Volume 36, Issue 4 (2021)
GeoRes 2021, 36(4): 347-362 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2021/04/22 | Accepted: 2021/05/24 | Published: 2021/12/21
Received: 2021/04/22 | Accepted: 2021/05/24 | Published: 2021/12/21
Rights and permissions
1- Department of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract (2353 Views)
Aims: It is not clear what the mechanism of government intervention in the process of urban development has been, which has provided the grounds for the activation of other mercenary forces and has left the following undesirable consequences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explain the role of government in the development of the suburban area from the perspective of the pathology of its maps and tasks.
Methodology: The present descriptive study was conducted in 2020 in Sanandaj. Using a Mixed method, the research data are divided into three main axes: "Survey data based on interviews with 14 experts", "Field data from settlements in the suburbs of Sanandaj" and "Documentary data extracted from the documents of the peri-urban settlements of Sanandaj" over 40 years (1976-2016). Data were analyzed using Holdern's methods, Shannon entropy, and comparative-comparative methods. Thematic maps were generated in GIS 10. Pearson correlation test was also used in SPSS 20 software.
Findings: The results showed that in the period 1976-2016, the city of Sanandaj always moved towards scattered manner that this type of development often occurred in urban peripheral. The reasons for the inefficiency of the government in the development of the suburban area were identified in the form of 32 concepts, 29 sub-categories, and 5 main categories.
Conclusion: Government interventions in the suburbs have two negative and positive aspects that in Sanandaj, both areas are inefficient. Therefore, in each of the axes discussed in this study, it is necessary to review and amend the duties of the government in the form of laws, regulations, urban development plans, and methods of urban management and land management.
Methodology: The present descriptive study was conducted in 2020 in Sanandaj. Using a Mixed method, the research data are divided into three main axes: "Survey data based on interviews with 14 experts", "Field data from settlements in the suburbs of Sanandaj" and "Documentary data extracted from the documents of the peri-urban settlements of Sanandaj" over 40 years (1976-2016). Data were analyzed using Holdern's methods, Shannon entropy, and comparative-comparative methods. Thematic maps were generated in GIS 10. Pearson correlation test was also used in SPSS 20 software.
Findings: The results showed that in the period 1976-2016, the city of Sanandaj always moved towards scattered manner that this type of development often occurred in urban peripheral. The reasons for the inefficiency of the government in the development of the suburban area were identified in the form of 32 concepts, 29 sub-categories, and 5 main categories.
Conclusion: Government interventions in the suburbs have two negative and positive aspects that in Sanandaj, both areas are inefficient. Therefore, in each of the axes discussed in this study, it is necessary to review and amend the duties of the government in the form of laws, regulations, urban development plans, and methods of urban management and land management.
References
1. Adell G (1999). Theories and models of the peri-urban interface: A changing conceptual landscape. Development Planning Unit, University College London. 1-43. [Link]
2. Administration department of roads and urban development of kurdistan province (2020a). Approvals of Article 5 Commission [Internet]. Sanandaj: Administration Department of Roads and Urban Development of Kurdistan Province; [cited Unknown]. Available from: https://b2n.ir/a39555. [Persian] [Link]
3. Administration department of roads and urban development of Kurdistan province (2020b), Housing Mehr projects [Internet]. Sanandaj: Administration Department of Roads and Urban Development of Kurdistan Province; [cited Unknown]. Available from: https://kurdistan.mrud.ir/. [Persian] [Link]
4. Ali Akbari I (1999). Mechanisms of urban development in Ilam province with emphasis on the role of government [dissertation]. Tehran: University of Tehran. [Persian] [Link]
5. Amirian S (2004). Analyzing the role of government in expanding the focus of urbanization in Iran with emphasis on modern government [dissertation]. Tehran: University of Tehran. [Persian] [Link]
6. Ashenaei T, Daneshpour A, Sarrafi M (2013). Analysis of the growth trend of suburban residential centers in lands with high agricultural potential in Tehran metropolitan area. International Conference on Civil Engineering, Architecture and Sustainable Urban Development, 18 December 2013, Tabriz, Iran. Tehran: Civilica. [Persian] [Link]
7. Bennike R (2017). Frontier commodification: Governing land, labour and leisure in Darjeeling, India. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 40(2):256-271. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/00856401.2017.1289618]
8. Buxton M, Alvarez A, Butt A, Farrell S, O 'Neill DJ (2008). Planning sustainable futures for Melbourne peri-urban region [Report]. Melbourne: RMIT University. Report No: Unknown [Link]
9. Bryant CR, Russwurm LH, McLellan AG (1982). The city's countryside: Land and its management in the rural-urban fringe. London: Longman. [Link]
10. Carruthers JI (2003). Growth at the fringe: The influence of political fragmentation in United States metropolitan areas. Regional Science. 82:475-499. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10110-003-0148-0]
11. Cleave E, Arku G, Sadler R, Gilliland J (2016). The role of place branding in local and regional economic development: bridging the gap between policy and practicality. Regional Studies, Regional Science. 3(1):207-228. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/21681376.2016.1163506]
12. Esmaeilzadeh H, Salehpour S, Qasemian Z, Mazaheri A (2018). Factors affecting space production in suburban areas (case study: Urmia). Geography of Urban Planning Research. 6(1):23-54. [Persian] [Link]
13. e-sanandaj.ir [Internet] (2020). Sanandaj: Sanandaj municipality; [cited: Unknown]. Available from: http://www.e-sanandaj.ir/fa-IR/DouranPortal/1/page/.[Persian] [Link]
14. Farris JT (2001). The barriers to using urban infill development to achieve smart growth. Housing Policy Debate. 12(1):1-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/10511482.2001.9521395]
15. Forester J (2012). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory. 12(3):5-22. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1473095212448750]
16. Fraser J, Bazuin JT, Hornberger G (2015). The privatization of neighborhood governance and the production of urban space, Environment and Planning A. 48(5):1-27. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0308518X15621656]
17. Housing foundation of the islamic revolution of Kurdistan province (2020). Housinf projects of Sanandaj [Internet]. Sanandaj: Housing Foundation of the Islamic Revolution of Kurdistan Province; [cited: Unknown]. Available from: http://www.bonyadmaskan-kurd.ir/HousingOrganization/Cities/Sanandaj.aspx. [Persian] [Link]
18. Imani Jajarmi H (2016). Critical review of urban development policies and programs in Iran. Social Studies and Research in Iran. 5(1):79-102. [Persian] [Link]
19. Iran statistical center (2016). Statistical annual report of Iran [Internet]. Tehran: Iran Statistical Center; [cited Unknown]. Available from: https://www.amar.org.ir/Portals/0/Files/fulltext/1395/n_Salname_95-V3.pdf. [Persian] [Link]
20. Khairzadeh B, Davoodpour Z (2015). The role of land policies in urban development (case study: Urmia). First International Congress on Earth, Space and Clean Energy, 5 November 2015, Ardabil, Iran. Tehran: Civilica. [Persian] [Link]
21. Ledo Espinoza PJ (2020). Peri-urbanization in Sacaba, Bolivia: Challenges to the traditional urban planning approach. International Planning Studies. 26(3):286-301. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/13563475.2020.1839389]
22. Lefebvre H (1992). The production of space. Hoboken: Wiley. [Link]
23. Lin GCS, Zhang AY (2017). China's metropolises in transformation: neoliberalizing politics, land commodification, and uneven development in Beijing. Urban Geography. 38(5):643-665. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/02723638.2016.1139407]
24. Meshkini A, Rahimi H (2013). Analysis of the concepts of space and government in the theory of government and urbanization in Iran. Quarterly Journal of Space Planning and Planning. 17(4):87-110. [Persian] [Link]
25. Nazari A (2001). The role of government development programs in the spatial development of rural settlements in Golestan province: A case study of Gonbad Kavous city [dissertation]. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University. [Persian] [Link]
26. Pacione M (2013). Private profit, public interest and land use planning- a conflict interpretation of residential development pressure in Glasgow's rural-urban fringe. Land Use Policy. 32:61-77. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.013]
27. Pallavi T (2019). Dynamics of peri-urban areas of Indian cities. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research. 10(4):131-141. [Link]
28. Poorahmad A, Hataminejad H, Hosseini SH (2006). Pathology of urban development plans in the country. Geographical Research. 38(58):167-180. [Persian] [Link]
29. Pourmohammadi MR, Asadi A (2014). Evaluation of Mehr housing projects in Zanjan. Journal of Applied Research in Geographical Sciences. 14(33):171-192. [Persian] [Link]
30. Qadermazi H, Afshari M (2008). Physical changes in suburban villages in the process of rural-urban interactions: A case study of Hassanabad and Naysar villages of Sanandaj. Housing and Rural Environment. 122:64-75. [Persian] [Link]
31. Rahimi H, Zahedi S, Fathi S (2017). The need for planners to pay attention to the management of metropolitan areas of metropolises in Iran, with a reflection on the power relations of actors. Quarterly Journal of Geography, Civil Engineering and Urban Management. 3(1):167-189. [Persian] [Link]
32. Rahnamaei MT (1994). Government and urbanism, a critique of the theory of ancient urban elements and the exploitation capitalism of Hans Bobek. Geographical Research Quarterly. 9(1):17-26. [Persian] [Link]
33. Ravetz J, Fertner C, Nielsen TAS (2013). The dynamics of peri urbanization. New York: Springer Publishing Company. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-30529-0_2]
34. Sarrafi M, Sajjadi J, Mohammadian Mosamem H, Azadi S (2018). Spatial metamorphosis of villages in the suburbs, case study: Naysar, Sanandaj city. Urban Management. 51: 279-296. [Persian] [Link]
35. Shafiee Sabet N (2007). Physical-spatial developments of villages around Tehran metropolis with emphasis on changes in agricultural land use [1976-1982]: The case of Robat Karim villages [dissertation]. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University. [Persian] [Link]
36. Shafiee Sabet N (2014). Tehran metropolitan creep and agricultural instability of surrounding villages. Environmental Management Quarterly. 7(24):145-162. [Persian] [Link]
37. Shaw BJ, Vliet J, Verburg PH (2020). The peri-urbanization of Europe: A systematic review of a multifaceted process. Landscape and Urban Planning. 196:103733. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103733]
38. tadbirshahr.ir [Internet] (2003). Sanandaj: Tadbir-Shahr Consulting Engineers; [cited: Unknown]. Available from: http://www.tadbirshahr.ir/wall. [Persian] [Link]
39. Varesi H, Rajaei Jazin A, Ghanbari M (2010). An analysis of Gonabad city physical growth using entropy and holdern Model. Town and Country Planning. 4(6):79-100. [Persian] [Link]
40. Wang LG, Han H, Lai SK (2014). Do plans contain urban sprawl? a comparison of Beijing and Taipei. Habitat International. 42:121-130. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.11.001]
41. Yousefi A, Arghan A, Kamyabi S (2018). Real estate capitalism and space developments in the peripheral area of Shahed Shahr. Space Economics and Rural Development. 7(3):67-86. [Persian] [Link]
42. Ziaei M (2000). Explaining the position and role of government in urban development and urbanization in Iran [dissertation]. Tehran: University of Tehran. [Persian] [Link]