Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 2 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(2): 143-150 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/03/15 | Accepted: 2023/04/26 | Published: 2023/04/30
Received: 2023/03/15 | Accepted: 2023/04/26 | Published: 2023/04/30
How to cite this article
Hekmati A, Joodaki H, Ziari Y. Urban Livability in District 22 of Tehran City, Iran. GeoRes 2023; 38 (2) :143-150
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1452-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1452-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- Geography & Urban Planning Department, Qeshm Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qeshm, Iran
2- Geography Department, Islamshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Islamshahr, Iran
3- Geography Department, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Geography Department, Islamshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Islamshahr, Iran
3- Geography Department, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (55 Views)
Introduction
Human settlements are the guarantors of human survival and development. They provide spaces for various human activities, including residence, work, education, healthcare, culture, and recreation [Irandoost et al., 2016]. The quality of human settlements generally has a significant impact on human health and well-being. With the development of the economy and urbanization over the past decades, certain issues such as natural disasters, environmental pollution, heavy traffic, and high housing costs have increasingly emerged, affecting residents’ quality of life, particularly in urban areas [Hataminezhad et al., 2019]. Consequently, the quality of the urban environment has drawn extensive attention from academia, governments, and the public alike. To describe and measure the quality of the urban environment, terms such as livability and related concepts including sustainability, quality of life, and well-being have gained wide popularity. Livability, as a goal of urban construction and development, has attracted broad attention in urban planning and urban geography. However, due to its interdisciplinary and multidimensional nature, there is still no universally accepted definition or concept of livability. The earliest definition of livability was offered by Pacione, who described it as a quality that is not inherent to the environment itself, but rather a function of the interaction between environmental characteristics and personal attributes [Pacione, 1990]. Newman argued that livability addresses human needs for health and well-being, including both individual and social welfare [Newman, 1999]. Moreover, Ruth and Franklin asserted that livability comprises two elements: the urban environment and the population in need of goods and services [Ruth & Franklin, 2014]. Overall, all these definitions emphasize the interaction between people and their environment. Despite various conceptualizations of urban livability, no consensus has yet been reached regarding its measurement [Zhan et al., 2018].
Numerous scholars have employed objective indicators in their studies and proposed frameworks for evaluating livability [Kotus & Rezewszewsky, 2013; Wang et al., 2011]. For instance, Savage developed a comprehensive indicator system for evaluating the quality of the living environment in U.S. urban areas. His system included cultural amenities, housing, employment, crime, transportation, and education [Savageaue, 2007]. Liu et al. have examined spatial patterns and driving factors of the urban environment in Chongqing, China, from the perspectives of the physical environment, built environment, and natural hazards [Liu et al., 2017]. Tang et al. have developed a comprehensive evaluation system focusing on housing conditions, urban natural environments, socio-economic contexts, and public infrastructure to analyze the changing trends and spatial differentiation of environmental quality in 35 major Chinese cities [Tang et al., 2017]. Furthermore, some researchers and research institutions have concentrated on ranking cities based on their livability [Kashef, 2016]. The annual Global Livability Ranking report, has prepared since 2010, encompasses 30 qualitative and quantitative indicators across five dimensions: stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure [Economist Intelligence, 2019]. Tan et al. have used the Global Livability Index (GLI) to rank 64 major cities worldwide [Tan et al., 2014].
Other studies have examined residents’ subjective satisfaction with urban livability. Two main aspects of existing research are the assessment of residential satisfaction [Mohit et al., 2010] and the analysis of influencing factors [Salleh, 2008; Jansen, 2014]. Residential satisfaction is a complex and comprehensive process, heavily influenced by factors such as residents’ backgrounds and attributes, neighborhood characteristics, housing quality, and public amenities or infrastructure [Chen et al., 2013; Ibem & Amole, 2012].
In Iran, the rapid expansion of cities and accelerated urban growth have transformed vast areas into urban construction zones. This process has destroyed gardens and agricultural lands, not only disrupting the ecological balance of urban service areas but also leading to shortages of services, infrastructure, and basic facilities, as well as inadequacies in urban transportation networks [Hekmatnia, 2021]. Tehran, the capital of Iran, ranks as the 21st most polluted city in the world and is the most densely populated city in the country. It serves as the national decision-making hub and hosts the largest concentration of economic, industrial, service, educational, research, administrative, and political facilities. Considering the ongoing urban expansion in Tehran, achieving a sustainable future and an optimal environmental status in peripheral and less developed areas such as District 22 is contingent upon sustainable planning. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to examine the quality of livability in Tehran.
Methodology
This descriptive study, conducted in 2022, employed the ranking of four districts in District 22, located in the westernmost part of Tehran, to evaluate urban livability. The minimum required sample size for the field study was determined using Cochran’s formula. Through random sampling, 600 residents (150 from each district) were recruited to complete the questionnaire. Additionally, 70 experts were selected using a convenience sampling method, and their opinions were collected.
Residents’ and experts’ perspectives on the quality of urban livability were gathered through field surveys. The research instrument was a researcher-designed questionnaire with responses measured on a four-point Likert scale. Since no precise consensus exists regarding the dimensions of urban livability and various criteria have been proposed in this regard [Fu et al., 2019; Arundel & Ronald, 2016; Kovacs-Gyori et al., 2019; Gue et al., 2020], the objective evaluation indicators were categorized into four dimensions: environmental, infrastructure and urban services, socio-cultural, and economic [Liang et al., 2018]. These were used to assess urban livability indicators, including drinking water quality, income ratio, noise pollution, air pollution, waste collection quality, public transportation quality, pedestrian paths and walkability, sense of place attachment, crime rate, citizen participation, safety of public spaces, food consumption, and housing quality.
Data on the spatial distribution of healthcare facilities, police stations, educational centers, and fire stations were obtained from the Statistics and Planning Office of Tehran Municipality. Each sub-indicator under study was expressed on a qualitative scale indicating the distance from each service center (very low, low, medium, high, and very high). ArcGIS 10.8.2 software was employed to analyze the spatial data.
For analyzing the residents’ questionnaire responses, the Shannon entropy method was applied [Parsaee et al., 2022]. Experts’ opinions on weighting the indicators were analyzed using the AHP method in Expert Choice 11 software. The AHP-derived scores for each district were integrated into ArcGIS layers, and the final urban livability zoning map was generated.
Findings
The results of the analysis regarding the distance from urban services showed that shorter distances indicated higher scores for access to services, while greater distances indicated lower scores.
The status of the infrastructure and urban services indicator in Districts 3 and 4 was evaluated as less favorable compared with the other districts. Regarding the economic indicator, employment status in Districts 4 and 1 was higher than in the other districts, while the overall weight of the economic indicator was greater in Districts 1 and 2. The highest level of air pollution, from the residents’ perspective, was observed in District 1, whereas the lowest level was found in District 3. Noise pollution was reported to be highest in District 2. Green space per capita was greater in Districts 4 and 3 than in the others. Waste collection quality was assessed as higher in District 2 compared to the other districts.
Access to socio-cultural services, measured by sub-indicators including sense of place attachment, citizen participation, crime rate, and safety of public spaces, was greater in Districts 2 and 1 compared with the others. Within the economic dimension, employment ratio was found to be better in Districts 4 and 1, housing quality ratio in Districts 2 and 1, and food consumption ratio in Districts 3 and 1 compared to the other districts.
The highest livability score was recorded in District 2, followed by District 1, while the lowest livability rankings were observed in Districts 3 and 4, respectively.
Among the dimensions, urban infrastructure with a weighting coefficient of 0.269 was identified as the most influential factor in livability, primarily emphasizing environmental sustainability. The socio-cultural, economic, and environmental dimensions ranked next in terms of importance in determining urban livability in District 22 of Tehran metropolis.
The calculated livability scores for District 22 were as follows: Environmental dimension, 69.77%; infrastructure and urban services, 65.13%; economic dimension, 49.77%; and socio-cultural dimension, 45.01%. The overall urban livability in District 22 of Tehran metropolis was 57.42%, which was assessed as close to the average level.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the quality of livability in the districts of District 22, Tehran. Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities. On the one hand, cities serve as centers of social, economic, and spatial development, while on the other hand, they are also places where economic, social, and environmental challenges arise. Existing studies emphasize the necessity and importance of addressing urban livability in relation to new planning responsibilities for meeting societal needs and improving urban management. The more the conditions, quality, indicators, and services provided align with citizens’ needs, the higher the livability of the urban space will be [Mohammadi, 2020].
Social well-being depends on justice, namely the equitable social and spatial distribution of economic and environmental resources [Saghebi et al., 2022]. The analysis of educational facility distribution in District 22 revealed that in District 4, particularly in its northeastern and western parts, households faced long or very long distances to schools, whereas the greatest concentration of educational institutions was observed in Districts 1 and 2. Similarly, the clustering of healthcare facilities and police stations in Districts 1 and 2 highlighted the imbalance in the distribution of educational, healthcare, and policing services in the area. Such inequitable distribution of urban amenities and services can negatively affect other indicators as well. Therefore, the government must address the equal and balanced provision of services, guided by the principle of citizenship equality. In this regard, Piri et al. [2021] and Aliakbari & Akbari [2017] also have underscored the importance of improving infrastructure indicators and the distribution of urban services as key factors influencing other parameters.
Enhancing livability and, consequently, improving quality of life, is a core pillar of sustainable urban development. This goal can be achieved through improved urban environments, adequate housing and stable employment, individual and social security, balanced and optimal distribution of urban services, rehabilitation of urban infrastructure, and access to urban land uses. Additionally, expanding options for environmental protection, improving transport safety, and increasing the number of accessible public transportation nodes can each significantly contribute to enhancing livability in District 22 of Tehran. The environmental dimension was among the most important aspects of livability in this study, with undeniable effects on residents’ morale, sense of participation and solidarity, and strengthened attachment to place. A healthy urban fabric can foster an effective relationship between the city and its natural environment by enabling the rational use of environmental capacities, thereby protecting the environment while creating a pleasant urban atmosphere [Mohammadi, 2020]. The environmental indicator in Districts 3 and 4 of District 22 was found to be favorable, with better conditions for air pollution, noise pollution, and per capita green space compared to Districts 1 and 2. Similarly, Xiao et al. [2022] emphasize the improvement of environmental quality as a means to enhance urban livability, identifying pollution control, waste management, and water management as key sub-indicators.
The economic dimension, including adequate employment, income, and housing represents one of the most influential factors affecting all aspects of urban life, particularly livability. Indeed, the city itself functions as an economic space. Economic balance in cities is critical, as any disruption can fundamentally alter the sense of vitality and social equality. Variations in land and housing prices across different urban areas generate unequal opportunities for improving quality of life, and the reverse relationship is also true [Saghebi et al., 2022]. Research shows a direct relationship between housing conditions and human self-esteem, with housing quality closely linked to mental health issues, neurological behaviors, and overall quality of life [Ghanbari et al., 2021]. When individuals in a society are satisfied with their access to economic living conditions and face no significant barriers to meeting their needs, their life expectancy and quality of life improve. In District 22 of Tehran, the economic dimension, ranking just after the socio-cultural dimension was found to be in an unfavorable condition, requiring special attention. Similarly, Veysi Nab et al. [2019] and Parizadi & Bigdeli [2016] have stressed the importance of the economic dimension as the most critical factor in improving livability.
Among the limitations of this study was the lack of access to data on certain indicators. These were instead assessed using residents’ perceptions. Although urban livability can indeed be evaluated through residents’ opinions and lived experiences, relying solely on such perceptions may compromise the accuracy of findings. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies on urban livability incorporate not only residents’ perspectives but also empirical and field-based data to validate and enrich the evaluation of relevant indicators.
Conclusion
The level of urban livability in District 22 of Tehran metropolis was measured at 57.42%, which is evaluated as being close to the average level. Among the districts of District 22, the highest degree of livability was observed in District 2, while the lowest level was recorded in District 3.
Acknowledgments: None declared by the authors.
Ethical Approval: None declared by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: None declared by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Hekmati AH (First Author): Methodologist/Principal Researcher/Discussion Writer/Statistical Analyst (40%); Joodaki H (Second Author): Discussion Writer/Statistical Analyst (30%); Ziari Y (Third Author): Discussion Writer/Introduction Writer (30%)
Funding: This article is extracted from the dissertation of the first author, supervised by the second author and advised by the third author, with financial resources provided by the authors themselves.
Human settlements are the guarantors of human survival and development. They provide spaces for various human activities, including residence, work, education, healthcare, culture, and recreation [Irandoost et al., 2016]. The quality of human settlements generally has a significant impact on human health and well-being. With the development of the economy and urbanization over the past decades, certain issues such as natural disasters, environmental pollution, heavy traffic, and high housing costs have increasingly emerged, affecting residents’ quality of life, particularly in urban areas [Hataminezhad et al., 2019]. Consequently, the quality of the urban environment has drawn extensive attention from academia, governments, and the public alike. To describe and measure the quality of the urban environment, terms such as livability and related concepts including sustainability, quality of life, and well-being have gained wide popularity. Livability, as a goal of urban construction and development, has attracted broad attention in urban planning and urban geography. However, due to its interdisciplinary and multidimensional nature, there is still no universally accepted definition or concept of livability. The earliest definition of livability was offered by Pacione, who described it as a quality that is not inherent to the environment itself, but rather a function of the interaction between environmental characteristics and personal attributes [Pacione, 1990]. Newman argued that livability addresses human needs for health and well-being, including both individual and social welfare [Newman, 1999]. Moreover, Ruth and Franklin asserted that livability comprises two elements: the urban environment and the population in need of goods and services [Ruth & Franklin, 2014]. Overall, all these definitions emphasize the interaction between people and their environment. Despite various conceptualizations of urban livability, no consensus has yet been reached regarding its measurement [Zhan et al., 2018].
Numerous scholars have employed objective indicators in their studies and proposed frameworks for evaluating livability [Kotus & Rezewszewsky, 2013; Wang et al., 2011]. For instance, Savage developed a comprehensive indicator system for evaluating the quality of the living environment in U.S. urban areas. His system included cultural amenities, housing, employment, crime, transportation, and education [Savageaue, 2007]. Liu et al. have examined spatial patterns and driving factors of the urban environment in Chongqing, China, from the perspectives of the physical environment, built environment, and natural hazards [Liu et al., 2017]. Tang et al. have developed a comprehensive evaluation system focusing on housing conditions, urban natural environments, socio-economic contexts, and public infrastructure to analyze the changing trends and spatial differentiation of environmental quality in 35 major Chinese cities [Tang et al., 2017]. Furthermore, some researchers and research institutions have concentrated on ranking cities based on their livability [Kashef, 2016]. The annual Global Livability Ranking report, has prepared since 2010, encompasses 30 qualitative and quantitative indicators across five dimensions: stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure [Economist Intelligence, 2019]. Tan et al. have used the Global Livability Index (GLI) to rank 64 major cities worldwide [Tan et al., 2014].
Other studies have examined residents’ subjective satisfaction with urban livability. Two main aspects of existing research are the assessment of residential satisfaction [Mohit et al., 2010] and the analysis of influencing factors [Salleh, 2008; Jansen, 2014]. Residential satisfaction is a complex and comprehensive process, heavily influenced by factors such as residents’ backgrounds and attributes, neighborhood characteristics, housing quality, and public amenities or infrastructure [Chen et al., 2013; Ibem & Amole, 2012].
In Iran, the rapid expansion of cities and accelerated urban growth have transformed vast areas into urban construction zones. This process has destroyed gardens and agricultural lands, not only disrupting the ecological balance of urban service areas but also leading to shortages of services, infrastructure, and basic facilities, as well as inadequacies in urban transportation networks [Hekmatnia, 2021]. Tehran, the capital of Iran, ranks as the 21st most polluted city in the world and is the most densely populated city in the country. It serves as the national decision-making hub and hosts the largest concentration of economic, industrial, service, educational, research, administrative, and political facilities. Considering the ongoing urban expansion in Tehran, achieving a sustainable future and an optimal environmental status in peripheral and less developed areas such as District 22 is contingent upon sustainable planning. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to examine the quality of livability in Tehran.
Methodology
This descriptive study, conducted in 2022, employed the ranking of four districts in District 22, located in the westernmost part of Tehran, to evaluate urban livability. The minimum required sample size for the field study was determined using Cochran’s formula. Through random sampling, 600 residents (150 from each district) were recruited to complete the questionnaire. Additionally, 70 experts were selected using a convenience sampling method, and their opinions were collected.
Residents’ and experts’ perspectives on the quality of urban livability were gathered through field surveys. The research instrument was a researcher-designed questionnaire with responses measured on a four-point Likert scale. Since no precise consensus exists regarding the dimensions of urban livability and various criteria have been proposed in this regard [Fu et al., 2019; Arundel & Ronald, 2016; Kovacs-Gyori et al., 2019; Gue et al., 2020], the objective evaluation indicators were categorized into four dimensions: environmental, infrastructure and urban services, socio-cultural, and economic [Liang et al., 2018]. These were used to assess urban livability indicators, including drinking water quality, income ratio, noise pollution, air pollution, waste collection quality, public transportation quality, pedestrian paths and walkability, sense of place attachment, crime rate, citizen participation, safety of public spaces, food consumption, and housing quality.
Data on the spatial distribution of healthcare facilities, police stations, educational centers, and fire stations were obtained from the Statistics and Planning Office of Tehran Municipality. Each sub-indicator under study was expressed on a qualitative scale indicating the distance from each service center (very low, low, medium, high, and very high). ArcGIS 10.8.2 software was employed to analyze the spatial data.
For analyzing the residents’ questionnaire responses, the Shannon entropy method was applied [Parsaee et al., 2022]. Experts’ opinions on weighting the indicators were analyzed using the AHP method in Expert Choice 11 software. The AHP-derived scores for each district were integrated into ArcGIS layers, and the final urban livability zoning map was generated.
Findings
The results of the analysis regarding the distance from urban services showed that shorter distances indicated higher scores for access to services, while greater distances indicated lower scores.
The status of the infrastructure and urban services indicator in Districts 3 and 4 was evaluated as less favorable compared with the other districts. Regarding the economic indicator, employment status in Districts 4 and 1 was higher than in the other districts, while the overall weight of the economic indicator was greater in Districts 1 and 2. The highest level of air pollution, from the residents’ perspective, was observed in District 1, whereas the lowest level was found in District 3. Noise pollution was reported to be highest in District 2. Green space per capita was greater in Districts 4 and 3 than in the others. Waste collection quality was assessed as higher in District 2 compared to the other districts.
Access to socio-cultural services, measured by sub-indicators including sense of place attachment, citizen participation, crime rate, and safety of public spaces, was greater in Districts 2 and 1 compared with the others. Within the economic dimension, employment ratio was found to be better in Districts 4 and 1, housing quality ratio in Districts 2 and 1, and food consumption ratio in Districts 3 and 1 compared to the other districts.
The highest livability score was recorded in District 2, followed by District 1, while the lowest livability rankings were observed in Districts 3 and 4, respectively.
Among the dimensions, urban infrastructure with a weighting coefficient of 0.269 was identified as the most influential factor in livability, primarily emphasizing environmental sustainability. The socio-cultural, economic, and environmental dimensions ranked next in terms of importance in determining urban livability in District 22 of Tehran metropolis.
The calculated livability scores for District 22 were as follows: Environmental dimension, 69.77%; infrastructure and urban services, 65.13%; economic dimension, 49.77%; and socio-cultural dimension, 45.01%. The overall urban livability in District 22 of Tehran metropolis was 57.42%, which was assessed as close to the average level.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the quality of livability in the districts of District 22, Tehran. Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities. On the one hand, cities serve as centers of social, economic, and spatial development, while on the other hand, they are also places where economic, social, and environmental challenges arise. Existing studies emphasize the necessity and importance of addressing urban livability in relation to new planning responsibilities for meeting societal needs and improving urban management. The more the conditions, quality, indicators, and services provided align with citizens’ needs, the higher the livability of the urban space will be [Mohammadi, 2020].
Social well-being depends on justice, namely the equitable social and spatial distribution of economic and environmental resources [Saghebi et al., 2022]. The analysis of educational facility distribution in District 22 revealed that in District 4, particularly in its northeastern and western parts, households faced long or very long distances to schools, whereas the greatest concentration of educational institutions was observed in Districts 1 and 2. Similarly, the clustering of healthcare facilities and police stations in Districts 1 and 2 highlighted the imbalance in the distribution of educational, healthcare, and policing services in the area. Such inequitable distribution of urban amenities and services can negatively affect other indicators as well. Therefore, the government must address the equal and balanced provision of services, guided by the principle of citizenship equality. In this regard, Piri et al. [2021] and Aliakbari & Akbari [2017] also have underscored the importance of improving infrastructure indicators and the distribution of urban services as key factors influencing other parameters.
Enhancing livability and, consequently, improving quality of life, is a core pillar of sustainable urban development. This goal can be achieved through improved urban environments, adequate housing and stable employment, individual and social security, balanced and optimal distribution of urban services, rehabilitation of urban infrastructure, and access to urban land uses. Additionally, expanding options for environmental protection, improving transport safety, and increasing the number of accessible public transportation nodes can each significantly contribute to enhancing livability in District 22 of Tehran. The environmental dimension was among the most important aspects of livability in this study, with undeniable effects on residents’ morale, sense of participation and solidarity, and strengthened attachment to place. A healthy urban fabric can foster an effective relationship between the city and its natural environment by enabling the rational use of environmental capacities, thereby protecting the environment while creating a pleasant urban atmosphere [Mohammadi, 2020]. The environmental indicator in Districts 3 and 4 of District 22 was found to be favorable, with better conditions for air pollution, noise pollution, and per capita green space compared to Districts 1 and 2. Similarly, Xiao et al. [2022] emphasize the improvement of environmental quality as a means to enhance urban livability, identifying pollution control, waste management, and water management as key sub-indicators.
The economic dimension, including adequate employment, income, and housing represents one of the most influential factors affecting all aspects of urban life, particularly livability. Indeed, the city itself functions as an economic space. Economic balance in cities is critical, as any disruption can fundamentally alter the sense of vitality and social equality. Variations in land and housing prices across different urban areas generate unequal opportunities for improving quality of life, and the reverse relationship is also true [Saghebi et al., 2022]. Research shows a direct relationship between housing conditions and human self-esteem, with housing quality closely linked to mental health issues, neurological behaviors, and overall quality of life [Ghanbari et al., 2021]. When individuals in a society are satisfied with their access to economic living conditions and face no significant barriers to meeting their needs, their life expectancy and quality of life improve. In District 22 of Tehran, the economic dimension, ranking just after the socio-cultural dimension was found to be in an unfavorable condition, requiring special attention. Similarly, Veysi Nab et al. [2019] and Parizadi & Bigdeli [2016] have stressed the importance of the economic dimension as the most critical factor in improving livability.
Among the limitations of this study was the lack of access to data on certain indicators. These were instead assessed using residents’ perceptions. Although urban livability can indeed be evaluated through residents’ opinions and lived experiences, relying solely on such perceptions may compromise the accuracy of findings. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies on urban livability incorporate not only residents’ perspectives but also empirical and field-based data to validate and enrich the evaluation of relevant indicators.
Conclusion
The level of urban livability in District 22 of Tehran metropolis was measured at 57.42%, which is evaluated as being close to the average level. Among the districts of District 22, the highest degree of livability was observed in District 2, while the lowest level was recorded in District 3.
Acknowledgments: None declared by the authors.
Ethical Approval: None declared by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: None declared by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Hekmati AH (First Author): Methodologist/Principal Researcher/Discussion Writer/Statistical Analyst (40%); Joodaki H (Second Author): Discussion Writer/Statistical Analyst (30%); Ziari Y (Third Author): Discussion Writer/Introduction Writer (30%)
Funding: This article is extracted from the dissertation of the first author, supervised by the second author and advised by the third author, with financial resources provided by the authors themselves.
Keywords:
References
1. Ali Akbari E, Akbari M (2017). Interpretive-Structural modeling of the factors that affect the viability of Tehran Metropolis. Journal of Spatial Planning. 21(1):1-31. [Persian] [Link]
2. Arundel R, Ronald R (2016). The role of urban form in sustainability of community: The case of Amsterdam. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. 44(1):33-53. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0265813515608640]
3. Chen L, Zhang W, Yang Y, Yu J (2013). Disparities in residential environment and satisfaction among urban residents in Dalian, China. Habitat International. 40:100-108. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.03.002]
4. Economist Intelligence (2019) [Internet]. New livability ranking and overview [Cited 2023, 10 May]. Available from: https://store.eiu.com/product/liveability-ranking-and-overview/. [Link]
5. Fu B, Yu D, Zhang Y (2019). The livable urban landscape: GIS and remote sensing extracted land use assessment for urban livability in Changchun Proper, China. Land Use Policy. 87:104048. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104048]
6. Ghanbari M, Ajzae Shokuhi M, Rahnam MR, Kharazmi OA (2021). The analysis of urban livability with emphasis on housing indicator (case study: Mashhad metropolis). Geography and Urban Space Development. 8(1):101-121. [Persian] [Link]
7. Guo A, Yang J, Xiao X, Xia J, Jin C, Li X (2020). Influences of urban spatial form on urban heat island effects at the community level in China. Sustainable Cities and Society. 53:101972. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101972]
8. Hataminejad H, Modanllou Jouybari M, Akhavan Hadari K (2019). Spatial analysis of physical liveability in Ahvaz metropolitan. Physical Social Planning. 6(1):11-23. [Link]
9. Hekmatnia H, Mosavi MN, Salmanzadeh S (2021). The effect of social pathology on livability in urban areas: A case study of Shahindej. Geographical Urban Planning Research. 9(1):29-50. [Link]
10. Ibem EO, Amole D (2012). Residential satisfaction in public core housing in Abeokuta, Ogun state, Nigeria. Social Indicators Research. 113(1):563-581. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11205-012-0111-z]
11. Irandoost K, Isaloo AA, Shahmoradi B (2016). Viability index in urban environments (case study: The central part of the holy city of Qom). Journal of Urban Economics and Management. 4(13):102-120. [Persian] [Link]
12. Kashef M (2016). Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries. Frontiers of Architectural Research. 5(2):239-253. [DOI:10.1016/j.foar.2016.03.003]
13. Kotus J, Rzeszewski M (2013). Between disorder and livability. Case of one street in post-socialist city. Cities. 32:123-134. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2013.03.015]
14. Kovacs-Györi A, Cabrera-Barona P, Resch B, Mehaffy M, Blaschke T (2019). Assessing and representing livability through the analysis of residential preference. Sustainability. 11(18):4934. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su11184934]
15. Liang X, Liu Y, Qiu T, Jing Y, Fang F (2018). The effects of locational factors on the housing prices of residential communities: The case of Ningbo, China. Habitat International. 81:1-11. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.09.004]
16. Liu Y, Yue W, Fan P, Zhang Z, Huang J (2017). Assessing the urban environmental quality of mountainous cities: A case study in Chongqing, China. Ecological Indicators. 81:132-145. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.048]
17. Mohammadi Deh cheshmeh P (2020). The study of urban viability indicators status in Shahrekord, based on the position of urban management. Journal of Geographical Sciences. 20(57):205-222. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.29252/jgs.20.57.205]
18. Mohit MA, Ibrahim M, Rashid YR (2010). Assessment of residential satisfaction in newly designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International. 34(1):18-27. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.04.002]
19. Newman PWG (1999). Sustainability and cities: Extending the metabolism model. Landscape and Urban Planning. 44(4):219-226. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00009-2]
20. Pacione M (1990). Urban livability: A review. Urban Geography. 11(1):1-30. [Link] [DOI:10.2747/0272-3638.11.1.1]
21. Parizadi T, Bigdeli L (2016). Viability assessment in district 17 of Tehran Municipality. Journal of Spatial Analysis Environmental Hazards. 3(1):65-90. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.jsaeh.3.1.65]
22. Piri F, Maleki S, Abedi Z (2021). Identifying the factors affecting the urban livability with structural-interpretive modeling approach (case study: Ilam city). Journal of Geography & Regional Development. 36(1):53-87. [Persian] [Link]
23. Ruth M, Franklin RS (2014). Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Applied Geography. 49:18-23. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.018]
24. Saghebi M, Mafi E, Watanparast M (2022). Evaluation and measurement of urban viability and factors affecting it (case study of Bojnourd city). Journal of Applied Researches in Geographical Sciences. 22(67):335-350. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.52547/jgs.22.67.335]
25. Salleh AG (2008). Neighborhood factors in private low-cost housing in Malaysia. Habitat International. 32(4):485-493. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.01.002]
26. Savageau D (2007). Places rated Almanac: The classic guide for finding your best places to live in America. 7th Edition. Washington: Places Rated Books LLC. [Link]
27. Tang L, Ruth M, He Q, Mirzaee S (2017). Comprehensive evaluation of trends in human settlements quality changes and spatial differentiation characteristics of 35 Chinese major cities. Habitat International. 70:81-90. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.10.001]
28. Veysi Nab B, Babaei Aghdam F, Ghorbani R (2019). Identification and leveling related factors in urban livability (case study: Tabriz Metropolis). Geographical Urban Planning Research. 7(1):127-149. [Persian] [Link]
29. Wang J, Su M, Chen B, Chen S, Liang C (2011). A comparative study of Beijing and three global cities: A perspective on urban livability. Frontiers of Earth Science. 5(3):323-329. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11707-011-0182-1]
30. Xiao Y, Chai J, Wang R, Huang H (2022). Assessment and key factors of urban livability in underdeveloped regions: A case study of the Loess Plateau, China. Sustainable Cities and Society. 79:103674. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2022.103674]