مدل‌سازی اثرات شاخص‌های توسعه اقتصادی در مناطق 22 گانه کلانشهر تهران
محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه علمی و پژوهشی پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهریآرمان مسلمی 1 * , جمیله توکلی نیا 2 , زهره فنی 3 , لطفعلی کوزه گر کالجی 4
1 - دانشجوی دکترا جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی شهری دانشگاه شهید بهشتی
2 - دانشیار گروه جغرافیای انسانی، دانشکده علوم زمین، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران
3 - استاد، گروه جغرافیای انسانی، دانشکده علوم زمین، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران
4 - استادیار گروه جغرافیای انسانی، دانشکده علوم زمین، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران
کلید واژه: توسعه اقتصادی, شهر تهران, سطح‌بندی, پراکندگی, اقتصادی شهری,
چکیده مقاله :
از مهم‌ترین و پیچیده‌ترین تحولات در نیم‌قرن اخیر رشد سریع شهرنشینی و مشکلاتی است که در سر راه توسعه شهرهای کمتر توسعه‌یافته و یا بیشتر توسعه‌یافته وجود دارد. نابرابری در برخورداری از شاخص‌های توسعه اقتصادی شهری، ساختار فضایی شهر را دچار تغییر و تحول می‌کند؛ هدف پژوهش حاضر مدل‌سازی اثرات شاخص‌های توسعه اقتصادی در مناطق 22 گانه کلانشهر تهران است. پژوهش حاضر بر اساس هدف از نوع تحقیقات کاربردی و بر اساس ماهیت و روش از نوع تحقیقات توصیفی- تحلیلی بوده است. روش گردآوری داده‌ها به‌صورت میدانی (پرسشنامه) جمع‌آوری‌شده است. جامعه آماری این پژوهش را کلیه شهروندان کلانشهر تهران در سال 1400 که طبق فرمول کوکران 384 نفر به‌عنوان نمونه به‌طور تصادفی مورد پرسش قرار گرفتند، روایی پرسشنامه توسط پانل متخصصان مورد تأیید قرار گرفت و برای ارزیابی متغیرهای تحقیق و پایایی سؤالات از ضریب آلفای کرون‌باخ استفاده‌شده است که پایایی پرسشنامه شهروندان و خبرگان به ترتیب با مقادیر 90/0 و 93/0 تائید شده است. پس از انجام مطالعات میدانی، برای جمع‌آوری داده‌ها و تجزیه‌وتحلیل اطلاعات از روش‌های آماری (تحلیل عاملی و تحلیل همبستگی) با استفاده از نرم‌افزار SPSS انجام شد علاوه بر این از مدل معادلات ساختاری (SEM) با استفاده از روش حداقل مربعات جزئی در نرم‌افزار (SMART PLS3) استفاده‌شده همچنین جهت سطح‌بندی مناطق در میزان برخورداری از شاخص‌های توسعه اقتصادی از تکنیک AHP و نرم‌افزار Expert Choice استفاده‌شده است.نتایج حاصل از تحلیل عاملی نشان داد که چهار عامل شناسايي‌شده توانسته‌اند 75% واريانس اثرات شاخص‌های توسعه اقتصادی بر مناطق 22 گانه کلانشهر تهران را تبيين نمايند. نتایج به‌دست‌آمده از معادلات ساختاری نشان داد که بین کلیه‌ی شاخص‌های توسعه اقتصادی ضرایب T بین شاخص‌های (رفاهی –تجاری، صنعتی، منابع و معادن و کالا- خدمات) بالای 1.96 هستند یعنی ارتباط بین ابعاد متغیر مستقل و وابسته در جامعه نمونه با اطمینان 99 درصد تائید می‌شود. نتایج به‌دست‌آمده از تکنیک AHP در نرم‌افزار Expert Choice نشان داد که بالاترین نمره شاخص توسعه اقتصادی به منطقه 3 شهری تهران و در مقابل پایین‌ترین ضریب به منطقه 17 تعلق دارد.
the most important and complex developments in the last half century is the rapid growth of urbanization and the problems that exist in the development of less developed or more developed cities. Inequality in having indicators of urban economic development changes the spatial structure of the city; Therefore, the purpose of this study is to model the effects of economic development indicators in 22 areas of Tehran. The present research is based on the purpose of applied research and based on the nature and method of descriptive-analytical research and the data collection method is collected as a field (questionnaire). The statistical population of this study was all the citizens of Tehran in 1400 who according to Cochran's formula 384 people were randomly asked as a sample. The validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by a panel of experts and Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to evaluate the research variables and reliability of the questions. The reliability of the questionnaire of citizens and experts has been confirmed with values of 0.90 and 0.93, respectively. After conducting field studies, for data collection and data analysis from statistical methods (factor analysis and correlation analysis) was performed using SPSS software. In addition to the structural equation model (SEM) using the partial least squares method in software (SMART) PLS3) AHP technique and Expert Choice software have also been used to level the regions in terms of economic development indicators. The results of factor analysis showed that the four identified factors were able to explain 75% of the variance of the effects of economic development indicators on the 22 metropolitan areas of Tehran. The results obtained from structural equations showed that among all indicators of economic development, T-coefficients between indicators (welfare-trade, industrial, resources and mines and goods-services) are above 1.96, ie the relationship between independent and dependent variable dimensions in the sample population with 99% confidence Confirmed. The results obtained from the AHP technique in the Expert Choice software showed that the highest score of the economic development index belongs to the 3rd district of Tehran and the lowest coefficient belongs to the 17th district.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Cities are growing today, and in addition to increasing physically, their populations are growing (Catney, 2018: 138; Baffoe, 2021: 176). More than half of the world's population lives in cities, and it is expected that by 2050 the world's urban population will reach 75 or 80 percent (Rshtbar et al, 2019: 109; World Bank, 2019: 165). It continues and this leads to population concentration in cities, growth of service sector and consequently increase of GDP in cities (Musterd & et al, 2017: 38) Tehran is one of the 10 underdeveloped metropolises among the 124 metropolises in the world that suffer from problems such as poverty and abnormality, unemployment, wide gaps in living standards, inequality and imbalance in urban areas. In such a way that there is a significant difference between the 22 districts of Tehran in terms of economic development. Less developed and undeveloped areas are mostly in the south and southeast, and medium and relatively developed areas are located in the center and west of Tehran, and developed areas are located in the north of the city. In this regard, urban management and policy makers play an important role that the recognition and adjustment of these inequalities and planning for these problems should be on their agenda. In fact, regional policy-making has been proposed as a conscious and public effort of the government to change the spatial distribution of economic and social phenomena such as population, income, government revenues, production of goods and services, transportation facilities and other social and economic infrastructure and even political power. The study of economic inequalities between urban areas is one of the most important and fundamental tasks for better planning and management for more balanced economic development and achieving social justice. Therefore, the first step to achieve optimal conditions is to know its current state. Accordingly, in order to achieve appropriate economic conditions, it is necessary to study the current conditions of society and examine the movement of society. Therefore, the purpose of this study is the economic development of 22 districts of Tehran metropolis in the form of the following question:
1- What is the relationship between the economic development indicators of the 22 districts of Tehran metropolis?
2- Which of the 22 districts of Tehran metropolis have been able to find a suitable position among other districts?
Methodology
The present study is quantitative in terms of applied purpose and in terms of descriptive and analytical methods. In order to collect data from documentary and field methods, information has been prepared and analyzed and combined. In the documentary stage, information has been collected from books, publications, statistics, maps and websites as well, in order to identify and study the indicators of economic development (Statistics Center of Iran and statistical yearbook of 2016 in Tehran). A questionnaire was used to collect field data. The questionnaire was designed based on 25 indicators of economic development in order to measure the importance of each indicator and their performance with a Likert scale ranging from a very low value of 1 to a very high value of 5. The questionnaire was distributed according to the population (20-70 years old) of each region. The statistical population of the study consists of all 22 districts of Tehran metropolis. According to the 2016 census, Tehran metropolis has 2911065 households and a population of 8693706. Using Cochran's formula, 384 citizens and 15 experts were selected by snowball method as a sample. 10 people finally answered; The validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by a panel of experts and the reliability of the questionnaire of citizens and experts was confirmed with values of 0.90 and 0.93, respectively. Statistical methods in this study are descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (using factor analysis and correlation analysis) using SPSS software. In addition, software (SMART PLS3) was used to model structural equations (SEM). In this study, AHP technique and Expert Choice software were used to weight the criteria and sub-criteria to level the regions in terms of economic development indicators.
Results and discussion
The results of factor analysis test show that the four identified factors have been able to explain 75% of the variance of the effects of economic development indicators on the 22 metropolitan areas of Tehran. The percentage of explanation of each of the identified factors are in order of importance: the first factor is 13.890%, the second factor is 571.51%, the third factor is 2.971% and the fourth factor is 2.330%.In order to investigate the relationship between economic development indicators, Pearson correlation coefficient has been used. ), (0.215) and (0.543) and there is a significant relationship at the level of 99%.
Conclusion
In order to investigate the relationship between economic development indicators, Pearson correlation coefficient has been used. ), (0.215) and (0.543) and there is a significant relationship at the level of 99%. Also, there is a significant relationship between the industrial index with mineral resources and goods and services to education with a correlation coefficient (0.264) and (0.612) at the level of 99%. The highest correlation coefficient between the industrial index and goods and services (0.612) and There is the lowest value of correlation coefficient between trade-welfare index with mineral resources (0.612) which is consistent with the results of Mirzaei et al. (2014), Maleki et al. (2015), Mohammadkhani et al. (1400); Also to test the first hypothesis of the structural equation model (SEM) using the partial least squares method in software (SMART PLS3) which according to the results obtained from this test, the first hypothesis of the research is confirmed by the results (Qiao et al , 2021), (Beijing etal, 2020) and (liu et al, 2021) are consistent; AHP technique and Expert Choice software have been used to weight the criteria for leveling the regions in terms of economic development indicators. The results obtained from the highest score of economic development index belong to Tehran's 3rd urban region and the lowest coefficient belongs to 17th region. As shown in the figure, the highest coefficients are related to 3, 1, 2, 6 and 5 urban areas of Tehran, respectively, and the lowest coefficients are related to 17, 19, 18, 15, 16 and 20 urban areas of Tehran, respectively. Which is consistent with the results of Mirzaei et al. (2014), Mohammadkhani et al. (1400), Maleki et al. (2015), Sadeghi and Zanjari (2015) and Jafari et al. (2015). The superiority of the present study over other studies in this regard has been to examine the impact of economic development indicators on each other using factor analysis and correlation analysis as well as modeling using structural equations with software (SMART PLS).
1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. , Robinson, J.A. , 2001. The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation. Am. Econ.
2. Achten, S., Lessmann, ch. (2020). Spatial inequality, geography and economic activity. World Development 136 (2020) 105114.
3. Babaei, Elie Naz (2013), Spatial Justice Analysis and Urban Development in Providing Urban Services in Tabriz Municipal Areas, Master Thesis in Geography and Urban Planning, Supervisor: Shahrivar Roustaei, Faculty of Humanities, University of Tabriz.
4. Baffoe, G., Zhou, X., Moinuddin, M., Somanje, A. N., Kuriyama, A., Mohan, G., ... & Takeuchi, K. (2021). Urban–rural linkages: effective solutions for achieving sustainable development in Ghana from an SDG interlinkage perspective (pp. 1-22). Springer Japan.
5. Beheshti, Mohammad Baqer (2003) Economic Development of Iran, Tabriz University Press.
6. Boustan, L.P., Kahn, M.E., Rhode, P.W., Yanguas, M.L., 2020. The effect of natural disasters on economic activity in U.S. counties: a century of data. Journal of Urban Economics https://scholar.princeton.edu/lboustan/research , forthcoming .
7. Catney, G. (2018). The complex geographies of ethnic residential segregation: Using spatial and local measures to explore scale-dependency and spatial relationships. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 43(1), 137–152.
8. Diane Perrons (2005), the new economy and earnings inequalities: explaining social, spatial and gender divisions in the UK and London.
9. Dufaux, Frederic, (2008), Birth announcement, justice spatial/spatial justice, www.jssj.org.(October 2010).
10. Fal Soleiman, Mahmoud and Hajipour, Rahim (2014), Strategic Planning of Economic Sectors for Regional Development Using SWAT Case Study of Industry and Mining of South Khorasan Province, Journal of Housing and Rural Environment, No. 150, pp. 45-60 .
11. Harvey, David (1997), Social Justice and the City, translated by Farrokh Hesamian et al., Tehran: Urban Planning and Processing Company.
12. Hatami Nejad, Hossein; Farhoudi, Rahmatollah and Mohammadpour, Morteza (2008), Analysis of social inequality in the use of urban service uses studied in Esfarayen, Human Geography Research, No. 65, pp. 71-85.
13. Henderson, J. V., Squires, T., Storeygard, A., & Weil, D. (2018). The global distribution of economic activity: Nature, history, and the role of trade. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133, 357–406.
14. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic management journal, 20(2), 195-204.
15. Jafari, Firooz; Hatami, Afshar and Karami, Sonia (1399), Spatial analysis of regional development of the provinces based on economic indicators, Scientific Journal of Geography and Planning, No. 74, pp. 61-72.
16. Jafarinia, Abbas (1398), Social Justice, Justice and Development, Geography and Regional Planning, No. 1, pp. 289-311.
17. Katozian, Nasser (2000), Justice in Social and Legal Life, Social Security Quarterly, No. 7, pp. 15-30.
18. Liu, j., Yu, tian., kai, H., tao, y (2021). Spatial-temporal differentiation of the coupling coordinated development of regional energy-economy-ecology system: A case study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Ecological Indicators 124 (2021) 107394.
19. Maleki, Saeed, Kamelifar, Mohammad Javad and Kamelifar, Zahra (2015), Spatial Analysis of Regional Economic Development Indicators in East Azerbaijan Province, Journal of Spatial Planning, No. 7, pp. 54-66.
20. Maleki, Saeed, Kamelifar, Mohammad Javad, Kamelifar, Zahra, (2017) Spatial analysis of regional economic development indicators in East Azerbaijan province, Journal of Spatial Planning, Year 7, Issue
21. Mill, John Stuart. 2003. On Liberty. Rethinking the Western Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
22. Mirzaei, Jahanbin, Ahmadi, Sajjad, Lorestani, Akbar (2014) in a study entitled Spatial analysis of the levels of metropolitan areas of Tehran from the perspective of urban economics, Journal of Urban Economics and Management, Year 3, Issue 11, pp. 77- 59.
23. Mohammadkhani, Morteza, Karkabadi, Zeinab, Arghan, Abbas (1400) Measurement and evaluation of metropolitan areas of Tehran in terms of urban prosperity indicators. Journal of Urban Research and Planning, Volume 12 Number (44), 75-92.
24. Mohammadzadeh, Parviz, Motusali, Mahmoud, Beheshti, Mohammad Baqer, Akbari, Akram (1398) Iranian Journal of Economic Research, No. 78, pp. 91-61.
25. Moroke, T., Schoeman, C., & Schoeman, I. (2019). Developing a neighbourhood sustainability assessment model: An approach to sustainable urban development. Sustainable Cities and Society, 48, 101433.
26. Motusali, Mahmoud (2010) Economic Development, Concepts, Theoretical Foundations of Institutionalist Approach and Methodology. University of Tehran Press. Side. Zarabi, Asghar, Shahivandi, Ahmad (2010) An Analysis of the Distribution of Economic Development Indicators in the Provinces of Iran, Journal of Geography and Environmental Planning, Volume 21, Number 38, pp. 17-32.
27. 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.
28. Nazmfar. H, Aftab.A, Nazampour.N, & MajnoonyTootakhane.A. (2016): "Evaluation and Prioritization of Urban Areas Based on Parameters Creative City (Case Study: Sanandaj City)", The Journal of Spatial Planning, Volume 20, Issue 4, 259-286.
29. Neil Brenner (2004), Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in western Europe, 1960–2000. Department of Sociology and Metropolitan Studies Program, New York University.
30. Nouri, Mahboubeh, Rezaei, Mohammad Reza, Yarahmadi, Manijeh (2021). Significance Analysis - Performance of Good Governance Indicators in Yazd World Heritage City. Journal of Urban Research and Planning, Twelfth Year, No. 46, pp. 16-1.
31. Osth, J., Shuttleworth, I., & Niedomysl, T. (2018). Spatial and temporal patterns of economic segregation in Sweden’s metropolitan areas: A mobility approach. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(4), 809–825.
32. Pam Christie (2012), Framing the field of affordances: space, place and social justice in education in South Africa.
33. Pettinger, T. (2019). Policies for Economic Development, Journal of Economic Geography, 1, 81–105.
34. Qaderi, Jafar; Rastegar, Ebrahim and Ghahri, Muslim (1398), Identification and analysis of factors affecting the economic, social and physical dimensions of quality of life in urban neighborhoods (Case study: District 7 of Tehran Municipality), Quarterly Journal of Urban Economics and Management, 3 (7), pp. 71-86.
35. Qiao, M,. Wang, Y., wu, shanmei., fu, x., gu, Y. (2021). A realistic and multilevel measurement of citywide spatial patterns of economic segregation based on human activities. Cities 110 (2021) 103067.
36. Rashtbar, H., Nazmfar, H., & Samadzadeh, R. (2019). Evaluating Enjoyment of Urban Regions Through Innovative City Indicators with An Emphasis on Social and Cultural Indicators (A Case Study: Tabriz Metropolis). Journal of Applied Engineering Sciences, 9(1), 109-114.
37. Robert García, Zoe Rawson, Meagan Yellott, and Christina Zaldaña (2009), Economic Stimulus, Green Space, and Equal Justice.
38. Rodriquez, F., & Rodrik, D. (2018). Trade policy and economic growth: A skeptic’s guide to the cross-national evidence. Working Paper No. 7081. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
39. Russ, M., & Jones, J. K. (2008). Regional Economic Development Indicators for a Knowledge-Based Economy with Knowledge Deprivation. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 38(1100-2016-90015).
40. Sadeghi, Rasoul, Zanjari, Nasibeh (2017) Spatial Model of Inequality Development in 22 Districts of Tehran, Social Welfare Quarterly, Year 17, No. 66, pp. 184-149
41. Schumpeter, J. (1997). The Theory of Economic Development Transaction Publishers.
42. Sharifzadeh, Masoumeh, Heidari, Meysam, Keshavarzi, Amin (1400). Prioritization of components required for smart parking in urban environments (Marvdasht case study). Journal of Urban Research and Planning, Year 12, No. 45, pp. 203-218.
43. Smith, David (2002), Quality of Life: Human Welfare and Social Justice, translated by Hossein Hataminejad and Hekmat Shahabadi, Journal of Political-Economic Information, No. 185, pp. 160-173.
44. Soja, E. (2010), Seeking Spatial Justice, Publisher: University of Minnesota Press.
45. Tabei, Nader; Movahed, Ali; Tulayi, Simin and Kamanroudi Kojouri, Musa (2016), The role of spatial justice in urban management of the study area of Tehran's Sixth District, Spatial Planning Quarterly, No. 2, pp. 23-36.
46. Tafazoli, Fereydoun (2012), Macroeconomics, Theories and Economic Policies, Tehran: Ney Publishing.
47. Talen, Emily. (1998), Visuallizing fairness, equity maps for planner. APA Journal.
48. Todaro, Michael (2012), Economic Development, Translator: Vahid Mahmoudi, Tehran: Negah Danesh.
49. United Nations. 2103. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2013, Global outlook.
50. World Bank, (2019). Urban Development: Understanding Poverty. Retrieved from. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/overview. on July 05, 2019.
51. Zhuhadar, L., Thrasher, E., Marklin, S., & de Pablos, P. O. (2017). The next wave of innovation—Review of smart cities intelligent operation systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 273-281.