سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات161
تعداد شماره‌ها6,532
تعداد مقالات70,501
تعداد مشاهده مقاله124,096,776
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله97,204,171
بگ محمدی, علی اصغر, سلاورزی زاده, محمد. (1400). تحلیل مولفه های اثر گذار در همه شمولی فضاهای شهری: نمونه موردی شهر ایلام. , 53(3), 921-941. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2020.295741.1008065
علی اصغر بگ محمدی; محمد سلاورزی زاده. "تحلیل مولفه های اثر گذار در همه شمولی فضاهای شهری: نمونه موردی شهر ایلام". , 53, 3, 1400, 921-941. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2020.295741.1008065
بگ محمدی, علی اصغر, سلاورزی زاده, محمد. (1400). 'تحلیل مولفه های اثر گذار در همه شمولی فضاهای شهری: نمونه موردی شهر ایلام', , 53(3), pp. 921-941. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2020.295741.1008065
بگ محمدی, علی اصغر, سلاورزی زاده, محمد. تحلیل مولفه های اثر گذار در همه شمولی فضاهای شهری: نمونه موردی شهر ایلام. , 1400; 53(3): 921-941. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2020.295741.1008065

تحلیل مولفه های اثر گذار در همه شمولی فضاهای شهری: نمونه موردی شهر ایلام

پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی
دوره 53، شماره 3، مهر 1400، صفحه 921-941    اصل مقاله (1.13 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jhgr.2020.295741.1008065
نویسندگان
علی اصغر بگ محمدی* 1؛ محمد سلاورزی زاده2
1مربی دانشکده فنی دانشگاه ایلام
2استادیار دانشکده فنی دانشگاه ایلام
چکیده
شهر همه شمول فرایند تحقق شکل­گیری شهر، برای صاحبان اصلی آن یعنی همه مردمی که در آن شهر زیست می­کنند می­باشد. فضاهای همه شمول فضاهایی هستند که زمینه لازم جهت کنش­گری افراد مختلف با ویژگی­های متفاوت را از طریق تدارک امکانات مورد نیاز برای گروه­های مختلف جامعه به ویژه سالمندان، معلولین، زنان و کودکان فراهم می­کنند. این پژوهش بر اساس مفاهیم و مولفه­های شهر همه شمول، به تحلیل و بررسی چگونگی دسترسی همه گروههای سنی اعم از سالخوردگان، کودکان و افراد آسیب­پذیر مانند معلولان و گروه­های هدف به ویژه زنان به فضا­های عمومی شهری، در محدوده شهر ایلام از منظر شهروندان به منظور افزایش تعاملات اجتماعی و سرزندگی شهری پرداخته است. روش تحقیق در این پژوهش، توصیفی- تحلیلی و داده­ها و اطلاعات مورد نیاز به صورت پیمایشی گردآوری شده است. ابزار مورد استفاده برای گردآوری داده­ها، پرسشنامه عمومی بوده که بر اساس فرمول کوکران میان نمونه آماری 385 نفری به نسبت جمعیت نواحی شهر توزیع شده است. روش تحلیل پژوهش کمی بوده و با استفاده از نرم افزار SPSS و آزمون­های T تک نمونه­ای و آزمون F و تحلیل ANOVA انجام شده است. یافته­های آزمون T تک نمونه­ای نشان می­دهد که کیفیت همه شمولی محیط شهری ایلام پایین­تر از حد میانگین است. آزمون F و تحلیل آنووا نشان می­دهند از نظر مجموع شاخص­های مورد مطالعه دو ناحیه شهری؛ بان­برز و استانداری در پایین­ترین سطح کیفیت زندگی (خیلی کم) و سه ناحیه؛ فرودگاه قدیم، صدا و سیما و جانبازان در بالاترین (خیلی زیاد) شرایط کیفیت زندگی از نظر شهر همه شمول قرار دارند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
شهر همه شمول؛ فضای شهری؛ شهر ایلام؛ شاخص‌های کیفی؛ شاخص‌های کمی
عنوان مقاله [English]
An Analysis of the Indicators Affecting the Inclusiveness of Urban Spaces: A Case Study of Ilam
نویسندگان [English]
Ali-Asqhar Bag-Mohammadoi1؛ Mohammad Salavarzizadah2
1Master of Architecture, Instructor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Ilam University
2PhD in Geography and Urban Planning, Assistant Professor of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Ilam University.
چکیده [English]
An Analysis of the Indicators Affecting the Inclusiveness of Urban Spaces: A Case Study of Ilam
Ali-Asghar Bag-Mohammadi, Lecturer, Engineering Faculty, Ilam University, Phone: 09183433082, Email: a.bagmohammadi@ilam.ac.ir
Mohammad Salavarzi, Assistant Professor, Engineering Faculty, Ilam University, Phone: 09188428150, Email: m.salavarzi@ilam.ac.ir

Introduction: The development processes of an inclusive city should include all citizens, their social needs, and their activities. Inclusive spaces are those that provide the necessary basis for the presence of different people with different characteristics. They provide all the facilities needed for different groups of society, especially the elderly, the disabled, women, and children.
The World Bank defines inclusiveness with an operational framework covering 20 dimensions (such as access to basic services, slum upgrading, spatial access to jobs, etc.) in three broad categories, i.e., spatial, social, and economic inclusion. Given the broadness of the concept of inclusive growth/development/cities, extant studies often specify two fundamental questions for operationalization, i.e., inclusive of what and inclusive of whom. Thereby, despite using the similar concept of an inclusive city, its underlying meaning and the theoretical grounds in each study can be quite different. For measuring equality and inclusive development of cities, some researches focus on the women safeties or designing cities for disabled while others define safety as the main indicator. Among different attitudes about the inclusive city, many researchers highlighted the role of different indicators like economic factors, housing, immigrants, races, aging, women's safety, and disabled people. We emphasize on the importance of the formation of equal social interactions for all city dwellers as a major indicator for measuring the inclusiveness of the urban space.
The effective factors affecting the equal social interactions of urban spaces include the physical properties of the environment (objective and subjective). Physical factors include elements such as lighting, symbols, parking spaces, urban furniture, texture, and geographic differences. Internal relations include parameters such as security, accessibility, readability, awareness, maintenance, performance, and flexibility.
By studying the existing theories of urban space quality which are presented in Table 1 the following components have been extracted with respect to semantic similarities between the proposed parameters. The extracted components are classified into the physical and qualitative categories:
1-Qualitative components: security and comfort, sense of belonging, social interactions, nightlife, urban readability, aesthetics, vitality, human scale, and place identity.
2-Physical components: usage diversity, access to services and facilities, climatic comfort, urban congestion, urban furniture, and walkability.
Methodology: The purpose of this study was to analyze the differences between life quality indicators in an inclusive city. The life quality indices including 15 different components were assessed for different groups living in the fourteen districts of Ilam city including children, women, the elderly, and the disabled.
The special geographical features of Ilam city such as rugged topography, sloping urban lands, existence of various canals and valleys, and historical factors such as low antiquity, socio-economic conditions, multiplicity of informal settlements, worn and old textures are the main factors impacting the quality of urban public spaces of Ilam city. Therefore, the space quality is unpleasant for all different urban groups such as the elderly, the disabled, children and women, and from this perspective, citizens should face many problems and difficulties.
Therefore, while reviewing the literature of the subject and paying attention to the main and important points in the theories about the quality of urban environment, we analyze the difference between the situations of urban spaces in terms of observing the criteria of universality of the city. We consider all indicators together and individually in the fourteen districts of Ilam city. The main questions of this research are: 1- What is the quality of the public spaces of different districts of Ilam city in terms of the components of an inclusive city? 2- What is the rank of the fourteen districts of Ilam city in terms of all indicators and individual indicators of an inclusive city? What are the most appropriate and inappropriate urban areas in this regard?
The research method in this study is descriptive-analytic and data gathering is done through the survey and questionnaire tools. The statistical population is residents of Ilam with a population of 194,000. Using the Cochran's formula, a statistical sample of 383 people was randomly selected and questionnaires were distributed among the residents according to population. In this questionnaire, using 38 metrics in the form of 15 components, the city of Ilam was studied and analyzed from the perspective of observing the criteria of the inclusive city. Data were analyzed by SPSS software using one-sample t-test, f-test, and ANOVA analysis.
Results: There were significant differences between the studied life quality indices in fourteen districts of Ilam except for place identity. The difference in the overall indicators was also significant. Informal settlements of Banbarz, SabzieAbad, Ostandari, and Hanivan suffer from a poor life quality due to the inclined topography, inadequate urban lands, and urban-rural texture. In contrast, modern areas such as old airport, Sad-Dastgah, Seda-Sima, and Janbazan enjoy better life quality due to adequate land, flat land, modernization, and higher income of citizens.
Conclusion: Rugged and mountainous topography of Ilam, the gradient of urban lands, the formation of suburbs in inappropriate and inclined urban landscapes, presence of old textures in Banbarz, SabzieAbad, Ostandari, and Hanivan, adverse effects of rural migration, and the existence of different valleys and watercourse are effective factors in degrading the life quality components of the inclusive city in the fourteen districts of Ilam. To improve the quality of life in the fourteen districts of Ilam from the perspective of the resident requirements of an inclusive city, special attention must be paid to Banbarz, SabzieAbad, Ostandari, and Hanivan in urban development planning, policymaking, and development projects of the inclusive city.
Keywords: Inclusive city, urban space, Ilam city, qualitative indicators, quantitative indicators
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Inclusive city, urban space, Ilam city, qualitative indicators, quantitative indicators
مراجع
  1. بنتلی ای ین و همکاران (1985) محیط­های پاسخده، ترجمه: دکتر مصطفی بهزادفر، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران
  2. تیبالدز، فرانسیس (1992)، شهرسازی شهروندگرا : ارتقاء عرصه­های همگانی و محیط­های شهری، ترجمه: محمد احمدی­نژاد، نشر خاک، اصفهان.
  3. توسلی، محمود (1376)، اصول و روشهای طراحی شهری و فضاهای مسکونی در ایران، مرکز مطالعات و تحقیقات شهرسازی و معماری ایران، تهران
  4. رضوی سید مصطفی، ملک افضلی علی اصغر (1394)، بررسی و تحلیل عوامل موثر در ارتقاء کیفیات محیطی فضاهای شهری، اولین کنفرانس بین المللی انسان، معماری، مهندسی عمران و شهر­، ص 12-1
  5. رزاقی اصل، سینا (1385)، طراحی شهری شهروند گرا- شهروند گرایی و جایگاه آن در طراحی شهری، ماهنامه شهرداری­ها، سال ششم، شماره 74 . ص 20-24
  6. فرجی­راد، خدر (1397)، برنامه آمایش استان ایلام، مهندسین مشاور شرق آیند، سازمان مدیریت و برنامه ریزی استان ایلام
  7. کاوش نیا، حامد، بندر آباد ،علیرضا، مدیری، آنوسا (1396)، مولفه­ها و شاخص­های شکل­گیری مکان به عرصه­های شهری از منظر نظریه انتقادی، مدیریت شهری، شماره 49. ص 151-170
  8. گهل، یان (1987)، زندگی در فضای میان ساختمان­ها ترجمه­، : شصتی شیما­، سازمان انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی­، تهران
  9. لشکری،الهام، رفیعیان مجتبی، عندلیب علی رضا (1395)، بررسی عوامل موثر بر ادراک کیفیت عرصه­های همگانی شهر مشهد، مدیریت شهری، شماره 45. ص 464-449
  10. لینچ، کوین(1981)، تئوری شکل شهر، ترجمه: دکتر سید حسین بحرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران
  11. ملکی، سعید، سجادیان ناهید (1390)، توسعه فضایی کالبدی شهر ایلام دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام
  12. Abubakar I R, Aina Y A. (2019). The prospects and challenges of developing more inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities in Nigeria. Land Use Policy. No 87
  13. Angeles, L. C., & Roberton, J. (2020). Empathy and inclusive public safety in the city: Examining LGBTQ2+ voices and experiences of intersectional discrimination. In Women's Studies, International Forum(Vol. 78, p. 102313). Pergamon.
  14. Bentley, I. (1990). Ecological Urban Design, Architects Journal, 192(24): PP 69-71,
  15. Bentley I, (1985) Responsive Environments: A Manual for Designers. Translated By: Behzadfar, M. Iran University of Science and Technology. Tehran (In Persian)
  16. and Christiane Crasemann Collins (New York: Random House, 1965),
  17. Canter D. (1977). The Psychology of Place, Architectural Press, London
  18. Carmona, M. et al (2003) , Public places – Urban spaces, The dimensions of urban design, Architectural Press, New York
  19. Coleman, J. (1987). Opportunities for Innovation in Urban Design Education, Australian Planners 25 (4): PP 28-31
  20. Crush, J, Carolina S, Chikanda A. (2017). Informal migrant entrepreneurship and inclusive growth in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Southern African Migration Programme. Cape town.
  21. DETR, "By Design – Urban Design in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice", London: Department Of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 2000.
  22. Ebenezer Howard.(2007). Garden cities of to-morrow, Routledge, London and New York.
  23. Francesco, A (2016). Inclusive city, strategies, experiences and guidelines. Social and Behavioral Sciences. No 233. PP 4-10
  24. Jacobs, A & D. Appleyard. (1987). Toward an Urban Design Manifesto, JAPA, 53(1): PP 112-120
  25. Gehl, J (1987) Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space, translated by Shima, S. Organization of Academic Jihad Publications. Tehran.(In Persian).
  26. Greene, S. (1992). Cityshape, JAPA, 1992, 58(2): PP 177-189.
  27. Goodey B. (1993). Two Gentlemen in Verona: The Qualities of Urban Design, Streetwise, 4(2):3-5
  28. Haase D, Kabisch S, Haase A, Andersson E, Banzhaf E, Kabisch N, Krellenberg K, Kremer P, Kronenberg J, Larondelle N, Mathey J, Pauleit F, Ring I, Rink D, Schwarz N, Wolff M. (2017). Greening cities - To be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat International, No 64, PP 41-48
  29. Haughton G. & C. Hunter. (1994). ,Sustainable Cities, Jessica Kingsley, London
  30. Kaveshniaa, H., Babdarabad, A., Modiri A. (2018). Dialectical arenas (components and indicators of place formation in urban areas from the perspective of critical theory). Urban Management, No. 49. pp. 151-170
  31. Imrie, R., & Hall, P. (2003). Inclusive design: Designing and developing accessible environments. Spon Press, London
  32. Jacobs J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House. New York
  33. Jacobs, A. and Appleyard, D. (1987), Toward an urban design manifesto: A prologue, Journal of the American Planning Association.
  34. Lang, J. (1994). Urban Design – The American Experience,: Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
  35. Lang J. (1987), Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioural sciences in environmental design, New York; Wokingham:Van Nostrand Reinhold, London
  36. Lashkari, E, Rafieian M, Andalib AR. (2016). Effective Factors on Quality of Urban Public Realms in Mashhad, Urban Management, No. 45. pp. 464-449. (In Persian)
  37. Lynch, K. (1981). A Theory of Good City Form, Translated By: Bahraini, SM. University Of Tehran, Tehran. (In Persian)
  38. Makore, BCN2018, Ageing in urban spaces : developing inclusive urban environments for older people in Global South cities , PhD thesis, University of Salford.
  39. Müller, A. L. (2019). Voices in the city. On the role of arts, artists and urban space for a just city. Cities, 91, 49-57.
  40. Mumford, L. (1937). What is a city.Architectural record, 82(5), 59-62.
  41. Nelessen, A. C. (1994). Visions for a New American Dream, APA Planner Press, , Chicago
  42. Parama Mitra, Suchandra Bardhan (2016), Tracing the importance of Safety Audit Inclusive Cities: a step towards Smart cities, International Conference Green Urbanism, GU
  43. Razaghi-A, S. (2006), Urban Designing for Citizens: Citizenship and Its Position in Urban Design, Municipalities Magazine, Sixth Year, No. 74. Pp. 20-24. (In Persian).
  44. Razavi, SM, Malek-Afzali, AA. (2015). Investigation and Analysis of Factors Affecting the Improvement of Environmental Quality of Urban Spaces. First International Conference on Human, Architecture, Civil and Urban Engineering. (In Persian).
  45. Serageldin, M. (2016). Inclusive cities and access to land, housing, and services in developing countries. Urban development series knowledge papers no. 22. Washington, DC: World Bank.
  46. Sitte, C, (1989), City Planning According to Artistic Principles, trans. George R. Collins
  47. Southworth, M. (1989). Theory and Practice of Contemporary Urban Design, Town Planning Review, 60(4) PP 369-402
  48. Tavassoli, M. (1997), Principles and Methods of Urban Design and Residential Spaces in Iran, Iranian Center for Urban Studies and Research, Tehran. (In Persian).
  49. Tibbalds, F. (1990). Urban Design: Public V. Private Realm, The Architect's Journal, 192(19) PP 59-61
  50. Tibalds, F. (1992). Making People-Friendly Towns: Improving the Public Environment in Town and Cities. Translated by: Ahmadinejad M. Soil Publishing, Isfahan. (In Persian).
  51. Trancik R. (1986). Finding Lost Space: Theory of Urban Design, John Wiley and Sons. New York
  52. UN, 2018. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2018. United Nations, New York
  53. Violich, F. (1983) .Urban Reading and the Design of Small Urban Places: The Village of Sutivan, Town Planning Review, Vol. 54 , PP.41-62
  54. Wanyang H, Rui W. (2019).Which Chinese cities are more inclusive?, Cities. No 86. PP 51-61
  55. Whitzman, C. (Ed.). (2013). Building inclusive cities: Women's safety and the right to the city. London and Newyork.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,120
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 974


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب