Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 39, Issue 3 (2024)
GeoRes 2024, 39(3): 379-386 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2024/07/22 | Accepted: 2024/10/15 | Published: 2024/10/25
Received: 2024/07/22 | Accepted: 2024/10/15 | Published: 2024/10/25
How to cite this article
Payam H, Peyvastehgar Y, Mehboudi A. Explaining the Effects of Participatory Urban Planning in Increasing Livability and Quality of Urban Life. GeoRes 2024; 39 (3) :379-386
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1631-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1631-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 Architecture and Urban Planning, Yasuj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Yasuj, Iran
2- Department of Civil Engineering, Yasuj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Yasuj, Iran
2- Department of Civil Engineering, Yasuj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Yasuj, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (10 Views)
Background
The rapid growth of urbanization and the increasing urban population have led to numerous challenges affecting the quality of life for citizens. This has made it essential to focus on concepts such as livability and participatory urban planning in order to improve urban conditions, especially in cities like Yasuj.
Previous Studies
In recent years, various studies have been conducted on urban livability and quality of life. Mohrekesh et al. (2019) highlight the impact of physical indicators on economic livability. Parvizi et al. (2022) identify housing as the most influential and tourism as the least influential factor in livability. Alavi et al. (2021) have pointed to education, healthcare, and transportation as the most significant contributors to urban livability. Dalvand et al. (2021) emphasize the crucial role of livability in enhancing quality of life. Pourahmad et al. (2020) have reported poor livability conditions in central Tehran. Moreover, Venkatesh (2023) stresses the importance of participatory approaches in improving livability. These studies collectively suggest that a comprehensive analysis of physical, social, and managerial indicators is essential for improving livability and urban quality of life. However, there has been limited research specifically focusing on the city of Yasuj.
Aim(s)
The present study was conducted with the aim of explaining the effects of participatory urban planning on enhancing livability and the quality of urban life, using the city of Yasuj as a case study.
Research Type
This research was applied in terms of its objective.
Research Society, Place and Time
The statistical population of this research included all experts, specialists, and university professors active in the field of participatory urban planning. The study was conducted in Yasuj, the capital city of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province. The research was carried out in the year 2023.
Sampling Method and Number
This study employed purposeful sampling. The statistical population included all experts, specialists, and university professors in the field of participatory urban planning, from which 23 individuals were purposefully selected as the sample. This selection method ensured that respondents possessed relevant expertise related to the research topic.
Used Devices & Materials
The main data collection tool in this study was a questionnaire based on pairwise comparisons. After the initial design, the questionnaire was reviewed by several experts and elites to assess its validity, and it was finalized upon their approval. The reliability of the questionnaire was measured using Cronbach's alpha test, which yielded a value of 0.85, indicating good internal consistency among the questions. The collected data were analyzed using Excel software, and the DEMATEL decision-making method was employed for data analysis.
Findings by Text
In this study, the DEMATEL method was used to analyze the causal relationships among the participatory urban planning criteria. The final analysis results showed that among the five main criteria including Participation, Supervision, Awareness, Cohesion, and Trust, the criterion of Trust was identified as the most important and influential factor with the highest D+R vector value of 4.766. Conversely, Awareness and Cohesion were recognized as effect factors with negative values in the D−R vector, at −0.854 and −0.252 respectively, while Participation and Supervision had positive values in the same vector and were considered causal factors in the participatory urban planning process (Table 1).
Table 1: Analysis of factors using the DEMATEL method
At the indicator level, within the Participation criterion, cultural participation had the greatest influence with a D−R value of 0.749, and participation in selecting city managers was the most affected indicator with a D−R of −0.433. For Supervision, monitoring city council activities was the causal indicator (D−R = 1.076), and monitoring project feedback and performance was the effect indicator (D−R = −0.642). In Awareness, awareness of ideas and suggestions was the most influential, while awareness of city manager decision-making was the most affected. Within Cohesion, the existence of participatory values had the highest influence (D−R = 1.354), and cohesive cooperation showed the greatest effect (D−R = −0.926). Finally, in Trust, confidence in city council decisions was the causal indicator, and trust in related institutions, with D−R = −1.174, was the effect indicator (Table 2). These findings suggest that strengthening causal indicators in the domains of Participation, Cohesion, and Trust can improve the efficiency of participatory urban planning processes.
Table2: Analysis of indicators within each criterion using the DEMATEL method
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
Compared to similar studies, the present research takes a distinct approach by focusing on participatory urban planning as a key factor in enhancing livability and urban quality of life. For instance, Mohrekesh et al. (2019) have emphasized the impact of physical indicators on economic livability, whereas this study highlights participatory urban planning as a crucial contributor to livability. Despite sharing the concept of livability as a dependent parameter with the study of Parvizi et al. (2022), the present research diverges by focusing on participatory parameters. Other studies, such as those by Alavi et al. (2021) and Dalvand et al. (2021), have concentrated on the ranking and modeling of livability, but they differ significantly in terms of methodology and objective. In contrast to most previous research, this study applies the DEMATEL technique to simultaneously analyze the three components of participatory urban planning, livability, and urban quality of life, thereby filling an important research gap [Deep, 2023; Venkatesh, 2023].
Suggestions
To enhance urban livability through participatory planning, key recommendations include increasing public involvement via meetings and digital platforms, ensuring transparency in decision-making, fostering collaboration among stakeholders, using smart technologies for urban management, and promoting community engagement through local organizations and shared public spaces.
Conclusion
In terms of participatory urban planning variables, trust-related factors have shown a greater impact, while oversight-related factors have had a lesser influence on urban livability and quality of life. Moreover, sub-indicators such as participation in selecting urban managers, monitoring project feedback and performance, awareness of managerial decision-making, coordinated collaboration, and trust in related institutions have contributed to a decline in urban livability and quality of life.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to sincerely thank the experienced urban planning experts and municipal managers whose collaboration greatly contributed to this study.
Ethical Approval: The authors have no ethical issues to report.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Author Contributions: Payam H (First Author), Main Researcher (60%); Peyvastehgar Y (Second Author), Introduction Writer/Methodologist (30%); Mahboudi A (Third Author), Statistical Analyst (10%)
Funding: This article is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author, titled "Explaining the Effects of Participatory Urban Planning on Enhancing Urban Livability and Quality of Life: A Case Study of Yasuj City." All research expenses were covered by the first author.
The rapid growth of urbanization and the increasing urban population have led to numerous challenges affecting the quality of life for citizens. This has made it essential to focus on concepts such as livability and participatory urban planning in order to improve urban conditions, especially in cities like Yasuj.
Previous Studies
In recent years, various studies have been conducted on urban livability and quality of life. Mohrekesh et al. (2019) highlight the impact of physical indicators on economic livability. Parvizi et al. (2022) identify housing as the most influential and tourism as the least influential factor in livability. Alavi et al. (2021) have pointed to education, healthcare, and transportation as the most significant contributors to urban livability. Dalvand et al. (2021) emphasize the crucial role of livability in enhancing quality of life. Pourahmad et al. (2020) have reported poor livability conditions in central Tehran. Moreover, Venkatesh (2023) stresses the importance of participatory approaches in improving livability. These studies collectively suggest that a comprehensive analysis of physical, social, and managerial indicators is essential for improving livability and urban quality of life. However, there has been limited research specifically focusing on the city of Yasuj.
Aim(s)
The present study was conducted with the aim of explaining the effects of participatory urban planning on enhancing livability and the quality of urban life, using the city of Yasuj as a case study.
Research Type
This research was applied in terms of its objective.
Research Society, Place and Time
The statistical population of this research included all experts, specialists, and university professors active in the field of participatory urban planning. The study was conducted in Yasuj, the capital city of Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province. The research was carried out in the year 2023.
Sampling Method and Number
This study employed purposeful sampling. The statistical population included all experts, specialists, and university professors in the field of participatory urban planning, from which 23 individuals were purposefully selected as the sample. This selection method ensured that respondents possessed relevant expertise related to the research topic.
Used Devices & Materials
The main data collection tool in this study was a questionnaire based on pairwise comparisons. After the initial design, the questionnaire was reviewed by several experts and elites to assess its validity, and it was finalized upon their approval. The reliability of the questionnaire was measured using Cronbach's alpha test, which yielded a value of 0.85, indicating good internal consistency among the questions. The collected data were analyzed using Excel software, and the DEMATEL decision-making method was employed for data analysis.
Findings by Text
In this study, the DEMATEL method was used to analyze the causal relationships among the participatory urban planning criteria. The final analysis results showed that among the five main criteria including Participation, Supervision, Awareness, Cohesion, and Trust, the criterion of Trust was identified as the most important and influential factor with the highest D+R vector value of 4.766. Conversely, Awareness and Cohesion were recognized as effect factors with negative values in the D−R vector, at −0.854 and −0.252 respectively, while Participation and Supervision had positive values in the same vector and were considered causal factors in the participatory urban planning process (Table 1).
Table 1: Analysis of factors using the DEMATEL method
At the indicator level, within the Participation criterion, cultural participation had the greatest influence with a D−R value of 0.749, and participation in selecting city managers was the most affected indicator with a D−R of −0.433. For Supervision, monitoring city council activities was the causal indicator (D−R = 1.076), and monitoring project feedback and performance was the effect indicator (D−R = −0.642). In Awareness, awareness of ideas and suggestions was the most influential, while awareness of city manager decision-making was the most affected. Within Cohesion, the existence of participatory values had the highest influence (D−R = 1.354), and cohesive cooperation showed the greatest effect (D−R = −0.926). Finally, in Trust, confidence in city council decisions was the causal indicator, and trust in related institutions, with D−R = −1.174, was the effect indicator (Table 2). These findings suggest that strengthening causal indicators in the domains of Participation, Cohesion, and Trust can improve the efficiency of participatory urban planning processes.
Table2: Analysis of indicators within each criterion using the DEMATEL method
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
Compared to similar studies, the present research takes a distinct approach by focusing on participatory urban planning as a key factor in enhancing livability and urban quality of life. For instance, Mohrekesh et al. (2019) have emphasized the impact of physical indicators on economic livability, whereas this study highlights participatory urban planning as a crucial contributor to livability. Despite sharing the concept of livability as a dependent parameter with the study of Parvizi et al. (2022), the present research diverges by focusing on participatory parameters. Other studies, such as those by Alavi et al. (2021) and Dalvand et al. (2021), have concentrated on the ranking and modeling of livability, but they differ significantly in terms of methodology and objective. In contrast to most previous research, this study applies the DEMATEL technique to simultaneously analyze the three components of participatory urban planning, livability, and urban quality of life, thereby filling an important research gap [Deep, 2023; Venkatesh, 2023].
Suggestions
To enhance urban livability through participatory planning, key recommendations include increasing public involvement via meetings and digital platforms, ensuring transparency in decision-making, fostering collaboration among stakeholders, using smart technologies for urban management, and promoting community engagement through local organizations and shared public spaces.
Conclusion
In terms of participatory urban planning variables, trust-related factors have shown a greater impact, while oversight-related factors have had a lesser influence on urban livability and quality of life. Moreover, sub-indicators such as participation in selecting urban managers, monitoring project feedback and performance, awareness of managerial decision-making, coordinated collaboration, and trust in related institutions have contributed to a decline in urban livability and quality of life.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to sincerely thank the experienced urban planning experts and municipal managers whose collaboration greatly contributed to this study.
Ethical Approval: The authors have no ethical issues to report.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Author Contributions: Payam H (First Author), Main Researcher (60%); Peyvastehgar Y (Second Author), Introduction Writer/Methodologist (30%); Mahboudi A (Third Author), Statistical Analyst (10%)
Funding: This article is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author, titled "Explaining the Effects of Participatory Urban Planning on Enhancing Urban Livability and Quality of Life: A Case Study of Yasuj City." All research expenses were covered by the first author.
References
1. Alavi SA, Samadi M, Banari S (2021). Measuring and rating the rate of livability of urban neighborhood (case study of region 6 in Tehran). Economic Geography Research. 2(4):51-63. [Persian] [Link]
2. Alharbi HAK (2024). Urban development in Riyadh: Aligning with Saudi vision 2030 for enhanced quality of life. Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International. 28(4):53-66. [Link] [DOI:10.9734/jgeesi/2024/v28i4764]
3. Allsopp D, Eskelson SL, Van Ingen Lauer S, Hinton J, Farmer J, Hughes EK (2024). Collaborative planning: The critical foundation for successful math interventions. Teaching Exceptional Children. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/00400599241242326]
4. Altrock U (2022). Urban livability in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods: The experience of the German program "socially integrative city". Frontiers of Architectural Research. 11(5):783-794. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.foar.2021.12.006]
5. Çelik F, Jaiyeoba BE (2023). The contributions of the green areas in residence immediate environment on quality of urban life. SAGE Open. 13(4). [Link] [DOI:10.1177/21582440231220092]
6. Dalvand H, Shaterian M, Haidary R (2021). Structural modeling of livability effect on quality of life based on the public survey case study: Dorud City. Journal Sustainable City. 4(1):71-86. [Persian] [Link]
7. Deep G (2023). Evaluating the impact of community engagement in urban planning on sustainable development. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 20(3):1633-1638. [Link] [DOI:10.30574/wjarr.2023.20.3.2453]
8. Filho WL, Tuladhar L, Li C, Balogun ALB, Kovaleva M, Abubakar IR, et al (2022). Climate change and extremes: Implications on city livability and associated health risks across the globe. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. 15(1):1-19. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2021-0078]
9. Ghanbari A, Karimzadeh S, Taraneh S (2022). Evaluating the quality of urban life using remote sensing and GIS-Case study: District number 1 and 2 of Zahedan. Scientific-Research Quarterly of Geographical Data (SEPEHR). 31(121):93-110. [Persian] [Link]
10. Hargreaves AJ, Farmani R, Ward S, Butler D (2019). Modelling the future impacts of urban spatial planning on the viability of alternative water supply. Water Research. 162:200-213. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.watres.2019.06.029]
11. Hilde TW, Ganning JP, Kellogg WA, Rubado ME (2024). Collaborative planning in the context of deindustrialization: A qualitative evaluation of comparative cases in Northeast Ohio. Urban Affairs Review. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/10780874241243033]
12. Jun S, Yoon J, Park J, Jung J (2021). A scoping review of urban livability indicators. Journal of the Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation. 21(5):281-292. [Korean] [Link] [DOI:10.9798/KOSHAM.2021.21.5.281]
13. Khalil HAE, Ibrahim A, Elgendy N, Makhlouf N (2022). Enhancing livability in informal areas: A participatory approach to improve urban microclimate in outdoor spaces. Sustainability. 14(11):6395. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su14116395]
14. Li J, Hui Q, Fei R, Qian G, Liu J, He R, et al (2023). Evaluation of urban livability-A case study of Kunming City, China. In: Sustainable development of water and environment. Cham: Springer. p. 263-277. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-42588-2_22]
15. Liu Z (2024). Using roof garden to alleviate urbanization problems: A case study of Chengdu city. Applied and Computational Engineering. 58(1):85-93. [Link] [DOI:10.54254/2755-2721/58/20240698]
16. Long Y, Wu Y, Huang L, Aleksejeva J, Iossifova D, Dong N, et al (2024). Assessing urban livability in Shanghai through an open source data-driven approach. NPJ Urban Sustainability. 4(1):7. [Link] [DOI:10.1038/s42949-024-00146-z]
17. Mahanta A, Borgohain P (2022). Urban livability and contextual uncertainties: An assessment of livability through the lens of urban dwellers in Guwahati, India. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development. 6(1). [Link] [DOI:10.24294/jipd.v6i1.1395]
18. Mohrekesh R, Saberi H, Momeni M, Azani M (2019). Explaining the effective factors on livability of urban areas of Isfahan. Geographical Urban Planning Research. 7(2):411-429. [Persian] [Link]
19. Parvizi R, Molaei Hashjin N, Ghoreishi M (2022). Evaluation of physical indicators affecting livability. Urban Planning Knowledge. 6(3):139-153. [Persian] [Link]
20. Peterek M, Restrepo Rico S, Hebbo Y, Reichhardt U (2019). Collaborative planning for sustainable urban infrastructure in Frankfurt am Main. Technical Transactions. 8:31-50. [Polish] [Link] [DOI:10.4467/2353737XCT.19.079.10858]
21. Pourahmad A, Abdali Y, Allah Golipour S (2020). Spatial analysis of the impact of favorable governance on urban livability (case study: Crime hot spots of regions 11 and 12 in Tehran). Journals Management System. 10(2):83-104. [Persian] [Link]
22. Raynor K, Doyon A, Beer T (2018). Collaborative planning, transitions management and design thinking: Evaluating three participatory approaches to urban planning. Australian Planner. 54(4):215-224. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/07293682.2018.1477812]
23. Rong S, Meng R, Guo J, Cui P, Qiao Z (2024). Multi-vehicle collaborative planning technology under automatic driving. Sustainability. 16(11):1-18. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su16114578]
24. Rypl O, Macků K, Pászto V (2024). The quality of life in Czech rural and urban spaces. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 11:43. [Link] [DOI:10.1057/s41599-023-02423-1]
25. Sadighi Aqdas A, Ezatpanah B, Beygbabaye B (2020). Explaining the viability of the central part of Tabriz metropolis with a foresight approach. Geography & Regional Planning. 10(2-2):547-565. [Persian] [Link]
26. Sargolzai S, Hadyani Z, Ghasemi S, Kashefidust D, Poudineh S (2021). Investigating the role of social participation in the livability of cities (case study: Zahedan City). Urban Futurology. 1(1):54-71. [Persian] [Link]
27. Shahbazi S, Nematollahi M, Nabian N (2023). Morphology of the urban phenomenon and its relation with urban livability. International Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology. 10:99-115. [Link] [DOI:10.15377/2409-9821.2023.10.8]
28. Shi C, Guo N, Zeng L, Wu F (2022). How climate change is going to affect urban livability in China. Climate Services. 26:100284. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100284]
29. 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]
30. Taleshi Anbohi M, Aghaeizadeh E, Jafari Mehrabadi M (2019). Assessment on livability of urban deteriorated fabrics: A case study of Qazvin. Sustainable City. 2(3):59-78. [Persian] [Link]
31. UN Habitat (2024). World cities report 2024: Cities and climate action. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. [Link]
32. Venkatesh AK (2023). Attaining liveability through participatory urban planning: A comparative study of two Brazilian cities. STHALA-A Journal of Architecture, Interior Design, Urban Design and Planning. 3:51-58. [Link]
33. Wang Y, Miao Z (2022). Towards the analysis of urban livability in China: Spatial-temporal changes, regional types, and influencing factors. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 29(40):60153-60172. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11356-022-20092-6]
34. Westerink J, Kempenaar A, Van Lierop M, Vanden Brink A (2016). The participating government: Shifting boundaries in collaborative spatial planning of urban regions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 35(1):147-168. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0263774X16646770]
35. Wolniak R, Jonek-Kowalska I (2020). The level of the quality of life in the city and its monitoring. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. 34(3):376-398. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/13511610.2020.1828049]