Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 39, Issue 3 (2024)
GeoRes 2024, 39(3): 319-327 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2024/06/3 | Accepted: 2024/09/7 | Published: 2024/09/30
Received: 2024/06/3 | Accepted: 2024/09/7 | Published: 2024/09/30
How to cite this article
Ahmadi Bonakdar M, Saghatoleslami A, Seyedolhoseini S, Daneshvar M. Effect of Urban Planning Components of Social Housing on Social Sustainability. GeoRes 2024; 39 (3) :319-327
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1619-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1619-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 Urban Planning, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (12 Views)
Background:
The rapid urbanization and migration from rural to urban areas have significantly altered settlement patterns, transitioning from extended family structures to independent households. Addressing the housing needs of low-income groups has become a critical challenge for governments worldwide. Inadequate attention to urban planning in social housing projects has resulted in unsuitable living conditions and unmet resident needs, exacerbating social instability, inequality, and reduced quality of life.
Previous Studies:
Social housing initiatives have a historical backdrop tied to the post-industrial and post-war eras, emphasizing affordable housing to alleviate social challenges. Research by Salavrazizadeh et al. (2021) identified urbanization growth and inflation as critical factors in developing social housing, while Safari et al. (2023) emphasize equitable location selection and management strategies for housing projects. Studies by Kiani Salami et al. (2019) revealed dissatisfaction with the social and physical attributes of housing units, and Saghaei et al. (2020) highlight that policies often fail to meet the housing needs of low-income groups effectively.
Internationally, Lopes et al. (2023) have explored the impact of accessibility improvements in social housing projects in Lisbon, finding a direct correlation between housing location and residents' quality of life. Manzo and Grove (2024) have discussed inadequate maintenance in social housing and its negative implications for health in Dublin, emphasizing the need for policy adjustments. Similarly, Kutsalo (2024) examine how Spain’s policies for integrating environmental sustainability into social housing improved community cohesion.
Despite this body of work, existing research has seldom evaluated urban planning components’ direct influence on social sustainability using mixed quantitative approaches. This study addresses this gap by focusing on practical urban planning parameters, including housing sustainability, spatial efficiency, and social inclusion, within the context of the Mehr Housing Project in Torbat Jam.
Aim(s):
This study aims to evaluate the impact of urban planning components in social housing on enhancing social sustainability, focusing on the Mehr Housing Project in Torbat Jam. The study investigates key factors, such as housing sustainability, spatial efficiency, and social inclusion, and their effects on creating sustainable social environments.
Research Type:
This applied research employed a descriptive-analytical approach using quantitative methods to assess the relationships between urban planning parameters and social sustainability.
Research Society, Place and Time:
The research targeted the residents of Torbat Jam district, comprising a population of 267,671 individuals according to the latest census. The study focused on the Mehr Housing Project in Torbat Jam, a town in the Khorasan Razavi province of Iran. Data collection and analysis were conducted in 2024.
Sampling Method and Number:
Using Cochran’s formula, a sample size of 383 respondents was determined. Participants were randomly selected from the available population. The data collection instrument was a questionnaire validated by experts, achieving a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of 0.989.
Used Devices & Materials:
The study utilized a Likert-scale questionnaire to measure perceptions of urban planning components. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 and the Dimetel technique for pairwise comparison of parameters. Geographic and demographic data of Torbat Jam were referenced for contextual analysis.
Findings by Text:
The study identified four major urban planning parameters positively influencing social sustainability: Housing sustainability, social inclusion, access to adequate housing, and spatial efficiency. Negative impacts were associated with modern technology adoption and poor participation in housing construction.
Dimetel analysis revealed varying degrees of influence among components. For instance, recycled material usage showed a high positive effect on sustainability (D-R = 0.84), while environmental compatibility scored negatively (D-R = -0.33). Spatial productivity parameters, including optimal land use, indicated significant impacts (D-R = 1.23; Table 1).
Table 1. Dimetel Analysis of FacAtors and Indicators
Statistical analysis using single-sample T-tests affirmed the significance of all urban planning parameters in enhancing social sustainability, with p-values < 0.05 across indicators (Table 2).
Table 2. Single-Sample T-Test for Significance of Differences in Research Indicators
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies:
Unlike previous research focused on qualitative assessments or specific regions, this study integrates quantitative Dimetel and T-test methods to evaluate social housing’s sustainability factors comprehensively. While Salavrazizadeh et al. (2021) emphasize broader urbanization trends, the current research prioritized actionable urban planning components, distinguishing its approach. Safari et al. (2023) focuse on sociological and qualitative policy assessments, differing in methodological and analytical scope. Studies by Kiani Salami et al. (2019) and Saghaei et al. (2020) center on resident satisfaction within specific housing projects, without broader sustainability analyses. International comparisons, such as those by Manzo and Grove (2024), highlight the health implications of inadequate housing, while Lopes et al. (2023) assess accessibility impacts in urban Lisbon. By incorporating mixed-method quantitative approaches, the present research provided a robust evaluation framework not previously applied in this context.
Suggestions:
The rapid urbanization and migration from rural to urban areas have significantly altered settlement patterns, transitioning from extended family structures to independent households. Addressing the housing needs of low-income groups has become a critical challenge for governments worldwide. Inadequate attention to urban planning in social housing projects has resulted in unsuitable living conditions and unmet resident needs, exacerbating social instability, inequality, and reduced quality of life.
Previous Studies:
Social housing initiatives have a historical backdrop tied to the post-industrial and post-war eras, emphasizing affordable housing to alleviate social challenges. Research by Salavrazizadeh et al. (2021) identified urbanization growth and inflation as critical factors in developing social housing, while Safari et al. (2023) emphasize equitable location selection and management strategies for housing projects. Studies by Kiani Salami et al. (2019) revealed dissatisfaction with the social and physical attributes of housing units, and Saghaei et al. (2020) highlight that policies often fail to meet the housing needs of low-income groups effectively.
Internationally, Lopes et al. (2023) have explored the impact of accessibility improvements in social housing projects in Lisbon, finding a direct correlation between housing location and residents' quality of life. Manzo and Grove (2024) have discussed inadequate maintenance in social housing and its negative implications for health in Dublin, emphasizing the need for policy adjustments. Similarly, Kutsalo (2024) examine how Spain’s policies for integrating environmental sustainability into social housing improved community cohesion.
Despite this body of work, existing research has seldom evaluated urban planning components’ direct influence on social sustainability using mixed quantitative approaches. This study addresses this gap by focusing on practical urban planning parameters, including housing sustainability, spatial efficiency, and social inclusion, within the context of the Mehr Housing Project in Torbat Jam.
Aim(s):
This study aims to evaluate the impact of urban planning components in social housing on enhancing social sustainability, focusing on the Mehr Housing Project in Torbat Jam. The study investigates key factors, such as housing sustainability, spatial efficiency, and social inclusion, and their effects on creating sustainable social environments.
Research Type:
This applied research employed a descriptive-analytical approach using quantitative methods to assess the relationships between urban planning parameters and social sustainability.
Research Society, Place and Time:
The research targeted the residents of Torbat Jam district, comprising a population of 267,671 individuals according to the latest census. The study focused on the Mehr Housing Project in Torbat Jam, a town in the Khorasan Razavi province of Iran. Data collection and analysis were conducted in 2024.
Sampling Method and Number:
Using Cochran’s formula, a sample size of 383 respondents was determined. Participants were randomly selected from the available population. The data collection instrument was a questionnaire validated by experts, achieving a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of 0.989.
Used Devices & Materials:
The study utilized a Likert-scale questionnaire to measure perceptions of urban planning components. Data were analyzed using SPSS 20 and the Dimetel technique for pairwise comparison of parameters. Geographic and demographic data of Torbat Jam were referenced for contextual analysis.
Findings by Text:
The study identified four major urban planning parameters positively influencing social sustainability: Housing sustainability, social inclusion, access to adequate housing, and spatial efficiency. Negative impacts were associated with modern technology adoption and poor participation in housing construction.
Dimetel analysis revealed varying degrees of influence among components. For instance, recycled material usage showed a high positive effect on sustainability (D-R = 0.84), while environmental compatibility scored negatively (D-R = -0.33). Spatial productivity parameters, including optimal land use, indicated significant impacts (D-R = 1.23; Table 1).
Table 1. Dimetel Analysis of FacAtors and Indicators
Statistical analysis using single-sample T-tests affirmed the significance of all urban planning parameters in enhancing social sustainability, with p-values < 0.05 across indicators (Table 2).
Table 2. Single-Sample T-Test for Significance of Differences in Research Indicators
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies:
Unlike previous research focused on qualitative assessments or specific regions, this study integrates quantitative Dimetel and T-test methods to evaluate social housing’s sustainability factors comprehensively. While Salavrazizadeh et al. (2021) emphasize broader urbanization trends, the current research prioritized actionable urban planning components, distinguishing its approach. Safari et al. (2023) focuse on sociological and qualitative policy assessments, differing in methodological and analytical scope. Studies by Kiani Salami et al. (2019) and Saghaei et al. (2020) center on resident satisfaction within specific housing projects, without broader sustainability analyses. International comparisons, such as those by Manzo and Grove (2024), highlight the health implications of inadequate housing, while Lopes et al. (2023) assess accessibility impacts in urban Lisbon. By incorporating mixed-method quantitative approaches, the present research provided a robust evaluation framework not previously applied in this context.
Suggestions:
- Establish diverse recreational spaces such as parks and local plazas.
- Enhance housing quality through modern construction standards, incorporating green spaces.
- Introduce community-centric urban spaces like marketplaces and plazas to foster social interaction.
- Implement safety measures to enhance residents' psychological and social security.
- Develop educational and cultural centers within proximity to housing units.
Conclusion:
Key urban planning components such as housing sustainability, location, and land use significantly enhance social sustainability in social housing projects. However, challenges such as inadequate spatial efficiency and reliance on modern technology without proper integration hinder progress.
Acknowledgments: The authors extend their sincere gratitude to the experienced urban planners and city managers who supported them during this study.
Ethical Approval: No ethical concerns were reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Author Contributions: Ahmadi Bonakdar MA (First Author), Introduction Writer/discussion Writer/Methodologist (45%); Saghatoleslami A (Second Author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Seyedolhoseini SM (Third Author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Daneshvar M (Fourth Author): Introduction Writer/ Methodologist (15%)
Funding: This article is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author, titled "Developing Influential Components in Urban Planning and Design for Social Housing to Enhance Social Sustainability: A Case Study of Mehr Housing Project in Torbat Jam." The research costs were fully covered by the first author.
Keywords:
References
1. Al-Jaberi AA (2020). Urban planning ideas and concepts that influenced the development of new urbanism movement. Urban Studies. 2:41-61. [Russian] [Link] [DOI:10.7256/2310-8673.2020.2.32838]
2. Barzgar S, Ghorbani A (2019). Satisfaction survey of Mehr housing project from the perspective of social sustainability case study: Mehr housing in Gorgan. Journal of the Society of Iran's Social Problems. 8(1). [Link]
3. Chung SH, Kim JH (2023). The spatial analysis and enhancement of social housing in Seoul. Buildings. 13(10):2643. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/buildings13102643]
4. Grzegowski FC, Diniz LN (2021). Sustainability and social interest housing. Electronic Journal Environmental Forum of Alta Paulista. 17(6). [Link] [DOI:10.17271/1980082717620213072]
5. Guneralp B, Lwasa S, Masundire H, Parnell S, Seto KC (2017). Urbanization in Africa: Challenges and opportunities for conservation. Environmental Research Letters. 13:015002. [Link] [DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/aa94fe]
6. Inglez De Souza DB (2022). The history of the Cité Balzac and the vicious circle of social housing. Cidades. 2022(Sp22):89-101. [Link] [DOI:10.15847/cct.25029]
7. Johnson MC, Zweig JA, Zhang Y, Ryabinin AE (2024). Effects of social housing on alcohol intake in mice depend on the non-social environment. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 18:1380031. [Link] [DOI:10.3389/fnbeh.2024.1380031]
8. Kern AP, Netto VM, Cantarino J, De Mendonça MF, Schneck E, Pires J, et al (2023). Urban, environmental and habitability parameters for social housing. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental. 17(10):e03617. [Link] [DOI:10.24857/rgsa.v17n10-024]
9. Khayal OMES (2024). Urban planning in Sudan: Social and economic urbanization factors and their effects on local population. Saarbrücken: Noor Publishing. [Link]
10. Kiani Salami S, Shaterian M, Ghanbari R (2019). Modeling and assessment the social and physical effects of Mehr housing views of residents (case study: Mehr Housing of Kashan). Journal of Studies of Human Settlements Planning. 14(2):441-456. [Persian] [Link]
11. Kutsalo O (2024). Principles of social housing development in Spain. Proceedings of the 5th International Scientific and Practical Conference «Concepts for the Development of Society's Scientific Potential». Prague: InterConf. [Link] [DOI:10.51582/interconf.19-20.01.2024.065]
12. Lebrun-Harris LA, Sandel M, Sheward R, Poblacion A, Ettinger De Cuba S (2024). Prevalence and correlates of unstable housing among US children. JAMA Pediatrics. 178(7):707-717. [Link] [DOI:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.1159]
13. Li D (2023). Social housing as a multi-functional tool: Understanding the social housing expansion in Nanjing, China. Belgeo. 4(4). [Link] [DOI:10.4000/belgeo.65206]
14. Lopes F, Figueiredo L, Gil J, Trigueiro E (2023). Evaluating the impact of social housing policies: Measuring accessibility changes when individuals move to social housing projects. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/23998083231218774]
15. Madisha MG, Khumalo P (2024). Intergovernmental relations and implementation of social housing policy in Gauteng Province, South Africa. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science. 13(4):388-402. [Link] [DOI:10.20525/ijrbs.v13i4.3257]
16. Malpass P (2014). Histories of social housing: A comparative approach. In: Social Housing in Europe. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/9781118412367.ch15]
17. Mammadova F, Fatahova N, Mammadov S, Gasimov R, Aliyev S (2024). Governmental management of social housing as an element of state social policy: Bibliometric analysis. Problems and Perspectives in Management. 22(2):502-517. [Link] [DOI:10.21511/ppm.22(2).2024.39]
18. Manzo LKC, Grove H (2024). Inadequate social housing and health: The case of Oliver Bond House in inner-city Dublin. Open Research Europe. 3:211. [Link] [DOI:10.12688/openreseurope.16767.2]
19. Muftakhova A (2017). Social inequality in housing and problems of modern housing policy. Urban Studies. 4:86-93. [Russian] [Link]
20. Murguía Gutiérrez DA (2021). Social housing and sustainability: A case study of Leon, Mexico [dissertation]. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh. [Link]
21. NAQSH AVGUN Consulting Engineers (2018). Development and construction (comprehensive) plan of Torbat Jam city [Internet]. Mashhad: NAQSH AVGUN Consulting Engineers [cited 2024,Sep,25]. Available from: https://keca.ir. [Persian] [Link]
22. Ogienko E (2024). Affordable housing in Russia, Europe, and USA in the 5-18th centuries. Journal of Construction and Architecture. 26(2):48-60. [Russian] [Link] [DOI:10.31675/1607-1859-2024-26-2-48-60]
23. Prajapati MB, Patel F, Patel RB, Chatwani MJ (2024). Urbanization, challenges and planning with special reference to India: Implications and GOI initiatives. Educational Administration Theory and Practice Journal. 30(4):3994-4003. [Link]
24. Rogozhina NG (2020). Environmental challenges of urbanization in Southeast Asia. Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law. 13(1):102-118. [Link] [DOI:10.23932/2542-0240-2020-13-1-6]
25. Rudakov DI (2023). Concepts of "housing", "social housing," and "affordable housing" according to the civil legislation of Ukraine. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence. 2:134-138. [Ukrainian] [Link] [DOI:10.24144/2788-6018.2023.02.22]
26. Safari A, Mohammadian M, Rasoulzadeh Aghdam S (2023). Sociological explanation of the development policies of the government in the housing sector of the vulnerable sections of the urban and rural society of Ardabil province. Sociological Urban Studies. 13(47):120-157. [Persian] [Link]
27. Saghaei M, Mozdeni A, Sanaei Rad A (2020). Evaluation of social housing and the effective factors in housing provision for low-income classes (a case study: Eslamshahr). Geography. 17(63):179-195. [Persian] [Link]
28. Salavrazizadeh M, Sheikhi H, Hatami S (2021). Identification and analysis of key factors affecting the development of social housing with emphasis on foresight (case study: Ilam City). Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement. 11(39):199-224. [Persian] [Link]
29. Savelev A (2022). Housing affordability as a social problem of Russian society: Assessment of the population and experts (on the material of the city of Kazan). UROVEN' ZHIZNI NASELENIYA REGIONOV ROSSII. 18(3):378-391. [Russian] [Link] [DOI:10.19181/lsprr.2022.18.3.9]
30. Sheina S, Gladysheva O, Fedorovskaya A (2024). Urban planning analysis: Pre-design stage of the concept for the development of public spaces. BIO Web of Conferences. 84:05042. [Link] [DOI:10.1051/bioconf/20248405042]
31. Singh RP, Dhakal J (2024). Problems and prospects of urbanization in Kathmandu valley. International Journal of Atharva. 2(1):19-33. [Link] [DOI:10.3126/ija.v2i1.62821]
32. Stepanova O, Romanov M (2021). Urban planning as a strategy to implement social sustainability policy goals? The case of temporary housing for immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden. Sustainability. 13(4):1720. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su13041720]
33. Valizadeh R, Dadashpour Moghadam M (2019). Urban design and planning methods for sustainable development. Shabak Scientific Journal. 5(7):49-60. [Persian] [Link]
34. Veluru VRK, Karki TK (2023). Enhancing social sustainability in a social housing project in India. Journal of Advanced Zoology. 44(S5):1304-1313. [Link] [DOI:10.17762/jaz.v44iS-5.1213]
35. Winters S (2023). Turbulent times for Flemish social housing. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 38(2):2659-2668. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10901-023-10063-9]
36. Yao P, Tan F (2019). Urban planning and design based on the concept of ecological city. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 612(5):052025. [Link] [DOI:10.1088/1757-899X/612/5/052025]
37. Yu T, Shen GQ, Shi Q, Zheng HW, Wang G, Xu K (2017). Evaluating social sustainability of urban housing demolition in Shanghai, China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 153:26-40. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.005]