Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 37, Issue 2 (2022)
GeoRes 2022, 37(2): 295-304 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2021/10/14 | Accepted: 2022/05/12 | Published: 2022/06/20
Received: 2021/10/14 | Accepted: 2022/05/12 | Published: 2022/06/20
How to cite this article
Akbari M. Comparative Analysis of Urban Furniture Indicator in Isfahan Metropolis: Marcos Technique Test. GeoRes 2022; 37 (2) :295-304
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1229-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1229-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:
Authors
M. Akbari * 
Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (102 Views)
Introduction
Cities are considered engines of economic prosperity and social development [Ameen & Mourshed, 2017]. More than half of the world’s growing population now lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 68% by 2050. Urban authorities must therefore not only address population growth but also respond to challenges such as creating sustainable, safe, and health-supportive environments for residents [Ho et al., 2021]. The importance of cities in people’s lives has increased steadily over time; particularly since the Industrial Revolution, urban growth has accelerated markedly [Beyaz & Asilsoy, 2019]. However, this rapid growth has largely been unbalanced, giving rise to numerous environmental and social problems associated with urbanization [Kamruzzaman et al., 2018]. Rapid and accelerated urbanization has generated multiple challenges, including urban sprawl, urban poverty, higher urban unemployment rates, rising urban costs, housing affordability issues, insufficient urban investment, weak financial capacity and urban governance, increasing inequality and urban crime, and environmental degradation. These challenges suggest that policies and strategies should aim to optimize both the urbanization process and the performance of urban functions and infrastructure [Zhang, 2016]. This rapid population growth and urbanization have not only depleted ecological resources but have also intensified social and economic inequalities, rendering cities increasingly difficult to manage [Yigitcanlar et al., 2022].
One of the challenges of rapid urbanization is the shortage of service spaces, including deficiencies in the design of urban furniture and urban beautification elements. Urban furniture, as one of the most prominent features of the urban landscape, plays an active role in urban design in terms of both functional dynamism and aesthetic quality. Integrating urban furniture with spatial characteristics is particularly important for users of these elements [Ghorab & Caymaz, 2015]. The presence of urban furniture and open urban spaces enhances the quality of life of urban residents and contributes to greater comfort and well-being in urban environments. In addition to creating calm and pleasant urban spaces, urban furniture can significantly enhance the visual quality of cities.
Moreover, numerous factors influence depression and mental health disorders among urban residents, one of the most important being the lack of open and green urban spaces. In the contemporary era, psychological and mental health problems have increased considerably. To mitigate mental and psychological harm, which directly affects families and society, the beautification of urban landscapes, attention to urban furniture, and the integration of urban spaces with nature should be regarded as key concerns of urban management and planning, and such spaces should be expanded within cities.
Zangiabadi and Tabrizi [2008] have concluded that the central area of Isfahan, due to its historical background, has a high capacity to attract tourists; however, the quantity and quality of urban furniture in this area are insufficient. Ghorab and Caymaz [2015] emphasize that in urban contexts, appropriate planning, design, and application are essential for creating comfortable and livable environments, as aesthetic considerations are of great importance. Currently, the design of urban furniture to enhance the visual appeal of cities has become increasingly significant. Rahmani Firoozjah and Sohrabi [2015] have found that urban furniture is now closely associated with living facilities, welfare, and social relationships, and can serve as a foundation for improving citizens’ quality of life. Their results indicate a direct and significant relationship between access to urban furniture and dimensions of quality of life, including physical health, mental health, and satisfaction with the physical urban environment. Zangiabadi and Nori [2017], in a comparative analysis of urban furniture conditions in inner-city parks of the metropolitan area of Isfahan, have found that among the studied parks, Ghadir Park achieved the highest score (0.310), while Laleh Park received the lowest score (0.024). Bolkaner et al. [2019], in a study of urban furniture in the city of Nicosia, characterized by diverse architectural cultures and a historic urban fabric, have examined street furniture in the northern and southern parts of the city from the perspective of urban identity and concluded that existing street furniture, particularly in the northern part, lacks features that emphasize urban identity. Duzenlg et al. [2019] conclude that well-designed urban furniture improves quality of life and provides comfort by meeting residents’ needs.
Quality of life is regarded as one of the most important dimensions for the sustainability of any urban development. The aspiration to improve quality of life in a particular place, or for a specific individual or group, is a central concern of planners. Quality of life has been widely applied across various fields, including international development, healthcare, the built environment, education, recreation and leisure, and social belonging [Serag El Din et al., 2013]. One of the key factors influencing citizens’ quality of life is urban furniture elements.
Landscape elements used in different areas that enhance comfort and environmental quality indicators, and that support basic functions such as seating, shelter, protection, transportation, guidance, lighting, communication, information, play, and sports, while facilitating social and individual life, are referred to as urban furniture elements. Urban furniture comprises elements placed in specific spaces to meet the diverse needs of residents [Duzenlg et al., 2019]. Urban furniture can be defined as aesthetic and comfort-oriented elements that reflect the identity of a city and render urban spaces more livable. It is one of the essential components of cities for enhancing urban quality of life, creating comfortable and reliable environments, and optimally meeting users’ needs. The design of these elements should take into account and evaluate the social, economic, cultural, and architectural structures of the city. Compatibility of urban furniture with the urban fabric and cultural structure is crucial for achieving urban identity and for ensuring the survival and sustainability of historic environments [Bolkaner et al., 2019].
Urban furniture encompasses all elements used in landscaping arrangements that respond to basic functions such as seating, shelter, transportation, lighting, guidance, communication, play, and sports in areas such as streets, roads, and squares. Urban furniture emphasizes the rules of coexistence to sustain collective life [Uslu & Ertürk, 2019]. It refers to a wide range of equipment, objects, symbols, spaces, and elements that are installed in cities and streets, generally in open spaces, and are intended for public use [Rahmani Firoozjah & Sohrabi, 2015].
Urban beautification through urban furniture has emerged in recent years as one of the newest concerns of urban managers and planners aimed at enhancing urban spaces. For citizens’ welfare, comfort, and tranquility, cities must be equipped with appropriate facilities and equipment. Urban furniture and beautification, often achieved through decorative furniture, play a substantial role in improving the visual quality of cities and have received considerable attention in major global cities and tourist destinations. The key indicators examined in this study include monthly costs of maintenance and repair of urban furniture, monthly costs of maintenance and repair of playground sites, urban furniture in green spaces and parks, the number of active fountains, lighting projects, urban statues and thematic and artistic symbols, therapeutic movement facilities, types of therapeutic movement and sports equipment, playground sites, types of fixed and movable playground equipment, safe playground areas with protective flooring, and the area of safety flooring used. This research was conducted with the aim of providing a comparative analysis of the aforementioned indicators.
Methodology
The research method adopted in this study is quantitative in nature, and a comparative–adaptive analysis was conducted among the 15 districts of Isfahan with respect to the availability of urban furniture elements and urban beautification. The MARCOS method was employed to analyze the indicators related to urban furniture and urban beautification in the metropolitan area of Isfahan. The data required for analyzing the urban furniture indicators across the 15 districts were obtained from the Statistical Yearbook of Isfahan Metropolitan for the year 2019 [Statistical Yearbook of Isfahan Metropolitan, 2019].
The weights of the indicators associated with urban furniture were calculated using the Shannon entropy model, and these weights were subsequently applied within the MARCOS multi-criteria decision-making method. After standardizing the research data and constructing the weighted normalized matrix, the assessment and analysis of the urban furniture indicators were carried out.
Multi-criteria decision-making methods are highly effective tools for decision-making across various fields [Stević et al., 2019]. These methods are widely applied in different scientific disciplines and contribute to making decisions more explicit, rational, and efficient [Zavadskas et al., 2010; Ecer, 2018]. The MARCOS method is one of the newer multi-criteria decision-making techniques, introduced by Stević and colleagues [Stević et al., 2019]. This method is used to rank research alternatives and, similar to methods such as MABAC, CODAS, EDAS, COCOSO, and MULTIMOORA, facilitates the ranking of alternatives (cities or districts). The results obtained from this method allow for straightforward comparative analysis with the rankings derived from other techniques.
The MARCOS procedure consists of several sequential steps. Initially, a decision matrix is formed in which multiple alternatives are evaluated based on a set of criteria, using either quantitative or qualitative data. Subsequently, ideal and anti-ideal solutions are identified based on the nature of the criteria, distinguishing between benefit-type and cost-type indicators. The data are then normalized according to the type of each criterion, followed by weighting the normalized values using the previously calculated indicator weights.
In the next stage, the degree of utility of each alternative is determined by comparing its performance relative to the ideal and anti-ideal solutions. Based on these values, the overall performance score of each alternative is calculated, which serves as the basis for ranking. Finally, the alternatives are ranked according to their performance scores, enabling the identification of districts with more favorable conditions in terms of urban furniture and beautification [Stević et al., 2019; Trung, 2021].
The data related to the urban furniture indicators for the 15 districts of Isfahan were transferred to spreadsheet software, where data estimation and the implementation of the MARCOS method were performed. All stages of the MARCOS procedure were carried out manually within the spreadsheet environment.
Isfahan Metropolitan Area
Isfahan has historically been one of the most significant cities in Iran. It is located at approximately 51°39′40″ east longitude and 32°38′30″ north latitude [Farahmand et al., 2013]. Due to various constraints, the city faces challenges related to urban transportation networks, the urban environment, and shortages of cultural spaces and facilities. These issues have become more pronounced with population growth, leading to increased inequality and unhealthy competition for access to urban services and facilities. Inequitable and unequal access to urban services can intensify fundamental problems such as urban disorder and social issues [Annamoradnejad et al., 2012].
Based on the most recent municipal administrative divisions, the metropolitan area of Isfahan consists of 15 districts [Golamiz & Soltani, 2021]. With a population of approximately 1,961,260, Isfahan is the third-largest city in Iran after Tehran and Mashhad. Population statistics indicate that Districts 8 and 10 are the most densely populated areas of the city, while District 11, with a population of 58,841, is the least populated district.
Findings
The first step of the MARCOS method was the construction of the decision matrix. In this matrix, twelve indicators related to urban furniture were placed in the columns, while the fifteen alternatives, corresponding to the fifteen districts of Isfahan Metropolitan Area, were arranged in the rows. In the next stage, the ideal and anti-ideal values were determined. The ideal value corresponded to the maximum value of each criterion column, whereas the anti-ideal value corresponds to the minimum value of each criterion column in the decision matrix. Subsequently, the data related to urban furniture in the districts of Isfahan were normalized to ensure comparability among indicators.
In the entropy model,e j D j W j
Based on the weighted normalized matrix, the anti-ideal values for the studied indicators were determined. The weighted normalized matrix for the urban furniture and urban beautification indicators across the fifteen districts of Isfahan Metropolitan Area was calculated accordingly.
The fifth step of the MARCOS method involved calculating the degree of utility of the alternatives under investigation. At this stage, the degrees of ideal utility (+K) and anti-ideal utility (−K) were computed for each alternative. The highest value of the −K coefficient was 4.505, and the highest value of the +K coefficient was 0.679, both corresponding to District 1 of Isfahan Metropolitan Area. In contrast, the lowest value of the −K coefficient was 1.811, and the lowest value of the +K coefficient was 0.273, both associated with District 13.
The value of theS i S i S i
District 13 of Isfahan Metropolitan Area is geographically bounded to the north by the Zayandehroud River corridor, to the south from Meydan-e Tir to the Isfahan Cement Factory and the western wall of the central prison along the railway line up to Yazdabad Bridge, to the east along Simin Street from Mirza Kuchik Khan Park to the Simin intersection and Janbazan Street up to the intersection of Shahid Aqarabparast Highway before Meydan-e Tir, and to the west from Yazdabad Bridge along Qods Township to the power plant road on the margin of the Zayandehroud River. The legal area of District 13 of Isfahan Metropolitan Area is approximately 1,105 hectares.
Discussion
Using the MARCOS multi-criteria decision-making method, the final scores of urban furniture indicators were calculated for the fifteen districts of Isfahan Metropolitan Area. The resulting values were 0.666 for District 1, 0.283 for District 2, 0.648 for District 3, 0.473 for District 4, 0.503 for District 5, 0.649 for District 6, 0.488 for District 7, 0.465 for District 8, 0.387 for District 9, 0.482 for District 10, 0.397 for District 11, 0.524 for District 12, 0.268 for District 13, 0.325 for District 14, and 0.328 for District 15. The results of the MARCOS method indicated that District 1 obtained the highest final score, whereas District 13 received the lowest score among the districts of Isfahan Metropolitan Area.
The findings of this study demonstrated that inappropriate development patterns and the rapid growth of metropolitan areas, without adequate planning measures and supporting infrastructure, have led to numerous negative consequences across various urban sectors. In the case of Isfahan, as the third-largest metropolitan city in Iran, the organization of public land uses and urban environments, particularly urban furniture, can be considered one of the constructive approaches toward sustainable urban development, aimed at improving the quality of the urban environment and meeting diverse human needs. The results further indicated that the central part of Isfahan, due to its historical background, has a high capacity for attracting tourists; however, the quantity and quality of urban furniture in this area were insufficient. These findings are consistent with those reported by Zangiabadi and Tabrizi (2008).
The results also revealed that among the examined indicators, the security criterion achieved the highest score (0.248) and ranked as the top priority in the evaluation of park furniture, while the criterion related to spacing received the lowest score. Among the studied parks, Ghadir Park obtained the highest score (0.310) based on urban furniture criteria and ranked first in terms of adequate provision of urban furniture. In contrast, Laleh Park recorded the lowest score (0.024), indicating a need for greater attention from relevant authorities. These findings are in line with the results of Zangiabadi and Nori (2017).
One of the main limitations of the present study is the lack of comprehensive statistical data and information on urban furniture and urban beautification for other major cities in Iran. Due to deficiencies in available data, a comparative analysis among some of the country’s major metropolitan areas was not feasible. Another limitation concerns the limited number of studies conducted in this field, as evidenced by the review of previous research, particularly international studies.
Currently, a fundamental problem in urban landscape and townscape design is that people are often unable to establish pleasant and meaningful sensory relationships with the urban environment and its components amid the complexity of modern life. In many urban spaces, human needs have not been adequately addressed, and facilities related to urban furniture that encourage public presence and use of urban spaces remain limited and insufficient. In most tourist-oriented cities worldwide, considerable importance is attached to various components of urban landscape, urban furniture indicators, and beautification measures. These aspects are valued alongside other urban development projects and are regarded as essential elements of urban quality.
In Isfahan Metropolitan Area, the municipality and urban management institutions should place particular emphasis on strengthening urban furniture and beautification indicators in Districts 13, 2, 14, 15, 9, and 11. District 13 of Isfahan Metropolitan Area was officially established in 2007; prior to that, it was part of District 5 of the Isfahan Municipality. The legal area of District 13 is approximately 1,105 hectares. With a population of 115,697 and a population density of 112 persons per hectare, according to the Statistical Yearbook of Isfahan, this district should be considered a top priority for urban furniture planning and urban beautification initiatives.
Conclusion
The final scores derived from the MARCOS model in analyzing urban furniture indicators across the districts of Isfahan Metropolitan Area reveal clear inequalities among the studied indicators.
Acknowledgements: None reported by the author.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the author.
Conflict of Interest: None reported by the author.
Author Contributions: Mahmoud Akbari is the sole author of the article (100%).
Funding: None reported by the author.
Cities are considered engines of economic prosperity and social development [Ameen & Mourshed, 2017]. More than half of the world’s growing population now lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 68% by 2050. Urban authorities must therefore not only address population growth but also respond to challenges such as creating sustainable, safe, and health-supportive environments for residents [Ho et al., 2021]. The importance of cities in people’s lives has increased steadily over time; particularly since the Industrial Revolution, urban growth has accelerated markedly [Beyaz & Asilsoy, 2019]. However, this rapid growth has largely been unbalanced, giving rise to numerous environmental and social problems associated with urbanization [Kamruzzaman et al., 2018]. Rapid and accelerated urbanization has generated multiple challenges, including urban sprawl, urban poverty, higher urban unemployment rates, rising urban costs, housing affordability issues, insufficient urban investment, weak financial capacity and urban governance, increasing inequality and urban crime, and environmental degradation. These challenges suggest that policies and strategies should aim to optimize both the urbanization process and the performance of urban functions and infrastructure [Zhang, 2016]. This rapid population growth and urbanization have not only depleted ecological resources but have also intensified social and economic inequalities, rendering cities increasingly difficult to manage [Yigitcanlar et al., 2022].
One of the challenges of rapid urbanization is the shortage of service spaces, including deficiencies in the design of urban furniture and urban beautification elements. Urban furniture, as one of the most prominent features of the urban landscape, plays an active role in urban design in terms of both functional dynamism and aesthetic quality. Integrating urban furniture with spatial characteristics is particularly important for users of these elements [Ghorab & Caymaz, 2015]. The presence of urban furniture and open urban spaces enhances the quality of life of urban residents and contributes to greater comfort and well-being in urban environments. In addition to creating calm and pleasant urban spaces, urban furniture can significantly enhance the visual quality of cities.
Moreover, numerous factors influence depression and mental health disorders among urban residents, one of the most important being the lack of open and green urban spaces. In the contemporary era, psychological and mental health problems have increased considerably. To mitigate mental and psychological harm, which directly affects families and society, the beautification of urban landscapes, attention to urban furniture, and the integration of urban spaces with nature should be regarded as key concerns of urban management and planning, and such spaces should be expanded within cities.
Zangiabadi and Tabrizi [2008] have concluded that the central area of Isfahan, due to its historical background, has a high capacity to attract tourists; however, the quantity and quality of urban furniture in this area are insufficient. Ghorab and Caymaz [2015] emphasize that in urban contexts, appropriate planning, design, and application are essential for creating comfortable and livable environments, as aesthetic considerations are of great importance. Currently, the design of urban furniture to enhance the visual appeal of cities has become increasingly significant. Rahmani Firoozjah and Sohrabi [2015] have found that urban furniture is now closely associated with living facilities, welfare, and social relationships, and can serve as a foundation for improving citizens’ quality of life. Their results indicate a direct and significant relationship between access to urban furniture and dimensions of quality of life, including physical health, mental health, and satisfaction with the physical urban environment. Zangiabadi and Nori [2017], in a comparative analysis of urban furniture conditions in inner-city parks of the metropolitan area of Isfahan, have found that among the studied parks, Ghadir Park achieved the highest score (0.310), while Laleh Park received the lowest score (0.024). Bolkaner et al. [2019], in a study of urban furniture in the city of Nicosia, characterized by diverse architectural cultures and a historic urban fabric, have examined street furniture in the northern and southern parts of the city from the perspective of urban identity and concluded that existing street furniture, particularly in the northern part, lacks features that emphasize urban identity. Duzenlg et al. [2019] conclude that well-designed urban furniture improves quality of life and provides comfort by meeting residents’ needs.
Quality of life is regarded as one of the most important dimensions for the sustainability of any urban development. The aspiration to improve quality of life in a particular place, or for a specific individual or group, is a central concern of planners. Quality of life has been widely applied across various fields, including international development, healthcare, the built environment, education, recreation and leisure, and social belonging [Serag El Din et al., 2013]. One of the key factors influencing citizens’ quality of life is urban furniture elements.
Landscape elements used in different areas that enhance comfort and environmental quality indicators, and that support basic functions such as seating, shelter, protection, transportation, guidance, lighting, communication, information, play, and sports, while facilitating social and individual life, are referred to as urban furniture elements. Urban furniture comprises elements placed in specific spaces to meet the diverse needs of residents [Duzenlg et al., 2019]. Urban furniture can be defined as aesthetic and comfort-oriented elements that reflect the identity of a city and render urban spaces more livable. It is one of the essential components of cities for enhancing urban quality of life, creating comfortable and reliable environments, and optimally meeting users’ needs. The design of these elements should take into account and evaluate the social, economic, cultural, and architectural structures of the city. Compatibility of urban furniture with the urban fabric and cultural structure is crucial for achieving urban identity and for ensuring the survival and sustainability of historic environments [Bolkaner et al., 2019].
Urban furniture encompasses all elements used in landscaping arrangements that respond to basic functions such as seating, shelter, transportation, lighting, guidance, communication, play, and sports in areas such as streets, roads, and squares. Urban furniture emphasizes the rules of coexistence to sustain collective life [Uslu & Ertürk, 2019]. It refers to a wide range of equipment, objects, symbols, spaces, and elements that are installed in cities and streets, generally in open spaces, and are intended for public use [Rahmani Firoozjah & Sohrabi, 2015].
Urban beautification through urban furniture has emerged in recent years as one of the newest concerns of urban managers and planners aimed at enhancing urban spaces. For citizens’ welfare, comfort, and tranquility, cities must be equipped with appropriate facilities and equipment. Urban furniture and beautification, often achieved through decorative furniture, play a substantial role in improving the visual quality of cities and have received considerable attention in major global cities and tourist destinations. The key indicators examined in this study include monthly costs of maintenance and repair of urban furniture, monthly costs of maintenance and repair of playground sites, urban furniture in green spaces and parks, the number of active fountains, lighting projects, urban statues and thematic and artistic symbols, therapeutic movement facilities, types of therapeutic movement and sports equipment, playground sites, types of fixed and movable playground equipment, safe playground areas with protective flooring, and the area of safety flooring used. This research was conducted with the aim of providing a comparative analysis of the aforementioned indicators.
Methodology
The research method adopted in this study is quantitative in nature, and a comparative–adaptive analysis was conducted among the 15 districts of Isfahan with respect to the availability of urban furniture elements and urban beautification. The MARCOS method was employed to analyze the indicators related to urban furniture and urban beautification in the metropolitan area of Isfahan. The data required for analyzing the urban furniture indicators across the 15 districts were obtained from the Statistical Yearbook of Isfahan Metropolitan for the year 2019 [Statistical Yearbook of Isfahan Metropolitan, 2019].
The weights of the indicators associated with urban furniture were calculated using the Shannon entropy model, and these weights were subsequently applied within the MARCOS multi-criteria decision-making method. After standardizing the research data and constructing the weighted normalized matrix, the assessment and analysis of the urban furniture indicators were carried out.
Multi-criteria decision-making methods are highly effective tools for decision-making across various fields [Stević et al., 2019]. These methods are widely applied in different scientific disciplines and contribute to making decisions more explicit, rational, and efficient [Zavadskas et al., 2010; Ecer, 2018]. The MARCOS method is one of the newer multi-criteria decision-making techniques, introduced by Stević and colleagues [Stević et al., 2019]. This method is used to rank research alternatives and, similar to methods such as MABAC, CODAS, EDAS, COCOSO, and MULTIMOORA, facilitates the ranking of alternatives (cities or districts). The results obtained from this method allow for straightforward comparative analysis with the rankings derived from other techniques.
The MARCOS procedure consists of several sequential steps. Initially, a decision matrix is formed in which multiple alternatives are evaluated based on a set of criteria, using either quantitative or qualitative data. Subsequently, ideal and anti-ideal solutions are identified based on the nature of the criteria, distinguishing between benefit-type and cost-type indicators. The data are then normalized according to the type of each criterion, followed by weighting the normalized values using the previously calculated indicator weights.
In the next stage, the degree of utility of each alternative is determined by comparing its performance relative to the ideal and anti-ideal solutions. Based on these values, the overall performance score of each alternative is calculated, which serves as the basis for ranking. Finally, the alternatives are ranked according to their performance scores, enabling the identification of districts with more favorable conditions in terms of urban furniture and beautification [Stević et al., 2019; Trung, 2021].
The data related to the urban furniture indicators for the 15 districts of Isfahan were transferred to spreadsheet software, where data estimation and the implementation of the MARCOS method were performed. All stages of the MARCOS procedure were carried out manually within the spreadsheet environment.
Isfahan Metropolitan Area
Isfahan has historically been one of the most significant cities in Iran. It is located at approximately 51°39′40″ east longitude and 32°38′30″ north latitude [Farahmand et al., 2013]. Due to various constraints, the city faces challenges related to urban transportation networks, the urban environment, and shortages of cultural spaces and facilities. These issues have become more pronounced with population growth, leading to increased inequality and unhealthy competition for access to urban services and facilities. Inequitable and unequal access to urban services can intensify fundamental problems such as urban disorder and social issues [Annamoradnejad et al., 2012].
Based on the most recent municipal administrative divisions, the metropolitan area of Isfahan consists of 15 districts [Golamiz & Soltani, 2021]. With a population of approximately 1,961,260, Isfahan is the third-largest city in Iran after Tehran and Mashhad. Population statistics indicate that Districts 8 and 10 are the most densely populated areas of the city, while District 11, with a population of 58,841, is the least populated district.
Findings
The first step of the MARCOS method was the construction of the decision matrix. In this matrix, twelve indicators related to urban furniture were placed in the columns, while the fifteen alternatives, corresponding to the fifteen districts of Isfahan Metropolitan Area, were arranged in the rows. In the next stage, the ideal and anti-ideal values were determined. The ideal value corresponded to the maximum value of each criterion column, whereas the anti-ideal value corresponds to the minimum value of each criterion column in the decision matrix. Subsequently, the data related to urban furniture in the districts of Isfahan were normalized to ensure comparability among indicators.
In the entropy model,
Based on the weighted normalized matrix, the anti-ideal values for the studied indicators were determined. The weighted normalized matrix for the urban furniture and urban beautification indicators across the fifteen districts of Isfahan Metropolitan Area was calculated accordingly.
The fifth step of the MARCOS method involved calculating the degree of utility of the alternatives under investigation. At this stage, the degrees of ideal utility (+K) and anti-ideal utility (−K) were computed for each alternative. The highest value of the −K coefficient was 4.505, and the highest value of the +K coefficient was 0.679, both corresponding to District 1 of Isfahan Metropolitan Area. In contrast, the lowest value of the −K coefficient was 1.811, and the lowest value of the +K coefficient was 0.273, both associated with District 13.
The value of the
District 13 of Isfahan Metropolitan Area is geographically bounded to the north by the Zayandehroud River corridor, to the south from Meydan-e Tir to the Isfahan Cement Factory and the western wall of the central prison along the railway line up to Yazdabad Bridge, to the east along Simin Street from Mirza Kuchik Khan Park to the Simin intersection and Janbazan Street up to the intersection of Shahid Aqarabparast Highway before Meydan-e Tir, and to the west from Yazdabad Bridge along Qods Township to the power plant road on the margin of the Zayandehroud River. The legal area of District 13 of Isfahan Metropolitan Area is approximately 1,105 hectares.
Discussion
Using the MARCOS multi-criteria decision-making method, the final scores of urban furniture indicators were calculated for the fifteen districts of Isfahan Metropolitan Area. The resulting values were 0.666 for District 1, 0.283 for District 2, 0.648 for District 3, 0.473 for District 4, 0.503 for District 5, 0.649 for District 6, 0.488 for District 7, 0.465 for District 8, 0.387 for District 9, 0.482 for District 10, 0.397 for District 11, 0.524 for District 12, 0.268 for District 13, 0.325 for District 14, and 0.328 for District 15. The results of the MARCOS method indicated that District 1 obtained the highest final score, whereas District 13 received the lowest score among the districts of Isfahan Metropolitan Area.
The findings of this study demonstrated that inappropriate development patterns and the rapid growth of metropolitan areas, without adequate planning measures and supporting infrastructure, have led to numerous negative consequences across various urban sectors. In the case of Isfahan, as the third-largest metropolitan city in Iran, the organization of public land uses and urban environments, particularly urban furniture, can be considered one of the constructive approaches toward sustainable urban development, aimed at improving the quality of the urban environment and meeting diverse human needs. The results further indicated that the central part of Isfahan, due to its historical background, has a high capacity for attracting tourists; however, the quantity and quality of urban furniture in this area were insufficient. These findings are consistent with those reported by Zangiabadi and Tabrizi (2008).
The results also revealed that among the examined indicators, the security criterion achieved the highest score (0.248) and ranked as the top priority in the evaluation of park furniture, while the criterion related to spacing received the lowest score. Among the studied parks, Ghadir Park obtained the highest score (0.310) based on urban furniture criteria and ranked first in terms of adequate provision of urban furniture. In contrast, Laleh Park recorded the lowest score (0.024), indicating a need for greater attention from relevant authorities. These findings are in line with the results of Zangiabadi and Nori (2017).
One of the main limitations of the present study is the lack of comprehensive statistical data and information on urban furniture and urban beautification for other major cities in Iran. Due to deficiencies in available data, a comparative analysis among some of the country’s major metropolitan areas was not feasible. Another limitation concerns the limited number of studies conducted in this field, as evidenced by the review of previous research, particularly international studies.
Currently, a fundamental problem in urban landscape and townscape design is that people are often unable to establish pleasant and meaningful sensory relationships with the urban environment and its components amid the complexity of modern life. In many urban spaces, human needs have not been adequately addressed, and facilities related to urban furniture that encourage public presence and use of urban spaces remain limited and insufficient. In most tourist-oriented cities worldwide, considerable importance is attached to various components of urban landscape, urban furniture indicators, and beautification measures. These aspects are valued alongside other urban development projects and are regarded as essential elements of urban quality.
In Isfahan Metropolitan Area, the municipality and urban management institutions should place particular emphasis on strengthening urban furniture and beautification indicators in Districts 13, 2, 14, 15, 9, and 11. District 13 of Isfahan Metropolitan Area was officially established in 2007; prior to that, it was part of District 5 of the Isfahan Municipality. The legal area of District 13 is approximately 1,105 hectares. With a population of 115,697 and a population density of 112 persons per hectare, according to the Statistical Yearbook of Isfahan, this district should be considered a top priority for urban furniture planning and urban beautification initiatives.
Conclusion
The final scores derived from the MARCOS model in analyzing urban furniture indicators across the districts of Isfahan Metropolitan Area reveal clear inequalities among the studied indicators.
Acknowledgements: None reported by the author.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the author.
Conflict of Interest: None reported by the author.
Author Contributions: Mahmoud Akbari is the sole author of the article (100%).
Funding: None reported by the author.
Keywords:
References
1. Ameen RFM Mourshed M (2017). Urban environmental challenges in developing countries A stakeholder perspective. Habitat International. 64 (2017):1-10. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.002]
2. Annamoradnejad R Roradeh H Ahmadinejad S (2012). Analyzing sustainable development in urban zones of Mega-cities (A case study of Isfahan). Urban Structure and Function Studies. 1(2):71-94. [Persian] [Link]
3. Beyaz C Asilsoy B (2019). Knowledge of green buildings and environmental worldview among interior design students. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences. 6(1):29-36. [Link] [DOI:10.21833/ijaas.2019.01.004]
4. Bolkaner MK, İnançoğlu S, Asilsoy B (2019). A study on urban furniture: Nicosia old city. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 8(2):290-309. [Link] [DOI:10.14207/ejsd.2019.v8n2p1]
5. Duzenlg T, Alpak UEM, Çigdem A (2019). Flexible design in urban furniture kentsel donatida esnek tasarim. Yildiz Journal OF Art and Design. 6(1):37-50. [Link]
6. Ecer F (2018). An integrated fuzzy AHP and Aras model to evaluate mobile banking services. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 24:670-695. [Link] [DOI:10.3846/20294913.2016.1255275]
7. Farahmand S, Khoshakhlaq R, Pahlevanzadeh B (2013). Analysis of the factors influencing the distribution of economic activities in Isfahan city. The Economic Research. 13(1):133-153. [Persian] [Link]
8. Rahmani Firoozjah A, Sohrabi S (2015). Sociological study of the relationship between urban furniture and quality of life. Urban Sociological Studies. 5(16):199-179. [Persian] [Link]
9. Ho TP, Stevenson M, Thompson J, Nguyen TQ (2021). Evaluation of urban design qualities across five urban typologies in Hanoi. Urban Science. 5(4):76. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/urbansci5040076]
10. Ghorab P, Yücel Caymaz G (2015). Evaluation of street furniture according to basic design principles. International Journal of Electronics Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering. 4(3):815-831. [Link]
11. Golamiz M, Soltani L (2021). Identifying and analyzing the dimensions and indicators of sustainable urban tourism development (a case study of the districts 1, 3 and 5 of Isfahan). Geographical Journal of Tourism Space. 9(36):130-111. [Persian] [Link]
12. Kamruzzaman M, Deilami K, Yigitcanlar T (2018). Investigating the urban heat island effect of transit-oriented development in Brisbane. Journal of Transport Geography. 66:116-124. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.11.016]
13. Stanković M, Stević Ž, Das DK, Subotić M, Pamučar D (2020). A new fuzzy MARCOS method for road traffic risk analysis. Mathematics. 8(3):457. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/math8030457]
14. Serag El Din H, Shalaby A, Farouh HE, Elariane SA (2013). Principles of urban quality of life for a neighborhood. HBRC Journal. 9(1):86-92. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.02.007]
15. Statistical Yearbook of Isfahan Metropolitan (2019). Isfahan statistical yearbook 2019. First Edition. Isfahan: Publications of the Isfahan municipality information and communication organization. [Persian] [Link]
16. Stević Ž, Pamučar D, Puška A, Chatterjee P (2019). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to Compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering. 140:106231. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231]
17. Tadic S, Kilibarda M, Kovac M, Zecevic S (2021). The assessment of intermodal transport in countries of the Danube region. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering. 11(3):375-391. [Link] [DOI:10.7708/ijtte2021.11(3).03]
18. Uslu E, Ertürk AE (2019). Urban furniture in historical process. Journal of History Culture and Art Research. 8(4):425-444. [Link] [DOI:10.7596/taksad.v8i4.2336]
19. Yigitcanlar T, Degirmenci K, Butler L, Desouza KC (2022). What are the key factors affecting smart city transformation readiness? Evidence from Australian cities. Cities. 120:103434. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2021.103434]
20. Zangiabadi A, Nouri M (2015). Comparative analysis and evaluation of urban furniture in metropolitan parks from the perspective of citizens, a case study: Isfahan metropolis. Journal of Geography and Environmental Planning. 26(1):85-104. [Persian] [Link]
21. Zangiabadi A, Tabrizi N (2008). Spatial analysis of urban furniture in the tourism area of the central part of Isfahan. Journal of Humanities Research University of Isfahan. 22(1):45-66. [Persian] [Link]
22. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Vilutiene T (2010). Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment al¬ternatives by applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering. 10(3):123-141. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60141-1]
23. Zhang XQ (2016). The trends, promises and challenges of urbanisation in the world. Habitat International. 54(Pt 3):241-252. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.11.018]