadkuh were categorized as unsustainable. In other words, in 2006, 12.5% of the counties were sustainable, 12.5% unsustainable, and the largest share 50% were in a weakly sustainable condition. The key reasons for unsustainability among counties were the low number of hospitals and high population density.
Social Sustainability of Mazandaran Counties in 2021 Based on the Sustainability Barometer
This section analyzes the value of each social sustainability indicator. The analysis indicated that Amol and Babol counties, with values of 0.76 and 0.67 respectively, had the highest sustainability levels. Babolsar, Behshahr, and Tonekabon were moderately sustainable, while Sari and Qaemshahr were weakly sustainable. The remaining counties were classified as unsustainable. A comparison of the two census periods, 2006 and 2021, demonstrates that the number of unsustainable cities increased. In 2021, about 68% of counties were unsustainable, only 9% (Amol and Babol) were sustainable, and nearly 13% had moderate sustainability. This highlights the lack of urban development in social indicators. The primary reasons for unsustainability in 2021 were the low number of pharmacies and hospitals.
Descriptive Statistics of Mazandaran Counties in Terms of Economic Sustainability Indicators
A comparison of economic indicators across Mazandaran’s cities between 2006 and 2021 shows that Tonekabon and Galugah not only did not experience an increase in banking units but also saw a noticeable decline. The number of construction projects per 1,000 people increased in Savadkuh, Juybar, and Nowshahr, while other cities showed no significant changes. The number of workshops in Tonekabon nearly doubled and grew significantly in Chalous and Nowshahr, whereas Galugah and Nur faced sharp declines. Employment rates dropped significantly in Behshahr, Sari, Savadkuh, Galugah, Mahmoudabad, Neka, Nur, and Nowshahr, with no city experiencing growth in employment. Regarding job opportunities, Ramsar, Nowshahr, and Juybar moved from having no opportunities in 2006 to noticeable growth in 2021. Other cities did not face declines. Tourism grew substantially across the province.
Economic Sustainability of Mazandaran Counties in 2006 Based on the Sustainability Barometer
Analysis of economic indicators in 2006 revealed that Sari and Qaemshahr were sustainable, while Babol, Babolsar, Amol, Behshahr, and Chalous had medium sustainability. Galugah and Savadkuh were unsustainable. In total, 12.5% of counties were sustainable, 31.5% moderately sustainable, and 43.75% weakly sustainable. The high number of banking units contributed to sustainability, while high unemployment and the low number of workshops were major causes of economic unsustainability.
Economic Sustainability of Mazandaran Counties in 2021 Based on the Sustainability Barometer
From an economic perspective, Babol and Amol, with values of 0.78 and 0.66, ranked first and second in sustainability. Babolsar, Behshahr, and Tonekabon were moderately sustainable, while Sari and Qaemshahr were weakly sustainable. Other counties were unsustainable. The 2021 economic indicators mirrored the social results, with only 9% of counties sustainable, 13% moderately sustainable, and 68.18% unsustainable.
ELECTRE Model
In this study, to rank counties in economic and social dimensions, a decision matrix with 40 columns and 38 rows was first constructed. The relative weights of criteria were then determined to reflect their importance. Using these weights, counties were ranked via the ELECTRE method. Results showed that Sari ranked first in both social and economic indicators during both census years, while Mahmoudabad and Fereydunkenar ranked last in 2006 and 2021, respectively.
Economic indicators in 2006 placed Sari and Babol first, and Savadkuh last. Similarly, in 2021, Sari ranked first and Savadkuh last in economic performance.
Given that different techniques may yield varying rankings for the same issue, integrative approaches such as rank averaging, Copeland’s method, and vector methods can be employed to resolve inconsistencies. In this study, Copeland’s method was used. This method identifies the number of wins and losses for each criterion. If a criterion prevails over another in pairwise comparisons by majority vote, it is marked with M; if no majority or a tie occurs, it is marked with X. Here, M indicates row superiority over column, while X represents column superiority. The final Copeland score is obtained by subtracting losses from wins.
Discussion
In the present study, in order to determine the sustainability level of the counties of Mazandaran Province, their degree of sustainability was examined in two economic and social dimensions over two census periods, 2006 and 2021. Examining and understanding the conditions of urban areas, as well as their development potentials and constraints in terms of sustainability and sustainable development, is a necessity for formulating plans and programs. Neglecting this issue extends the consequences to higher regional, national, and international levels [Barzegar et al., 2019]. Due to the sharp social–economic disparities and the imbalance in the distribution of urban services, spatial inequalities among cities have intensified. Therefore, the use of social and economic indicators can serve as a suitable criterion both for determining the position of regions and as a tool for addressing deficiencies and challenges in achieving sustainable urban development. Given that sustainability criteria and indicators do not have equal values and significance, and there is no clear threshold for precisely determining their weight, the Copeland technique was employed in this study to integrate the criteria and indicators.
Enhancement of economic and social indicators based on sustainable development is not possible without taking into account and assessing the existing situation. Ignoring this issue leads to the failure of sustainable development programs. The inequitable distribution of facilities across the province has resulted in the non-realization of sustainability and hindered sustainable development in certain counties. The findings of this study are consistent with those of Damanbagh and Maleki, Barzegar et al., and Shokri et al., which have indicated that factors such as the poor quality of public services, low urban performance in service indicators, and cultural diversity had the greatest impact on social instability [Malaki & Damanbagh, 2013; Barzegar et al., 2019; Ranjbar et al., 2021]. Similarly, the findings are in line with those of Nikpoor et al., who have considered the distribution of healthcare services to be effective in urban sustainability [Nikpoor et al., 2017].
The results of this study and similar research demonstrate that providing appropriate strategies for sustainable urban development within urban development plans requires a comprehensive understanding of existing problems and challenges. Therefore, in addition to better recognition of needs and available resources, an equitable and justice-oriented distribution of urban services and infrastructures, both economic and social, across counties proportional to their population is essential to prevent the consequences and challenges of urbanization, including high unemployment rates, expansion of informal employment, low public security, weak social participation, high tenancy rates, elevated levels of social harm, increasing poverty, and other related issues.
Conclusion
In terms of parameters related to sustainability dimensions, there exists a significant gap among the counties of the province. Sari and Babol were identified as the most advantaged counties, while Mahmoudabad and Savadkuh were the least advantaged. The most important social and economic indicators that contributed to social and economic unsustainability included population density, the low number of healthcare centers, pharmacies, and hospitals relative to the population, high unemployment rates, and the limited number of manufacturing workshops.
Acknowledgments: The authors hereby express their gratitude to governmental agencies, professors, and specialists for their cooperation in responding to the questionnaire.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported.
Conflict of Interest: This article is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author entitled “Analysis of Socio-Economic Flows in the Spatial System of the Urban Network with a Network-Based Approach: A Case Study of the Cities of the Mazandaran Plain” in the field of Geography and Urban Planning, conducted under the supervision of the first and third authors and the consultation of the fourth author at Payame Noor University.
Authors’ Contributions: Asadoullahtabar N (first author), Principal Researcher/Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (30%); Marsousi N (second author), Principal Researcher/Statistical Analyst (30%); Divsalar A (third author), Principal Researcher/Discussion Writer (30%); Shokri Firouozjah P (fourth author), Methodologist (10%)
Funding: The costs of the article were covered by the student and financed from personal resources.
References
1. Abdi Daneshpour Z (2000). Analysis of spatial imbalance in cities (case study: Tehran). Soffeh Magazine. 9(29):34-57. [Persian] [Link]
2. Ahern J (2013). Urban landscape sustainability and resilience the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecology. 28:1203-1212. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10980-012-9799-z]
3. Al-Thani SK, Amato A, Koc M, Al-Ghamdi SG (2019). Urban sustainability and livability: An analysis of Doha's urban-from and possible mitigation strategies. Sustainability. 11(3):786. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su11030786]
4. Allahgholipour S, Ziyari K (2023). Assessment of social sustainability and satisfaction with the living environment (case study: District 1 region 9 of Tehran). Journal of Geography and Regional Development. 21(1):143-172. [Persian] [Link]
5. Bagstad KJ, Shammin MDR (2012). Can the genuine progress indicator better inform sustainable regional progress? A case study for northeast Ohio. Ecological Indicators. 18:330-341 [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.11.026]
6. Barzegar S, Bakhsi A, Heydari MT (2019). Explaining socio-economic stability in small cities with sustainable development aapproach (case study: Small cities of northen Iran). Majlis and Rahbord. 26(97):5-38. [Persian] [Link]
7. Egger S (2005). Determining a sustainable city Model. Environmental Modelling & Software. 21(9):1235-1246. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.04.012]
8. Gilbert A, Gagler J (1997). Cities, poverty and development: Urbanization in the third world. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University press. [Link]
9. Guillermina C, Elsa E, Luis B (2018). A taxonomy for planning and designing smart mobility services. Government Information Quarterly. 35(1):61-76. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2017.11.008]
10. Hall CM, page SJ (2002). The geography of tourism and recreation, environment, place and space. 4th Edition. Oxfordshire: Routledge. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9780203196274]
11. Hosseinzadeh R, Safar Alizadeh E, Khabazi H (2021). Assessing the livability of urban neighborhoods in line with sustainable development from the perspective of citizens, case study: Shahre Kohne and Seyed Morteza in Kashmar city. Geography and Environmental Studies. 10(40):123-140. [Persian] [Link]
12. Huang J, Zhong Z, Wang M, Chen X, Tan Y, Zhang S, et al. (2015). Circadian modulation of dopamine levels and dopaminergic neuron development contributes to attention deficiency and hyperactive behavior. The Journal of neuroscience: The official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 35:2572-2587. [Link] [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2551-14.2015]
13. Khodabakhshi Z, Nezafat Anzabi A (2018) Assessing the environmental sustainability of slums,case study: Ustad Shahriyar neighborhood (Araz Ali Neighborhood). The First International Conference on Natural Hazards and Environmental Crises in Iran, Solutions and Challenges. [Persian] [Link]
14. Kutay N, Tektufekci F (2016). A new era for sustainable development: A comparison for sustainability indices. Journal of Accounting, Finance and Auditing Studies. 2(2):70-95. [Link]
15. Maleki S, Damanbagh S (2013). Evaluation of sustainable development indexes with emphasis on physical and social indexes and urban services (a case study of Ahvaz city). Urban Structure and Function Studies. 1(3):29-54. [Persian] [Link]
16. Martinez A, Awad AM, Hornbuckle KC (2021). Concentrations of individual polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in gas and particle phases in air in Chicago. National Institute of EnvironmentalHealth Sciences (NIEHS). [Link]
17. Mirfakhredini H, Farid D, TahariMehrjardi MH, ZareiMahmoudabadi M (2011). Identification and ranking of factors affecting quality improvement of health & treatment services using multiple attribute decision making (MADM): A case study. Journal of Health Administration. 14(43):51-62. [Persian] [Link]
18. Moldan B, Bilharz S (2002). Sustainability Indicator. Haddad Tehrani N, Moharramnejad N, translators. Tehran: Department Of Enviroment. [Link]
19. Nikpour A, Yarahmadi M (2020). Identification of factors affecting urban viability in NourabadMamasani. Journal of Urban Structure and Function Studies. 7(23):7-27. [Persian] [Link]
20. Nikpour A, Mehralitabar Firuzjahi M, Rezazadeh M, Allahgholitabar Nesheli F (2017). Spatial distribution of health and treatment from social justice view case study: Cities of Mazandaran province. Quarterly of Geography & Regional Planning. 8(32):145-158. [Link]
21. Ranjbar Z, Shokri Firoozjah P, janbaz ghobadi G (2021). Assessing the resilience of coastal cities with emphasis on the role of tourism Case study: West coastal cities of Mazandaran province. Journal of Applied Researches in Geographical Sciences. 21(62):383-412. [Link] [DOI:10.52547/jgs.21.62.383]
22. Razdasht A, Yaghfoori H, Maleki A (2012). The composition sustainability indicators in small town Dehdasht with the average urban system with emphasis on urban sustaniable development. Environmental Based Territorial Planning (Amayesh). 5(18):125-142. [Link]
23. Seto KC, Reenberg A, Boone CG, Fragkias M, Haase D, Langanke T, et al. (2012), Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Sustainability Science. 109(20):7687-7692. [Link] [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1117622109]
24. Staricco L, Brovarone EV (2022). Livable neighborhoods for sustainable cities: Insights from Barcelona. Transportation Research Procedia. 60:354-361. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.trpro.2021.12.046]
25. United Nations (2019). The sustainable development goals report [Internet]. Newyork: United Nations [cited 2023/11/25]. Available from: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3812145?ln=en [Link]
26. Vouvaki D, Xepapadeas A (2008). Changes in social welfare and sustainability: Theoretical issues and empirical evidence. Ecological Economics. 67(3):473-484. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.029]
27. Wiek A, Kay B (2015). Learning while transforming: Solution-oriented learning for urban sustainability in Phoenix, Arizona. 16:29-36. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.001]
28. Wong ATL (2018). Sustainable development (urban transport and mobility)-"sharpening the saw'' in shaping liveable cities towards quality of life experiences.10th Malaysian Road Conference & Exhibition 2018. IOP Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1088/1757-899X/512/1/012044]
29. World Bank (2010). Development and Climate Change. World development report. Washington D.C: The world Bank press. [Link]