Explaining the rural livability in Metropolitan area of Tehran(case study:Varamin)
Subject Areas :
1
()
AliReza Estelaji
2
()
Nasr Allah Fallah tabar
3
(دانشیار دانشگاه آزاد واحد یادگار امام)
Keywords: Viability Rural Viability Metropolitan Area Tehran varamin,
Abstract :
The issues related to the viability of perimetric metropolitan villages are not explained by the concept of rural viability and are affected by the communication network and the rural-urban associations of the cities under their control. The current topic of research is to make the viability of the villages of the metropolitan areas of Tehran (study item: Varamin city) clear. The research method is exploring-explaining, and attempts to explain the role of effective factors and forces in the viability of the perimetric metropolitan villages in the form of interior and exterior/further rural factors. In this regard, at first a review of theories, models, theoretical approaches, earlier studies, and comprehensible-analytical model has been presented. The support theory in the concept of rural viability, was the sustainable development theory, and due to that, the social, economic, viable, somatic, and its variant dimensions were primarily identified as rural interior and exterior factors via extension and Delphi identification. Nineteen variants were identified in the form of quadratic dimensions for the effective exterior/further rural effective factors in rural viability situation, as well as sixteen variants and seventeen components for the interior factors of viability of perimetric metropolitan villages of Tehran. The scrutinizing and exploration of the mentioned factors from analysis, exploited an exploratory factor, and the result was the confirmation of nineteen further rural factors and eighty one interior rural variant factors. The statistical population of the study was inhabited by villagers around the city of Varamin and Javadabad (two urban locations of Varamin) which was 53,255 people, and the cities mentioned as well as 140 people, who were professionals, experts, and local managers. In sampling of the residents, random cluster sampling was used, and the sample population of 689 individuals was determined by the Cochran formula, with 0.05% error correction; and was distributed as share-layer among the centers. The statistical techniques used in this study were t viability of perimetric metropolitan villages T-Test (for assessing the viability) and checking the numeral values obtained by Mercer classification; Kolmogorov Smirnov Test (K.S) to determine the distribution type of the statistical population, Pearson Test to determine the viability relation of the surrounding villages and cities, were structural equations. In statistical data analysis and data spatial representation, SPSS, Lisrel, and Arc GIS softwares were used. The results of the research showed that in the metropolitan area of Tehran, a variety of rural viability in the quadratic dimensions of research as of area has appeared. There has been also a significant relation between the viability of the cities, Varamin and Javadabad, and their studied surrounding villages and metropolitan Tehran. This relation was positively and directly related to economic, social, and somatic dimensions, and negatively related to the viable ones. The results also indicted that the exterior/further and interior rural factors affected the perimetric metropolitan villages, and explained it but the impact of exterior rural factors was greater than the interior ones.
1. اطلس کلانشهر تهران (1389)، تألیف سازمان فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات شهرداری تهران و دانشگاه تهران، انتشارات سازمان فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات شهرداری تهران، چاپ اول، تهران
2. بندر آباد، علیرضا (1389)؛ "تدوین اصول الگوی توسعه فضایی و شکل شهر زیست پذیر ایرانی مطالعه موردی مناطق 1، 15 و 22 تهران"، استاد راهنما حمید ماجدی، استاد مشاور ایرج اعتصام، تهران، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم تحقیقات
3. بندر آباد، علیرضا (1390)؛ "شهر زیست پذیر از مبانی تا معنا"، انتشارات آذرخش، چاپ اول، تهران
4. حاجی نژاد، علی، زمانی، مجتبی و حسین (1390)، "بررسی و رتبه بندی عوامل موثر بر میزان رضایتمندی شهروندان از کیفیت محیط زندگی، مطالعه موردی: بافت قدیم و جدید شهر شیراز"، پژوهشهای جغرافیایی انسانی، شماره 77، تهران
5. خراسانی، محمد امین (1391)؛ "تبیین زیست پذیری روستاهای پیرامون شهری با رویکرد کیفیت زندگی مطالعه موردی شهرستان ورامین" استاد راهنما محمدرضا رضوانی، استاد مشاور سید حسن مطیعی لنگرودی و مجتبی رفیعیان، تهران، دانشگاه تهران
6. زبردست، اسفندیار، حاجی پور، خلیل (1388)تبیین فرایند شکل‌گیری، تکوین و دگرگونی مناطق کلانشهر، پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی، شماره 6
7. سالنامه آماری شهر تهران (1390)، انتشارات سازمان فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات شهرداری تهران، جلد اول، تهران
8. American Assoociation of state highway and transportation officials (AASHTO), (2010) the road to livability: how stated departments of transportion aveusing road investments to improve community livability, AASHTO
9. Apple yard, Donald (1981) , Livable Streets, Berkeley, USA: University of California press
10. ARNOLD RURAL livable community: ARNOLD RURAL livable community based mobity plan, ARNOLD CAIFORNIA
11. Atkinson, G. dubourg, R, Hamilton, K, munasingh pearce, D & Young, C, (1997) , measuring sustainable development: macroeconomics and the environment. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar publishing limited
12. Bell, S & morse, s (2003) , measuring sustainable development: learning for doing eaythscan
13. Benton, short & lisa and short, john R, (2008) , Londen and Newyork, Routledge, 281 page
14. Boothroyd, p (1991) , “distribution principles for compassionafe sustainable development” Vancouver, UBC press
15. Brower, s. (1996) , Good neighborhoods: A study of in town and suburban rexidential environment west porb conn: pracger
16. Buchwald, Emilie. Ed. , toward the livable city. New York, USA: milkweed editions.
17. Burger, M. J. B; De Goel, L; Van Der Laan& F. J. M. Huisman(2011) Heterogeneous development of metropolitan spatial structure: evidence from commuting patterns in English and Welsh city-regions, 1981–2001. Cities 28, pp. 160–170
18. Calveras council of government (2008) , making Arnold a livable community Arnold rural livable community – based mobility plan, Arnold California
19. Canadian socio-economic, series (1993) , Developing Quality of Life Indicators for Canadian Municipalities
20. Carmona matthew & sieh, louie (2004) , measuring quality in planning managing the performance spon press London and New York
21. Cedar Hill muni ci pality (2008) , city of cedar Hill comprehensives plan 2008 chapter 5: livability, pp. 5-1 to 5-20
22. Chicago metropolitan agency for planning (2009) advancing livability principles: federal investment reform lessons from the Chicago and experience, metropolitan planning council
23. Cities plus (2003) “A sustainable urban system”: the long term plan for greater Vancouver, cannada, cities plus
Clinton – gore administration (2000) building livable communities: sustaining prosperity, improving quality of life, building a sense of community, available at: www. livable communities. Gov.
