سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات161
تعداد شماره‌ها6,532
تعداد مقالات70,501
تعداد مشاهده مقاله124,110,400
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله97,214,084
سجادی اصل, مریم, توکلی نیا, جمیله, قورچی, مرتضی, صرافی, مظفر. (1401). تحلیل تطبیقی سیاست‏ های مسکن کم‏ در‏آمد شهری در کشورهای ایران، چین، استرالیا، انگلستان، و ایالات متحدة امریکا. , 54(1), 289-315. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2021.311053.1008181
مریم سجادی اصل; جمیله توکلی نیا; مرتضی قورچی; مظفر صرافی. "تحلیل تطبیقی سیاست‏ های مسکن کم‏ در‏آمد شهری در کشورهای ایران، چین، استرالیا، انگلستان، و ایالات متحدة امریکا". , 54, 1, 1401, 289-315. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2021.311053.1008181
سجادی اصل, مریم, توکلی نیا, جمیله, قورچی, مرتضی, صرافی, مظفر. (1401). 'تحلیل تطبیقی سیاست‏ های مسکن کم‏ در‏آمد شهری در کشورهای ایران، چین، استرالیا، انگلستان، و ایالات متحدة امریکا', , 54(1), pp. 289-315. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2021.311053.1008181
سجادی اصل, مریم, توکلی نیا, جمیله, قورچی, مرتضی, صرافی, مظفر. تحلیل تطبیقی سیاست‏ های مسکن کم‏ در‏آمد شهری در کشورهای ایران، چین، استرالیا، انگلستان، و ایالات متحدة امریکا. , 1401; 54(1): 289-315. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2021.311053.1008181

تحلیل تطبیقی سیاست‏ های مسکن کم‏ در‏آمد شهری در کشورهای ایران، چین، استرالیا، انگلستان، و ایالات متحدة امریکا

پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی
دوره 54، شماره 1، فروردین 1401، صفحه 289-315    اصل مقاله (516.91 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jhgr.2021.311053.1008181
نویسندگان
مریم سجادی اصل* 1؛ جمیله توکلی نیا2؛ مرتضی قورچی3؛ مظفر صرافی4
1دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2دانشیار جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
3استادیار جغرافیا سیاسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
4استاد جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
بررسی پیشینة تحقیقات دهه‏ های گذشته در کشور‏های جهان نشان می‏ دهد که توجه به مسکن کم‏ درآمد شهری یکی از مهم ‏ترین بخش ‏های اقتصادی وحتی دولت ‏هاست و دراین زمینه با توجه به شعارها واهداف هردولت سیاست‏ های متفاوتی به منظور توسعة مسکن و زیربخش‏ های آن در سطوح مختلف به‏ کار گرفته ‏اند. هدف از این پژوهش تحلیل تطبیقی سیاست‏ های مسکن کم ‏درآمد شهری در کشورهای چین، استرالیا، انگلستان، و ایالات متحدة امریکا با کشور ایران است تا از تجربیات این کشورها د‏ر جهت کاهش نقاط ضعف و بهبود توسعة مسکن کم‏ درآمد شهری کشور بهره گرفته شود. نوع تحقیق توسعه ‏ای، روش مورداستفاده تطبیقی با تحلیل کیفی، و بر اساس شیوة تحلیل محتواست. برای گردآوری اطلاعات از روش ‏اسنادی بهره گرفته شده است. یافته‏ های تحقیق نشان می‏ دهد موفقیت کشورهای چین، استرالیا، انگلستان، و ایالات متحدة امریکا از طریق یکپارچگی برنامه ‏ها و سیاست‏گذاری در سطح ملی، منطقه ‏ای، و محلی بوده است و با دادن اختیار به ایالت‏ های مرکزی و محلی در برنامه ‏های قانونی و سیاست ‏های توسعة مسکن استرتژی‏ های راهبردی را لحاظ کرده ‏اند. اما کشور ایران در سطح ملی به دلیل نگرش و تفکر ساختار متمرکز در برنامه ‏ریزی و نگرش بخشی به برنامه ‏ها با مشکلاتی مواجه است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
ایران؛ برنامه ‏ریزی؛ سیاست‏گذاری؛ مسکن کم‏ درآمد شهری
عنوان مقاله [English]
Comparative analysis of low-income urban housing policies in Iran, China, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States
نویسندگان [English]
Maryam Sajadi1؛ Jamileh Tavakolinia2؛ Morteza Ghourchi3؛ Mozaffar Sarrafi4
2Human Geography &Physical Planning Earth Science Faculty SHahid Beheshti University
3Shahid Beheshti
4Shahid Beheshti
چکیده [English]
Introduction
Since the twentieth century, the right to housing for society has been recognized in most developed countries as one of the rights of citizens and has gradually become the responsibility of the governments of those societies. However, in developing countries, despite the emphasis on the importance of housing as a basic need and a fundamental right, a significant percentage of urban households are unable to provide it. Thus, having housing is becoming more and more complicated and household conditions are becoming more critical (Short, 2007: 199). Therefore, in order to determine the importance of housing in development and management programs and resource allocation, it is necessary to establish a close relationship with housing goals and policies and general and general goals and policies of social and economic development in urban programs.
Methodology
The present research is qualitative in terms of research, comparative and nature and in terms of purpose, it is developmental and in terms of methodology, it is a content analysis and of qualitative type. In the case-by-case comparison method, several items that can be in the form of macro, medium, and micro units are compared. These cases may have different identities in terms of their scope and variables. Usually, as the number of cases increases, which form large units such as civilizations, their volume and number decrease, but the number of related and hidden variables in these unit’s increases. Because large and large units are prone to cover multiple variables, and vice versa, by limiting the range of units, although their number increases, these cases or units cover fewer variables. Given that the ultimate goal of this research is to compare the structure of housing policy studies with Iran, identify deficiencies, shortcomings and strengths in housing policy and finally provide suggestions for improving the desired structure. To achieve this goal, the structure of Iran's low-income urban housing policy has been compared with four countries: China, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. The selection of these countries is based on the issue of low-income urban housing policy structure, which has had successful experience in this field. On the other hand, the selection of these countries by accessing information and statistics from the World Housing site has also been documents, books and articles. It then compares the detailed information of these countries based on the criteria of "macro-policies for collecting and extracting their main idea and comparing them with each other". Therefore, according to the types of comparative methods that have been briefly discussed in the theoretical foundations, a large-scale (large) method has been used for the research.

Results and discussion
A review of the experiences of Australia, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States in the field of housing and low-income urban housing policy at various national, regional, and local levels shows that the success of the programs at the three levels of It has been achieved through the creation of a local, regional institution and the transfer of power from macro-national decisions to regional and local levels. In the United Kingdom, the government system, by policy-making in programs, examines the role of housing monitoring at various levels; And by giving authority to central and local states in legal programs and housing development policies, their role is considered strategic. In this country, the creation of an intermediate level government (or institution) as a strategic institution with HSMO housing policy and urban planning programs. In China, the implementation of three housing programs (affordable and comfortable housing, the Future Housing Fund and cheap housing rental) showed that China has implemented political will, organizational reform, and organizational capacity at all levels of affordable housing on a large scale. It was made clear that China needs to integrate institutions from central government to local government to meet the housing needs of low- and middle-income families, and housing programs are an integral part of national and local economic policies. Another policy in China is to privatize public housing. This is done by transferring to tenants (. free, or selling and nominal cost). Therefore, housing privatization is a good way to provide affordable housing in some countries, including China. In Australia, much of the planning and decision-making process for urban housing and low-income housing is the responsibility of local governments, and central governments oversee local government affairs by setting macro-policies. In the United States; The state and local planning perspective, with an emphasis on private sector participation and encouragement, is essential as a necessary tool to meet the real needs of the people and not based on the will of the central government. The independence of central and local governments in various sectors, decision-making and decision-making, guarantees accurate problem-solving and the realization of plans and programs. Despite fundamental differences in national, regional, and local planning methods, it is possible for regions to compete for housing development, and from these approaches, the concept of policy-making becomes clear. While the macro-planning structure of Iran practically does not allow the transfer of authority. Power is transferred to the provincial branches of the central government, and this power takes place at a time when, due to the selection of government representatives as hierarchical by the central government directly, the officials of the relevant institutions practically protect the interests of government officials. It leads to regional and local interests

Conclusion
The results of this study address the housing policy structure at three levels: national, regional, and local, and how the three issues are addressed with China, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. He compared their similarities and differences in terms of the four dimensions of institutional and local participation in housing policy, the role of government in the structure of housing policy, the attitude of the housing planning system, the relationship between national, regional and local programs. And it examines the structure of the housing planning system. Another result of this study was to seek to understand and explain how it is possible to achieve the development of low-income urban housing.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Policy, planning, housing, low income, urban
مراجع
  1. احدی‏نژاد روشتی، محسن و مرادی مفرد، سمیرا، 1392، نقش استراتژی توسعة شهری (CDS) در سیاست‏های تأمین مسکن گروه‏های کم‏درآمد شهر، مطالعة موردی: ناحیة صفر‏آباد و بی‏سیم شهر زنجان، فصل‏نامة برنامه‏ریزی منطقه‏ای، 3(12): 35-48.
  2. اهری، زهرا و امینی، شهلا، 1375، تجارب کشورهای مختلف در تأمین مسکن، وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی، سازمان ملی زمین و مسکن.
  3. آقایی، پرویز، 1396، ارزیابی سیاست‏های تأمین مسکن شهری در جمهوری اسلامی ایران، گزارش مرکز بررسی‏های استراتژیک ریاست جمهوری، صص 1-32.
  4. آیینی، محمد و السادات اردستانی، زهرا، 1388، معیار ارزیابی برنامه‏های توسعة درون‏زای شهری، مجلة هویت شهری، دورة 3، ش 5، پیاپی 5، صص 46-58.
  5. پورعبدالعلی، سپیده، 1396، تحلیلی بر سیاست‏های ایجاد مساکن دولتی در شهرهای جدید ایران، مطالعة موردی: مسکن مهر شهر جدید سهند، پایان‏نامة کارشناسی ارشد برنامه‏ریزی شهری‏، دانشگاه برنامه‏ریزی و علوم محیطی تبریز.
  6. پورمحمدی، محمد‏رضا؛ صدر موسوی، میرستار و عابدینی، اصغر، 1391، تحلیلی بر سیاست‏های تأمین مسکن دولت با تأکید بر برنامه‏های توسعة اقتصادی، اجتماعی، و فرهنگی، فصل‏نامة علمی‏- پژوهشی مطالعات شهری، ش 3، صص 34-43.
  7. توکلی‏نیا، جمیله و ضرغامی، سعید، 1397، آسیب‏شناسی برنامه‏های پنجم و ششم توسعه اقتصادی، اجتماعی، و فرهنگی کشور در زمینة تأمین مسکن گروه‏های کم‏درآمد شهری، نشریة جغرافیا و مطالعات محیطی، دورة 7، ش 27، صص 107-122.
  8. حسینی، سیدهادی، ‏1397، بررسی سیاست‏های جهانی در زمینة تأمین مسکن مقرون‏به‏صرفه و ارائة سازوکار پیشنهادی برنامه‏ریزی مسکن در ایران، مجلة معماری‏شناسی، س 1، ش 1، صص 1-11.
  9. سلجوقیان، مهدی، 1375، سازمان‏دهی تعاونی‏ها برای تأمین مسکن، مقالات برگزیده در سومین سمینار سیاست‏های توسعة مسکن در ایران، تعاون، دورة جدید، ش 64، صص 31-35.
  10. سیف‏الدینی، فرانک و پناهنده‏خواه، موسی، 1389، چالش‏ها و موانع برنامه‏ریزی توسعة منطقه‏ای در ایران، پژوهش‏های جغرافیای انسانی‏، ش 73، صص 83-98.
  11. صرافی، مظفر، 1382، از حاشیه‏نشینی تا متن شهرنشینی، هفت شهر، س 3، ش 8.
  12. عزیزی، محمدمهدی، 1378، جزوة درس برنامه‏ریزی مسکن، مقطع کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تهران، گروه شهرسازی.
  13. فرجی راد، خدر؛ کاظمیان، غلام‏رضا و رکن‏الدین افتخاری، عبدالرضا، 1390، آسیب‏شناسی سیاست‏های توسعة منطقه‏ای در ایران از دیدگاه رویکرد نهادی، مجلة فرایند مدیریت توسعه، دورة 26، ش 2، پیاپی 84، صص 27-58.
  14. مشکینی، ابوالفضل؛ سلیمانی، عزیز، حسین و زارع‏پیشه، نرگس، 1392، ارزیابی میزان تحقق‏پذیری اهداف شهرهای جدید (مطالعة موردی، شهر جدید صدرا)، فصل‏نامة مطالعات برنامه‏ریزی شهری، س 1، ش 1، صص 29-41.
  15. معتمدی، مسعود، 1375، رهیافتی بر وضعیت مسکن اقشار فقیر، مجموعه‏مقالات سومین سمینار سیاست‏های توسعة مسکن، ج 3، وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی.
  16. منجذب، محمدرضا و مصطفی‏پور، مصطفی، 1392، بررسی اثرات مسکن مهر بر بازار مسکن در ایران، فصل‏نامة سیاست‏های راهبردی کلان، دورة 1، ش 3.
  17. نسترن، مهین و رعنایی1389، تحلیلی بر مفهوم مشارکت و کارگروهی در پروژه‏های آماده‏سازی اراضی مسکن مهر، مجله آرمانشهر، ش 4، صص 123-111.
  18. یگانگی دستگردی، وحید، 1389، تأثیر هدفمندکردن یارانه‏ها بر معیشت ساکنان مسکن مهر در تهران، مجلة اقتصاد شهر، ش 8، صص 57-70.
  19. Abastante, F.; Corrente, S.; Greco, S.; Ishizaka, A. and Lami, I. M., 2018, Choice architecture for architecture choices: Evaluating social housing initiatives putting together a parsimonious AHP methodology and the Choquet integral, Land Use Policy, 78, 748-762.
  20. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), 2015, Housing Occupancy and Costs, 2013-14. ABS cat. no. 4130.0, Canberra: ABS.
  21. Addo, I. A., 2013, Perceptions and acceptability of multihabitation as an urban low-income housing strategy in Greater Accra Metropolitan Area, Ghana. In Urban Forum, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 543-571.
  22. AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare), 2013, Housing Assistance in Australia 2013. Cat. no. HOU 271. Canberra: AIHW.
  23. Australian Taxation Office, 2008, The First Home Saver Account: What you need to know, Archived from the original on 3 December 2008.
  24. Average, C., 2019, Low income housing problems and low-income housing solutions: opportunities and challenges in Bulawayo, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34(3), 927-938.
  25. BBHURD, 2010, No. 434. Guanyu tiaozheng benshi lianzu zhufang jiating shouru zhunru biaozhun youguan wenti de tongzhi (Notice about adjusting household income entry criterion for CRH in Beijing), http://bjjs.gov.cn/publish/portal0/tab662/info58710.htm.
  26. Beijing Municipal Government, 2011, No. 61. Beijing shi renmin zhenfu guanyu jiaqiang benshi gonggong zulin zhufang jianshe he guanli de tongzhi (Notice from Beijing municipal government about strengthening the construction and management of public rental housing), http://bjjs.gov.cn.
  27. Bramley, G.; Pawson, H.; Pleace, N.; Watkins, D. and White, M., 2010, Estimating Housing Need, London: Communities and Local Government.
  28. Bredenoord, J., 2016, Sustainable housing and building materials for low-income households, Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology, 5(1), 1-9.
  29. Buckley, R. M. and Kalarickal, J., 2005, Housing policy in developing countries: Conjectures and refutations, The World Bank Research Observer, 20(2), 233-257.
  30. Cantillon, B., 2011, The paradox of the social investment state: growth, employment and poverty in the Lisbon era. Journal of European social policy, 21(5), 432-449.
  31. Chen, J.; Guo, F. and Wu, Y., 2011, One decade of urban housing reform in China: Urban housing price dynamics and the role of migration and urbanization, 1995-2005. Habitat International, 35(1), 1-8.
  32. Collinson, R.; Ellen, I. G. and Ludwig, J., 2015, Low-income housing policy. In Economics of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, Vol. 2 (pp. 59-126). University of Chicago Press.
  33. Czischke, D., 2017, Collaborative housing and housing providers: Towards an analytical framework of multistakeholder collaboration in housing coproduction. J. Hous. Policy.
  34. Dohnke, J.; Heinrichs, D.; Kabisch, S.; Krellenberg, K. and Welz, J., 2015, Achieving a socio-spatial mix? Prospects and limitations of social housing policy in Santiago de Chile. Housing Studies, 30(6), 839-857.
  35. Fitzpatrick, S. and B. Watts, 2017, “Competing visions: security of tenure and the welfarisation of English social housing”, Housing Studies, 32(8), 1021-1038,
    https://org/10.1080/02673037.2017.1291916.
  36. Gao, Lu. 2010, Achievements and Challenges: 30 Years of Housing Reforms in the Peoples Republic of China, Asian Development Bank, ADB Economics Working Paper Series 01/
  37. Gonggao (Notice for land supply plan for housing), 2011, http://mlr.gov.cn/zwgk/zytz.
  38. Guthrie, D. and McQuarrie, M., 2005, Privatization and the social contract: Corporate welfare and low-income housing in the United States since 1986. Research in Political Sociology, 14, 15-51.
  39. Haffner, M.; Hoekstra, J.; Oxley, M.; Van der Heijden, H., 2009, Bridging the Gap between Social and Market Rented Housing in Six European Countries? IOS Press under the imprint of Delft University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  40. Haffner, M.; Hoekstra, J.; Tang, C.; Oxley, M., 2015, Institutional Investment in Social Rental Housing–France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom Explored. In Proceedings of the ENHR 2015 Conference Housing and Cities in a time of change: Are we focusing on People? Lisbon, Portugal, 1 July 2015.
  41. Hegedüs, J., 2012, The transformation of the social housing sector in Eastern Europe: A conceptual framework. In Social housing in transition countries (pp. 14-41). Routledge.
  42. Her Majesty's (HM) Government, 2010, Overview of the UK System of Government. .Retrieved September 12, 2010 From.http://direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Centralgovernmenta ndthemonarchy/DG_073438.
  43. Hernández, D. and Bird, S., 2010, Energy burden and the need for integrated low‐income housing and energy policy. Poverty & public policy, 2(4), 5-25.
  44. Hodkinson, S. and Robbins, G., 2013, “The Return of Class War Conservatism? Housing
    under the UK Coalition Government”, Critical Social Policy, 33(1), 57-77.
  45. Hoekstra, J., 2013, Affordable Rental Housing Produced by Private Rental Landlords: The Case of France; Paper Written as Part of the Project on Boosting the Supply of Affordable Rented Housing: Learning from Other Countries; Centre for Comparative Housing Research De Montfort University: Leicester, UK; Places for People: London.
  46. Hoekstra, J., 2017, “Reregulation and Residualization in Dutch social Housing: a critical Evaluation of new Policies”, Critical Housing Analysis, 4(1), 31-39.
    http://doi.org/10.13060/23362839.2017.4.1.322.
  47. Huang, Y., 2012, Low-income housing in Chinese cities: Policies and practices. The China Quarterly, 212, 941-964.
  48. , C.; Wyn Jones, R.; Henderson, A.; Scully, R.; and Lodge, G., 2014, Taking England Seriously: the new English politics:
  49. Johar, N., 2017, Community participation: A cementing process, theorizing various dimensions and approaches. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 22, 47-61.
  50. Johnston, A. and Regan, A., 2017, Global finance, labor politics, and the political economy of housing prices. Politics & Society, 45(3), 327-358.
  51. Majale, M.; Tipple, G. and French, M., 2011, Affordable and Housing in ASIA, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UNHABITAT).
  52. McKee, K., 2015, (ed.) “Introduction to the Special Issue – The Big Society, Localism and Housing Policy: recasting state-citizen relations in an age of austerity”, Housing Theory and Society, 32(1), 1-8.
  53. Meng, Y.; Cave, M. and Zhang, C., 2018, Spatial distribution patterns of phosphorus in top-soils of Greater London Authority area and their natural and anthropogenic factors. Applied Geochemistry, 88, 213-220.
  54. Ministry of Land and Resources, 2011, No. 18. 2011 nian quanguo zhufang yongdi gongying jihua.
  55. Mooney, G. and Scott, G., 2011, “Social Justice, Social Welfare and Devolution: Nationalism and Social Policy Making in Scotland”, Poverty and Public Policy, 3(4): 1-21.
  56. Norris, M. and Byrne, M., 2017, “A tale of two busts (And a boom): Irish social housing before and after the global financial crisis”, Critical Housing Analysis, 4(2), 19-28.
    http://doi.org/10.13060/23362839.2017.4.2.383.
  57. Osumanu, I. K.; Kosoe, E. A. and Dapilah, F., 2016, Residential housing in Ghana’s low-income urban areas: An analysis of households living conditions in the Wa Municipality, Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 9(7):139-153.
  58. Oxley, M.; Tang, C.; Lizieri, C.; Mansley, N.; Mekic, D.; Haffner, M.; Hoekstra, J., 2015, Prospects for Institutional Investment in Social Housing; Investment Property Forum: London, UK.
  59. Pearce, J. and J. Vine, 2014, “Quantifying residualisation: the changing nature of social housing in the UK”, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 29(4), 657-675.
    http://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-013-9372-3.
  60. Planning Inspectorate, 2010, The Planning Inspectorate: What we do. Retrieved September 30,1010, from http://planninginspectorate.gov.uk/pins/statement_purpose/02_what_we_do.htm.
  61. Poggio, T. and C. Whitehead, 2017, Social Housing in Europe: Legacies, New Trends and the Crisis, Critical Housing Analysis, housing-critical.com/home-page-1/social-housing-in-europe legacies-new-trends-an. publish/portal0/tab662/info66352.htm.
  62. Razali Agus, M.; Doling, J. and Lee, D.S., 2002, Housing Policy Systems in South and East Asia, Chapters 1–10, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd, 104-146.
  63. Robinson, J.; Scott, A. J. and Taylor, P. J., 2016, Working, Housing: Urbanizing: The International Year of Global Understanding-IYGU (p. 60). Springer Nature.
  64. Roget, N. A., 2009, Encyclopedia of substance abuse prevention, treatment, and recovery (Vol. 1). Sage.
  65. Rosenthal, S. S., 2014, Are private markets and filtering a viable source of low-income housing? estimates from a "repeat income" model. American Economic Review, 104(2), 687-706.
  66. Salvi del Pero, A. et al., 2016, “Policies to promote access to good-quality affordable housing in OECD countries”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 176, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm3p5gl4djd-en.
  67. Scheba, A. and Turok, I., 2020, Informal rental housing in the South: dynamic but neglected. Environment and Urbanization, 32(1), 109-132.
  68. Schwartz, A., 2019, New York City's Affordable Housing Plans and the Limits of Local Initiative. Cityscape, 21(3), 355-388.
  69. Short, J. R., 2007, Liquid City, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
  70. Steinhardt, D. A. and Manley, K., 2016, Adoption of prefabricated housing–the role of country context. Sustainable cities and society, 22, 126-135.
  71. Tummers, L., 2015, Introduction to the special issue: Towards a long-term perspective of self-managed collaborative housing initiatives. Urban Res. Pract, 8, 1-4.
  72. UN-Habitat, 2012, Handling Land: Innovative tools for land governance and secure tenure, HS Number: HS/023/12E, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). http://unhabitat.org.
  73. United Nations New York and Geneva, 2008, Spatial Planning Key Instrument for Development and Effective Governance with Special Reference to Countries in Transition, economic commission for europe Geneva.
  74. Van Bortel, G.; Gruis, V.; Nieuwenhuijzen, J. and Pluijmers, B., 2019, Affordable Housing Governance and Finance: Innovations, Partnerships and Comparative Perspectives; Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group: Abingdon, UK,
  75. Vestergaard, H. and Scanlon, K., 2014, Social housing in Denmark. Social housing in Europe, 77-89.
  76. Voorberg, W.; Bekkers, V.; Tummers, L.A., 2014, Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co- Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag. Rev. 17, 1333-1357.
  77. Watts, B. and Fitzpatrick, S., 2018, Fixed Term Tenancies: Revealing divergent views on the purpose of social housing, https://files.wordpress.com/2018/07/ftt_report_july2018_web-2.pdf.
  78. Wiesel, ; Laragy, C.; Gendera, S.; Fisher, KR.; Jenkinson, S.; Hill, T.; Finch, K.; Shaw, W. and Bridge, C., 2015, Moving to my home: housing aspirations, transitions and outcomes of people with disability. AHURI Final Report No.246. Melbourne: AHURI. Viewed 27 March 2017. NEXT PAGE.
  79. Wilcox, S.; Perry, J. and Williams, P., 2015, UK Housing Review: 2015 Briefing Paper.
    Coventry: Chartered Institute of Housing.
  80. Wu, G.; Duan, K.; Zuo, J.; Zhao, X. and Tang, D., 2017, Integrated sustainability assessment of public rental housing community based on a hybrid method of AHP-entropy weight and cloud model, Sustainability, 9(4), 603.
  81. Yung, B. and Chan, A., 2020, Third Sector Housing: Housing Philanthropy, Self-reliance and Policy Facilitation. In Land and Housing Controversies in Hong Kong (pp. 41-62). Springer, Singapore.
  82. Zhang, L. S. X. B.; Zhao, S. X. and Tian, J. P., 2003, Self‐help in housing and chengzhongcun in China's urbanization. International journal of urban and regional research, 27(4), 912-937.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,538
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 864


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب