Assessing the status of sustainable urban development indicators in the new city of Sahand | ||
| جغرافیا و برنامهریزی | ||
| Article 14, Volume 28, Issue 87, 2024, Pages 304-285 PDF (1.06 M) | ||
| Document Type: Research Paper | ||
| DOI: 10.22034/gp.2023.53831.3052 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Mohammad Shali* 1; Seyyed Mahmoud Mahmmed Khosrowshahi2; Pouya Joodi3 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research (ACECR).Tabriz.Iran | ||
| 2M.Sc. in Urban planning, Urban planning Department, Seraj Higher Education Institute, Tabriz, Iran. | ||
| 3Assistant Professor, Urban planning Department, Seraj Higher Education Institute, Tabriz, Iran. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| As the world rapidly urbanizes, there is much focus on achieving sustainability outcomes within cities. Accomplishing this goal requires not only envisioning sustainable cities and implementing strategies, but it also demands assessing progress towards sustainable urban development. In this research, the condition of the new city of Sahand has been measured in terms of sustainable urban development indicators.The current research is an applied study that employs a descriptive-analytical design for its purposes.The current research is an applied study that employs a descriptive-analytical design for its purposes. Research indicators in social, economic, environmental and institutional dimensions were identified and operationally defined using theoretical literature. and two methods of secondary analysis(through registration data including studies of the master plan of the new city of Sahand and statistical blocks of 2016) and field survey (with the tool of researcher-made questionnaires in the number of 383 questionnaires) were collected. And they were analyzed using Friedman, one-sample T tests and Vikor model. The findings of the research show that the condition of the new city of Sahand is low in terms of sustainable development indicators in all dimensions and there is a significant difference between the phases of the new city of Sahand. Phases 1 and 2 are the first and second priorities and phases 3 and 4 are the next priorities. Phases 1 and 2 of Sahand have a more favorable situation than phases 3 and 4 due to their older age and the formation of infrastructure,urban services, economic activities and optimal performance of urban management in providing services.Planning to reduce the problems of the city of Sahand through the expansion of public spaces, the quantitative and qualitative increase of service spaces and the active participation of citizens in the city administration can be effective in improving the situation of the city of Sahand. | ||
Highlights | ||
As the world rapidly urbanizes, there is much focus on achieving sustainability outcomes within cities. Accomplishing this goal requires not only envisioning sustainable cities and implementing strategies, but it also demands assessing progress towards sustainable urban development. In this research, the condition of the new city of Sahand has been measured in terms of sustainable urban development indicators.The current research is an applied study that employs a descriptive-analytical design for its purposes.The current research is an applied study that employs a descriptive-analytical design for its purposes. Research indicators in social, economic, environmental and institutional dimensions were identified and operationally defined using theoretical literature. and two methods of secondary analysis (through registration data including studies of the master plan of the new city of Sahand and statistical blocks of 2016) and field survey (with the tool of researcher-made questionnaires in the number of 383 questionnaires) were collected. And they were analyzed using Friedman, one-sample T tests and Vikor model. The findings of the research show that the condition of the new city of Sahand is low in terms of sustainable development indicators in all dimensions and there is a significant difference between the phases of the new city of Sahand. Phases 1 and 2 are the first and second priorities and phases 3 and 4 are the next priorities. Phases 1 and 2 of Sahand have a more favorable situation than phases 3 and 4 due to their older age and the formation of infrastructure, urban services, economic activities and optimal performance of urban management in providing services. Planning to reduce the problems of the city of Sahand through the expansion of public spaces, the quantitative and qualitative increase of service spaces and the active participation of citizens in the city administration can be effective in improving the situation of the city of Sahand. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Status assessment; sustainable urban development; Sahand New Town; New Town | ||
| References | ||
|
Adinyira, E., Oteng-Seifah, S., Adjei-Kumi, T., (2007), A Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Methodologies Emmanuel. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and Its Asses, Glasgow, UK, 27–29 June 2007; pp. 1–8 Azapagic, A., and Perdan, s., (2000), Indicators of sustainable development for industry: A general framework, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 78(4): 243-26 Cai X, De Meulder B, Lin Y, Sun H., (2020), New Towns’ Planning and Construction in the Pre-Urbanization or Post-Urbanization Period: A Case Study of the New Towns’ Development Process of Beijing, Sustainability, 12(9):1-23 Cohen, M., (2017), A Systematic Review of Urban Sustainability Assessment Literature, Sustainability, 9(11):2048 Dahl, L., (2018), Contributions to the evolving theory and practice of indicators of sustainability, Routledge Handbook of Sustainability Indicators. Routledge Dizdaroglu, D., (2017), The Role of Indicator-Based Sustainability Assessment in Policy and the Decision-Making Process: A Review and Outlook, Sustainability, 9(6): 1018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061018 Dodgson, M., and Gann, D., (2011), Technological innovation and complex systems in cities, Journal of Urban Technology, 18 (3): 101–113. E.Daly, H., (1990), Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological Economic, Vol 2, Issue 1. Eddie C.M. Hui., Manfred C.M. lam., (2005), A Study of Commuting Patterns of New Town Resident in Hong Kong, Habitat International, Vol. 29: 421- 437. ICLEI., (2016), Local Governments for Sustainability Janssen, C., Daamen, T.A., Verdaas, C., (2021), Planning for Urban Social Sustainability: Towards a Human-Centred Operational Approach, Sustainability, 13 (16):9083. Jepson Jr., E.J., Edwards, M.M., (2010), How Possible is Sustainable Urban Development? An Analysis of Planners' Perceptions about New Urbanism, Smart Growth and the Ecological City', Planning Practice and Research, 25 (4):417 - 437 Kuhlman, T., Farrington, J., (2010), What is Sustainability, Sustainability, 2(11), 3436-3448; Reed, M.S., Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A. J., ( 2006), An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities, Ecological Economics, 59(4), 406-418. Marvuglia, A., Havinga, L., Heidrich, O., Fonseca, J., Gaitani, N., Reckien, D., (2020), Advances and challenges in assessing urban sustainability: an advanced bibliometric review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 124. Michalina, D., Mederly, P., Diefenbacher, H., Held, B., (2021), Sustainable Urban Development: A Review of Urban Sustainability Indicator Frameworks, Sustainability, 13(16):9348. Mori, K., & Christodoulou, A. (2012). Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environmental impact assessment review, 32(1), 94-106. Musterd, S.; Marci ´ nczak, S.; van Ham, M.; Tammaru, T., (2017), Socioeconomic segregation in European capital cities. Increasing separation between poor and rich. Urban Geography., 38(7), 1062–1083. Newman, P., Matan, I., McIntosh, J., (2015), Urban Transport and Sustainable Development. In Routledge International Handbook of Sustainable Development; Redclift, M., Springett, D., Eds.; Routledge: London. Novacek, P., Mederly, P., (2015), How to Measure Progress Towards Quality and Sustainability of Life?, Ekologia Bratislava. 34(7) 7-18. Rydin, Y., (2012), Governing for sustainable urban development. Earthscan Sarbu, R., Alpopi, C., Burlacu, S., & Diaconu, S. (2021). Sustainable urban development in the context of globalization and the health crisis caused by the covid-19 pandemic. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 92, p. 01043). EDP Sciences. Steiniger, S., Wagemann, E., de la Barrera, F., Molinos-Senante, M., Villegas, R., de la Fuente, H., Vives, A., Arce, G., Herrera, J.-C., Carrasco , J.-A., Pastén, P.A., Muñoz, J.-C., Barton, J.R , (2020), Localising urban sustainability indicators: The CEDEUS indicator set, and lessons from an expert-driven process, Cities,101. Tanguay, G.A.,Rajaonson, J., Lefebvre, J.F.,Lanoie, P., (2101) Measuring the sustainability of cities: An analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol. Indic. 10, 407–418. Toli, A.M., Murtagh, N., (2020). The Concept of Sustainability in Smart City Definitions. Front. Built Environ, 6(77), 1-10. Turcu, C., (2013), Re-thinking sustainability indicators: Local perspectives of urban sustainability, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management., 56(5), 695–719. Verma, P., Raghubanshi, A., (2018), Urban sustainability indicators: Challenges and opportunities, Ecological Indicators, 93, 282-291. Zeng, X., Yu, Y., Yang, S., Lv, Y., & Sarker, M. N. I. (2022). Urban resilience for urban sustainability: Concepts, dimensions, and perspectives. Sustainability, 14(5), 2481. Ziari, K., (2006), The Planning and Functioning of New Towns in Iran, Cities, 23(6). Zimmermann, F., (2016), Nachhaltigkeit wofür? Von Chancen und Herausforderungen für eine nachhaltige Zukunft, Springer: Berlin, Germany Vojnovic, I., (2014). Urban Sustainability: Research, Politics, Policy and Practice. Cities, 41, 530-544. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 1,302 PDF Download: 869 |
||