Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 3 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(3): 401-410 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/08/2 | Accepted: 2023/09/11 | Published: 2023/09/20
Received: 2023/08/2 | Accepted: 2023/09/11 | Published: 2023/09/20
How to cite this article
Gholami G, Sarvar R, Tavakolan A. Spatial Evaluation and Measurement of Sustainable Urban Development with a Healthy City Approach in Tehran Metropolis. GeoRes 2023; 38 (3) :401-410
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1508-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1508-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, Faculty of Literature, Humanities and Social Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (29 Views)
Introduction
The concept of sustainable urban development constitutes one of the broadest areas of inquiry in development studies. Sustainable urban development is not only associated with historical transformations but also encompasses the advancement of various scientific disciplines and social knowledge. Addressing such transformations contributes to the expansion and improvement of knowledge about the urban environment, including disciplines concerned with identifying and mitigating air pollution, greenhouse gases, global climate change, and related issues. Sustainable urban development entails the efficient use of land and the promotion of adaptive reuse of buildings. Given today’s challenges such as global warming, excessive energy consumption, and the unrestrained exploitation of non-renewable resources cities are recognized as primary drivers of human and ecological crises. Accordingly, the adoption of rational, supra-regional policies for the utilization and consumption of resources is imperative. With the continuous expansion of cities and the growing concentration of economic activity in urban centers, particularly in less-developed countries, urban sustainability has received increasing attention. Neglecting urban sustainability exacerbates existing challenges in cities, including inequality and poverty, deteriorating quality of life, inadequate housing and urban expansion, unemployment and underemployment, as well as crime and corruption. Thus, disregard for sustainability not only adversely affects cities themselves but also produces detrimental impacts on surrounding regions and smaller human settlements (villages), highlighting the necessity of regional development and optimized regional planning [Lai et al., 2020].
From a contemporary development perspective, cities should be as compatible as possible with the natural environment, maintaining the balance of life’s natural cycles. In other words, they must strive toward sustainability and prioritize sustainable urban development. Today, the rapid growth of urban populations, globalization, and the crises associated with urban expansion have placed the challenge of transforming cities into more sustainable environments at the forefront of the concerns of designers, planners, and governments [Rapoport & Vernay, 2011]. The unprecedented rise of urban populations and unregulated urbanization during the twentieth century raised new concerns regarding public health. The health of a city depends on a healthy environment and appropriate social, economic, cultural, environmental, aesthetic, educational, scientific, political, psychological, hygienic, and recreational foundations, with citizens as the core and principal assets of the city. Urban experts and administrators emphasize that a city is not merely a space for the aggregation of people, buildings, streets, vehicles, and infrastructure, but a living, dynamic organism that is continuously evolving [Ziari & Janbabanejad, 2012].
The transformations triggered by the Industrial Revolution brought about numerous challenges for cities, including population explosions, intensified density, housing shortages, poverty, the rupture of the human–nature relationship, air and noise pollution, motor-vehicle congestion, unsanitary slums, and declining standards of social well-being [Ziari & Janbabanejad, 2012]. Addressing these issues requires urban planning to focus on health, social welfare, and quality of life. Problems such as unemployment, pollution, inadequate housing, inequality, poverty, unsanitary environments, limited access to workplaces, shopping, and services, together with social stress and weakened collective cohesion, directly affect both physical and mental health, undermining quality of life.
Following the introduction of the “Healthy City” concept in 1986, the Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a pilot project aimed at improving public health. Initially involving only six cities, the “Healthy Cities Project” was launched in Lisbon in March 1986. From its inception, the project was increasingly adopted as a strategic framework for developing and implementing public health theories and practices [Dooris, 1999]. The results of the pilot were highly successful, leading to the expansion of the Healthy Cities approach across Europe and subsequently to other continents, evolving into a rapidly growing global movement [Tsouros, 1995]. Today, more than 2,000 cities worldwide have initiated measures under this framework.
In Iran, the Healthy City concept was introduced for the first time in November 1990 during a WHO conference in the Eastern Mediterranean region, where emphasis was placed on applying European experiences to regional countries. Lahore, Alexandria, and Tehran were selected as case examples. In line with this initiative, Tehran Municipality, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, Treatment, and Medical Education, organized the first “Healthy City Symposium” in December 1991, with the participation of experts, academics, and executive authorities [Tabyban, 1998]. One of its significant outcomes was the implementation of a pilot Healthy City project in Tehran’s 13 Aban neighborhood. Subsequently, the Ministry of Health expanded related research and operational activities across the country.
Despite decades of research and institutional efforts to define and operationalize the Healthy City concept and to assess urban health levels relative to other cities, the subject remains complex and ambiguous [Zarrabi et al., 2013]. The international community now recognizes that sustainable development requires not only economic growth but also emphasis on human rights, environmental stability, freedom, civic participation, and good governance, thereby ensuring social justice, strengthening civil society, and promoting successful development. Health is thus acknowledged as a fundamental public goal, attainable only through equitable access to health care and primary health services, particular attention to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, and the adoption of needs-based, community-driven interventions. Accordingly, it is essential to evaluate the formation of human settlements and dimensions of the Healthy City, encompassing environmental, social, cultural, economic, and sustainability aspects of urban development, while assessing their feasibility under the framework of Agenda 21 [United Nations, 1992].
Tehran, as the capital of Iran, has undergone rapid population and spatial growth that is scarcely comparable to many other cities worldwide. Consequently, its urban development pattern has been shaped less by integrated governance than by the cumulative pressures of diverse factors. The unregulated expansion of Tehran in recent decades has produced numerous challenges, including environmental degradation, water, air, and soil pollution, and the rise of physical and mental health disorders. These developments conflict with the principles of sustainable urban development and have confronted Tehran’s urban management with critical issues such as population density, housing shortages, environmental destruction, social conflicts, and deficiencies in infrastructure and services.
In this context, the present study first identifies the key indicators of the Healthy City and their respective impacts, then evaluates Tehran’s position relative to other selected Asian cities from the perspective of the Healthy City framework, and finally compares its urban areas according to these indicators
Methodology
This study is applied and comparative in nature, relying on library resources, documentary analysis, surveys, and field observations. The research was conducted in 2022 in the metropolitan area of Tehran. The statistical population consists of the entire metropolis and its 22 municipal districts. The research design comprises two main stages.
In the first stage, following the identification of Healthy City indicators, 20 qualified experts (holding postgraduate degrees and with a minimum of 10 years of relevant professional experience) were selected through purposive non-random sampling. A structured questionnaire was distributed among them, asking participants to evaluate the importance of each proposed criterion on a five-point Likert scale (5: very important; 4: important; 3: moderately important; 2: unimportant; 1: very unimportant). Using the fuzzy Delphi method and four iterative rounds of feedback, a set of 9 dimensions and 52 sub-dimensions of Healthy City indicators were finalized.
Subsequently, the Analytic Network Process (ANP) model based on DEMATEL was employed to determine the relative influence (weights) of each indicator and their interrelationships within the Healthy City framework.
In the second stage, the VIKOR ranking model was applied using the calculated weights. After computing the utility index (S), the dissatisfaction index (R), and the Q value, the results were ranked in descending order and presented in two phases. In the first phase, Tehran’s position among selected Asian cities was identified. In the second phase, each of the 22 districts of Tehran was ranked and prioritized to assess their significance in the city’s current condition.
Models Employed in the Study
Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (FANP): The Analytic Network Process, developed by Saaty in 1990, is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) technique categorized among compensatory models [Saaty, 1990; Chung et al., 2005]. Unlike hierarchical structures, ANP adopts a network-based structure, making it suitable for capturing interdependencies among criteria. In this study, fuzzy numbers were applied to enhance accuracy, hence the method was referred to as Fuzzy ANP. The ANP framework involves three key features applicable in MCDM problems: Defining objectives, criteria, and sub-criteria; determining interdependencies and constructing the network; and building and combining the supermatrix [Chang, 1992; Saaty, 1990].
VIKOR Technique: Developed by Opricovic and Tzeng for multi-criteria optimization of complex systems, VIKOR is one of the most widely used MCDM methods. It prioritizes available alternatives in a structured manner according to multiple criteria [Opricovic & Tzeng, 2007]
Findings
The findings revealed that the infrastructural and physical dimensions carried the greatest weights, whereas the health and hygiene as well as the social per capita dimensions had the lowest weights. Among the sub-dimensions, neighborhood-oriented planning (from the physical dimension) and equitable distribution of facilities per capita together with compliance with the network hierarchy (from the infrastructural dimension) had the highest influence on the Healthy City indicators. In contrast, child safety and elderly health status (from the safety dimension) exerted the least influence.
According to the results, the status of each research dimension in the Tehran metropolis and in the selected Asian cities was presented.
Tehran’s Position and Status Based on Healthy City Indicators
The results indicated that Kuala Lumpur ranked the highest, whereas Hong Kong ranked the lowest in terms of Healthy City indicators. Tehran was placed sixth in this ranking.
A comparative analysis of the Healthy City indicators between Tehran and the selected Asian cities revealed that all of Tehran’s indicator values were below the average of those cities. This comparison, based on the data obtained from the selected Asian cities and the weights calculated using the DANP method, illustrates that Tehran scored higher than average on negative indicators (e.g., number of polluted days, mortality due to traffic accidents), while scoring lower than average on positive indicators (e.g., per capita green space, individual income).
Prioritization of Tehran Districts Based on Healthy City Indicators
The analysis showed that District 22 ranked the highest in terms of Healthy City indicators, while District 10 ranked the lowest.
The GIS software outputs, based on Healthy City data, illustrate the distribution of green space per capita, access to public transportation, number of polluted days, population growth rate, availability of health services, percentage of deteriorated urban fabric, elderly population share, and youth population pyramid across Tehran’s 22 districts. Furthermore, the final outputs demonstrate the overall ranking of these districts regarding their level of compliance with Healthy City indicators.
Findings
The findings revealed that the infrastructural and physical dimensions carried the greatest weights, whereas the health and hygiene as well as the social per capita dimensions had the lowest weights. Among the sub-dimensions, neighborhood-oriented planning (from the physical dimension) and equitable distribution of facilities per capita together with compliance with the network hierarchy (from the infrastructural dimension) had the highest influence on the Healthy City indicators. In contrast, child safety and elderly health status (from the safety dimension) exerted the least influence.
Tehran’s Position and Status Based on Healthy City Indicators
The results indicated that Kuala Lumpur ranked the highest, whereas Hong Kong ranked the lowest in terms of Healthy City indicators. Tehran was placed sixth in this ranking.
A comparative analysis of the Healthy City indicators between Tehran and the selected Asian cities revealed that all of Tehran’s indicator values were below the average of those cities. This comparison, based on the data obtained from the selected Asian cities and the weights calculated using the DANP method, illustrates that Tehran scored higher than average on negative indicators (e.g., number of polluted days, mortality due to traffic accidents), while scoring lower than average on positive indicators (e.g., per capita green space, individual income).
Prioritization of Tehran Districts Based on Healthy City Indicators
The analysis showed that District 22 ranked the highest in terms of Healthy City indicators, while District 10 ranked the lowest.
The GIS software outputs, based on Healthy City data, illustrated the distribution of green space per capita, access to public transportation, number of polluted days, population growth rate, availability of health services, percentage of deteriorated urban fabric, elderly population share, and youth population pyramid across Tehran’s 22 districts. Furthermore, the final outputs demonstrate the overall ranking of these districts regarding their level of compliance with Healthy City indicators.
Conclusion
The Healthy City indicators in Tehran were found to be below the average levels observed in the selected Asian cities. Moreover, the 22 districts of Tehran were also identified to be in an unfavorable condition with respect to the Healthy City indicators.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to all faculty members of the Department of Geography, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: None declared by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Gholami Gh (First Author): Principal researcher/Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (50%); Sarvar R (Second Author): Methodologist (25%); Tavakolan A (Third Author): Statistical Analyst (25%)
Funding: This article is derived from the first author’s doctoral dissertation entitled “Strategic Analysis of Sustainable Urban Development with a Healthy City Approach (The 22 Districts of Tehran)”, conducted under the supervision of the second author and the consultation of the third author at the Faculty of Literature, Humanities, and Social Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, in 2023 (1402 in the Iranian calendar). All expenses of this study were covered by the first author.
The concept of sustainable urban development constitutes one of the broadest areas of inquiry in development studies. Sustainable urban development is not only associated with historical transformations but also encompasses the advancement of various scientific disciplines and social knowledge. Addressing such transformations contributes to the expansion and improvement of knowledge about the urban environment, including disciplines concerned with identifying and mitigating air pollution, greenhouse gases, global climate change, and related issues. Sustainable urban development entails the efficient use of land and the promotion of adaptive reuse of buildings. Given today’s challenges such as global warming, excessive energy consumption, and the unrestrained exploitation of non-renewable resources cities are recognized as primary drivers of human and ecological crises. Accordingly, the adoption of rational, supra-regional policies for the utilization and consumption of resources is imperative. With the continuous expansion of cities and the growing concentration of economic activity in urban centers, particularly in less-developed countries, urban sustainability has received increasing attention. Neglecting urban sustainability exacerbates existing challenges in cities, including inequality and poverty, deteriorating quality of life, inadequate housing and urban expansion, unemployment and underemployment, as well as crime and corruption. Thus, disregard for sustainability not only adversely affects cities themselves but also produces detrimental impacts on surrounding regions and smaller human settlements (villages), highlighting the necessity of regional development and optimized regional planning [Lai et al., 2020].
From a contemporary development perspective, cities should be as compatible as possible with the natural environment, maintaining the balance of life’s natural cycles. In other words, they must strive toward sustainability and prioritize sustainable urban development. Today, the rapid growth of urban populations, globalization, and the crises associated with urban expansion have placed the challenge of transforming cities into more sustainable environments at the forefront of the concerns of designers, planners, and governments [Rapoport & Vernay, 2011]. The unprecedented rise of urban populations and unregulated urbanization during the twentieth century raised new concerns regarding public health. The health of a city depends on a healthy environment and appropriate social, economic, cultural, environmental, aesthetic, educational, scientific, political, psychological, hygienic, and recreational foundations, with citizens as the core and principal assets of the city. Urban experts and administrators emphasize that a city is not merely a space for the aggregation of people, buildings, streets, vehicles, and infrastructure, but a living, dynamic organism that is continuously evolving [Ziari & Janbabanejad, 2012].
The transformations triggered by the Industrial Revolution brought about numerous challenges for cities, including population explosions, intensified density, housing shortages, poverty, the rupture of the human–nature relationship, air and noise pollution, motor-vehicle congestion, unsanitary slums, and declining standards of social well-being [Ziari & Janbabanejad, 2012]. Addressing these issues requires urban planning to focus on health, social welfare, and quality of life. Problems such as unemployment, pollution, inadequate housing, inequality, poverty, unsanitary environments, limited access to workplaces, shopping, and services, together with social stress and weakened collective cohesion, directly affect both physical and mental health, undermining quality of life.
Following the introduction of the “Healthy City” concept in 1986, the Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a pilot project aimed at improving public health. Initially involving only six cities, the “Healthy Cities Project” was launched in Lisbon in March 1986. From its inception, the project was increasingly adopted as a strategic framework for developing and implementing public health theories and practices [Dooris, 1999]. The results of the pilot were highly successful, leading to the expansion of the Healthy Cities approach across Europe and subsequently to other continents, evolving into a rapidly growing global movement [Tsouros, 1995]. Today, more than 2,000 cities worldwide have initiated measures under this framework.
In Iran, the Healthy City concept was introduced for the first time in November 1990 during a WHO conference in the Eastern Mediterranean region, where emphasis was placed on applying European experiences to regional countries. Lahore, Alexandria, and Tehran were selected as case examples. In line with this initiative, Tehran Municipality, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, Treatment, and Medical Education, organized the first “Healthy City Symposium” in December 1991, with the participation of experts, academics, and executive authorities [Tabyban, 1998]. One of its significant outcomes was the implementation of a pilot Healthy City project in Tehran’s 13 Aban neighborhood. Subsequently, the Ministry of Health expanded related research and operational activities across the country.
Despite decades of research and institutional efforts to define and operationalize the Healthy City concept and to assess urban health levels relative to other cities, the subject remains complex and ambiguous [Zarrabi et al., 2013]. The international community now recognizes that sustainable development requires not only economic growth but also emphasis on human rights, environmental stability, freedom, civic participation, and good governance, thereby ensuring social justice, strengthening civil society, and promoting successful development. Health is thus acknowledged as a fundamental public goal, attainable only through equitable access to health care and primary health services, particular attention to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, and the adoption of needs-based, community-driven interventions. Accordingly, it is essential to evaluate the formation of human settlements and dimensions of the Healthy City, encompassing environmental, social, cultural, economic, and sustainability aspects of urban development, while assessing their feasibility under the framework of Agenda 21 [United Nations, 1992].
Tehran, as the capital of Iran, has undergone rapid population and spatial growth that is scarcely comparable to many other cities worldwide. Consequently, its urban development pattern has been shaped less by integrated governance than by the cumulative pressures of diverse factors. The unregulated expansion of Tehran in recent decades has produced numerous challenges, including environmental degradation, water, air, and soil pollution, and the rise of physical and mental health disorders. These developments conflict with the principles of sustainable urban development and have confronted Tehran’s urban management with critical issues such as population density, housing shortages, environmental destruction, social conflicts, and deficiencies in infrastructure and services.
In this context, the present study first identifies the key indicators of the Healthy City and their respective impacts, then evaluates Tehran’s position relative to other selected Asian cities from the perspective of the Healthy City framework, and finally compares its urban areas according to these indicators
Methodology
This study is applied and comparative in nature, relying on library resources, documentary analysis, surveys, and field observations. The research was conducted in 2022 in the metropolitan area of Tehran. The statistical population consists of the entire metropolis and its 22 municipal districts. The research design comprises two main stages.
In the first stage, following the identification of Healthy City indicators, 20 qualified experts (holding postgraduate degrees and with a minimum of 10 years of relevant professional experience) were selected through purposive non-random sampling. A structured questionnaire was distributed among them, asking participants to evaluate the importance of each proposed criterion on a five-point Likert scale (5: very important; 4: important; 3: moderately important; 2: unimportant; 1: very unimportant). Using the fuzzy Delphi method and four iterative rounds of feedback, a set of 9 dimensions and 52 sub-dimensions of Healthy City indicators were finalized.
Subsequently, the Analytic Network Process (ANP) model based on DEMATEL was employed to determine the relative influence (weights) of each indicator and their interrelationships within the Healthy City framework.
In the second stage, the VIKOR ranking model was applied using the calculated weights. After computing the utility index (S), the dissatisfaction index (R), and the Q value, the results were ranked in descending order and presented in two phases. In the first phase, Tehran’s position among selected Asian cities was identified. In the second phase, each of the 22 districts of Tehran was ranked and prioritized to assess their significance in the city’s current condition.
Models Employed in the Study
Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (FANP): The Analytic Network Process, developed by Saaty in 1990, is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) technique categorized among compensatory models [Saaty, 1990; Chung et al., 2005]. Unlike hierarchical structures, ANP adopts a network-based structure, making it suitable for capturing interdependencies among criteria. In this study, fuzzy numbers were applied to enhance accuracy, hence the method was referred to as Fuzzy ANP. The ANP framework involves three key features applicable in MCDM problems: Defining objectives, criteria, and sub-criteria; determining interdependencies and constructing the network; and building and combining the supermatrix [Chang, 1992; Saaty, 1990].
VIKOR Technique: Developed by Opricovic and Tzeng for multi-criteria optimization of complex systems, VIKOR is one of the most widely used MCDM methods. It prioritizes available alternatives in a structured manner according to multiple criteria [Opricovic & Tzeng, 2007]
Findings
The findings revealed that the infrastructural and physical dimensions carried the greatest weights, whereas the health and hygiene as well as the social per capita dimensions had the lowest weights. Among the sub-dimensions, neighborhood-oriented planning (from the physical dimension) and equitable distribution of facilities per capita together with compliance with the network hierarchy (from the infrastructural dimension) had the highest influence on the Healthy City indicators. In contrast, child safety and elderly health status (from the safety dimension) exerted the least influence.
According to the results, the status of each research dimension in the Tehran metropolis and in the selected Asian cities was presented.
Tehran’s Position and Status Based on Healthy City Indicators
The results indicated that Kuala Lumpur ranked the highest, whereas Hong Kong ranked the lowest in terms of Healthy City indicators. Tehran was placed sixth in this ranking.
A comparative analysis of the Healthy City indicators between Tehran and the selected Asian cities revealed that all of Tehran’s indicator values were below the average of those cities. This comparison, based on the data obtained from the selected Asian cities and the weights calculated using the DANP method, illustrates that Tehran scored higher than average on negative indicators (e.g., number of polluted days, mortality due to traffic accidents), while scoring lower than average on positive indicators (e.g., per capita green space, individual income).
Prioritization of Tehran Districts Based on Healthy City Indicators
The analysis showed that District 22 ranked the highest in terms of Healthy City indicators, while District 10 ranked the lowest.
The GIS software outputs, based on Healthy City data, illustrate the distribution of green space per capita, access to public transportation, number of polluted days, population growth rate, availability of health services, percentage of deteriorated urban fabric, elderly population share, and youth population pyramid across Tehran’s 22 districts. Furthermore, the final outputs demonstrate the overall ranking of these districts regarding their level of compliance with Healthy City indicators.
Findings
The findings revealed that the infrastructural and physical dimensions carried the greatest weights, whereas the health and hygiene as well as the social per capita dimensions had the lowest weights. Among the sub-dimensions, neighborhood-oriented planning (from the physical dimension) and equitable distribution of facilities per capita together with compliance with the network hierarchy (from the infrastructural dimension) had the highest influence on the Healthy City indicators. In contrast, child safety and elderly health status (from the safety dimension) exerted the least influence.
Tehran’s Position and Status Based on Healthy City Indicators
The results indicated that Kuala Lumpur ranked the highest, whereas Hong Kong ranked the lowest in terms of Healthy City indicators. Tehran was placed sixth in this ranking.
A comparative analysis of the Healthy City indicators between Tehran and the selected Asian cities revealed that all of Tehran’s indicator values were below the average of those cities. This comparison, based on the data obtained from the selected Asian cities and the weights calculated using the DANP method, illustrates that Tehran scored higher than average on negative indicators (e.g., number of polluted days, mortality due to traffic accidents), while scoring lower than average on positive indicators (e.g., per capita green space, individual income).
Prioritization of Tehran Districts Based on Healthy City Indicators
The analysis showed that District 22 ranked the highest in terms of Healthy City indicators, while District 10 ranked the lowest.
The GIS software outputs, based on Healthy City data, illustrated the distribution of green space per capita, access to public transportation, number of polluted days, population growth rate, availability of health services, percentage of deteriorated urban fabric, elderly population share, and youth population pyramid across Tehran’s 22 districts. Furthermore, the final outputs demonstrate the overall ranking of these districts regarding their level of compliance with Healthy City indicators.
Conclusion
The Healthy City indicators in Tehran were found to be below the average levels observed in the selected Asian cities. Moreover, the 22 districts of Tehran were also identified to be in an unfavorable condition with respect to the Healthy City indicators.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to all faculty members of the Department of Geography, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: None declared by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Gholami Gh (First Author): Principal researcher/Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (50%); Sarvar R (Second Author): Methodologist (25%); Tavakolan A (Third Author): Statistical Analyst (25%)
Funding: This article is derived from the first author’s doctoral dissertation entitled “Strategic Analysis of Sustainable Urban Development with a Healthy City Approach (The 22 Districts of Tehran)”, conducted under the supervision of the second author and the consultation of the third author at the Faculty of Literature, Humanities, and Social Sciences, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, in 2023 (1402 in the Iranian calendar). All expenses of this study were covered by the first author.
References
1. Amanpor S, Mavaddat E (2015). Classification and assessment of the spatial the range of healthy sustainable urban development approach using techniques Entropy-VIKOR, TOPSIS and GIS (case study of Yazd province). Social Welfare Quarterly. 15(58):63-90. [Persian] [Link]
2. Chang D (1992). Extent analysis and synthetic decision, optimization techniques and applications. Singapore: World Scientific. 1:352. [Link]
3. Chung SH, Lee AH, Pearn WL (2005). Analytic network process (ANP) approach for product mix planning in semiconductor fabricator. International Journal of Production Economics. 96(1):15-36. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.02.006]
4. Lai KY, Webster C, Kumari S, Sarkar C (2020). The nature of cities and the Covid-19 pandemic. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 46:27-31. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.08.008]
5. Marsosi N, Akbari M, Hajipour N, Boustan ahmadi V (2022). Analysis of performance indicators in terms of healthy city in Khuzestan province city by using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Journal of Applied Researches in Geographical Sciences. 21(63):175-191. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.52547/jgs.21.63.175]
6. Mueller N, Rojas-Rueda D, Khreis H, Cirach M, Andrés D, Ballester J, et al (2020). Changing the urban design of cities for health: The superblock model. Environment International. 134:105132. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.envint.2019.105132]
7. Nazmfar H, Alibakshi A (2018). Measurement the rate of enjoyment cities of Khozestan province in terms of indicators of healthy city. Quarterly Journal of Environmental-based Territorial Planning. 11(42):23-42. [Persian] [Link]
8. Dooris M (1999). Healthy cities and local agenda 21: The UK experience chalenghs for the millennium. Health Promotion International. Oxford University Press. 14(4):365-375. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/heapro/14.4.365]
9. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research. 178(2):514-529. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020]
10. Rahimi M, Pazand F (2017). Evaluation quality of life Kerman city with the healthy city approach from the perspective of residents. Regional Planning Quarterly. 7(25):69-82. [Persian] [Link]
11. Rapoport E, Vernay A (2011). Defining the eco-city: A discursive approach. In: Management and Innovation for a Sustanable Built Environment. Canada: CIB Publication. [Link]
12. Saaty TL (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research. 48(1):9-26. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I]
13. Salimi Sobhan MR, Mansori K (2020). Analysis on healthy city approach and its indicators, case study: Shiraz. Quarterly of Geography & Regional Planning. 10(1):455-469. [Persian] [Link]
14. Shabani M, Alavi SA, Meshkini A, Salman Mahini AS (2019). Spatial evaluation of urban environment with green city approach (case study: Tehran metropolis). Human Geography Research. 51(1):111-127. [Persian] [Link]
15. Tabyban M (1998). Healthy city assessment project in Iran (case study of Aban 13). Journal of Environmental Studies. 20(0):61-74. [Persian] [Link]
16. Tsouros AD (1995). The WHO healthy cities project: State of the art and future plans. Health Promotion International. 10(2):133-141. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/heapro/10.2.133]
17. United Nations (1992). Agenda 21 [Internet]. New York: United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. [Link]
18. Wang X, Shi R, Wang T (2021). Research on the fuzzy evaluation of the livability of old urban communities using an analytic hierarchy process: Case study of Nanjing city in China. Open House International. 46(2):213-229. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/OHI-02-2021-0040]
19. Yassin HH (2019). Livable city: An approach to pedestrianization through tactical urbanism. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 58(1):251-259. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.aej.2019.02.005]
20. Zarrabi A, Ghadami M, Kanani MR (2013). Assessing the urban settlements with an approach of healthy city in Mazandaran province. Social Welfare Quarterly. 12(47):131-151. [Persian] [Link]
21. Ziari K, Janbabanejad MH (2012). Healthy city principles and criteria. Sepehr Geographical Journal. 21(82):50-56. [Persian] [Link]