تحلیل قابلیت دسترسی نظام سکونت و فعالیت به شبکه حمل‌ونقل با رویکرد عدالت فضایی؛ مورد مطالعاتی منطقه کلان‌شهری تهران

محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه علمی و پژوهشی پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهری

دانیال دهقانی ¹ , هاشم داداش پور ² , امیررضا ممدوحی ³

1 - پژوهشگر برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.
2 - دانشیار برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.
3 - دانشیار برنامه ریزی حمل و نقل، دانشکده عمران و محیط زیست دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1398/04/31 تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/04/17 تاریخ انتشار : 1401/02/01

کلید واژه: عدالت فضایی, قابلیت دسترسی, تحرک بالقوه, منطقه کلان‌شهری, ناحیه کلان‌شهری,

چکیده مقاله :

با اتمام هزاره‌ی دوم میلادی مناطق کلان‌شهری با جذب جمعیت و فعالیت با دگرگونی‌های بنیادینی روبه‌رو شده‌اند؛ از مهم‌ترین پیامدهای این فرآیند، می‌توان به بی‌عدالتی در توزیع فرصت‌های شغلی و عدم‌دسترسی گروه‌های جمعیتی و سکونتگاه‌های حاشیه‌ای به آن‌ها اشاره کرد. پژوهش حاضر درصدد بهبود قابلیت دسترسی به شبکه‌ی حمل‌ونقل برای گروه‌های جمعیتی با بیشترین نیاز در منطقه کلان‌شهری تهران می‌باشد. این پژوهش از راهبرد استقرایی و روش تحقیق کمی برای پاسخ‌گویی به پرسش‌های پژوهش استفاده می‌کند. داده‌های جمع‌آوری‌شده از مرکز آمار و سازمان راهداری و حمل‌ونقل جاده‌ای ایران با استفاده از سیستم مختصات تحرک بالقوه و قابلیت دسترسی به اشتغال با روش‌های تجمعی و گرانشی و، عدم‌کارایی قابلیت دسترسی با استفاده از شاخص انصاف قابلیت دسترسی در نرم‌افزارهای Arc GIS و Excel تحلیل شده‌اند. یافته‌ها حاکی از آنند که قابلیت دسترسی به اشتغال در منطقه کلان‌شهری تهران، با فاصله از نوار مرکزی کاهش می‌یابد و بسیاری از پهنه‌های شمالی و شمال غربی با عدم‌کارایی قابلیت دسترسی مواجه هستند. درصد افراد زیر-آستانه‌های بسندگی به ترتیب با کاهش آستانه‌ی بسندگی از 50% تا 10% از حدود 48% به حدود 2% و سهم پهنه‌های زیر-آستانه از 3.5% به حدود 1% کاهش می‌یابد. سهم جمعیت زیر-آستانه از کل جمعیت برای آستانه‌های مذکور در در آستانه‌ی 50% حدود 13% و در آستانه‌ی 10%به 0.5% می‌رسد؛ این گروه‌های جمعیتی به صورت بالقوه مستحق بهبود در قابلیت دسترسیِ‌شان هستند. اما در نهایت با جمع‌بندی روش‌ها در آستانه‌های بسندگی پنج‌گانه، سکونتگاه‌های آسارا، طالقان، لواسان بزرگ، نساء، برغان، جوستان، پایین طالقان و میان طالقان با جمعیتی بالغ بر 47678 نفر در اولویت بهبود قابلیت دسترسی قرار دارند.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Abstract
By the end of the second millennium, metropolitan Regions have been struggling with population and activity with radical transformations; one of the most important consequences of this process is the injustice in the distribution of job opportunities. The present study seeks to improve the accessibility of the transportation network for the population with the most needs in the Tehran metropolitan region. This research uses inductive strategy and quantitative research methodology to answer research questions. The data collected from the Statistical Centre of Iran and Road Maintenance & Transportation Organization of Iran has been analyzed using the coordinate system of potential mobility and accessibility to employment with cumulative and gravity methods, and inefficiencies accessibility through the fairness accessibility index in Arc GIS and Excel software. Findings indicate that access to employment in the region is reduced by a distance from the central bar, and many of the northern and northwestern areas are inaccessible. The percentage of sub-threshold populations, respectively, decreases from 50% to 10% by 48% to 2%, and the share of sub-threshold areas from 3.5% to 1%. The share of the population below the threshold of the total population for the thresholds is about 50% at around 13% and reaches 0.5% on the threshold of 10%; These population groups are potentially eligible for improvement in their accessibility. Finally, by conclusion on the methods: Asara, Taleqan, Lavasan, Nesa, Barghan, Joestan, Paein Taleqan and Miyan Taleqan settlements with a population of 47678 are in the priority of improving accessibility.
.
.

منابع و مأخذ:

1. Black, J., & Conroy, M. (1977). Accessibility Measures and the Social Evaluation of Urban Structure. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 9(9), PP: 1013–1031.


2. Cebollada, À. (2009). Mobility and labour market exclusion in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(3), PP:226–233.


3. Chen, S., Claramunt, C., & Ray, C. (2014). A spatio-temporal modelling approach for the study of the connectivity and accessibility of the Guangzhou metropolitan network. Journal of Transport Geography, 36, PP:12–23.


4. Currie, G., & Delbosc, A. (2010). Modelling the social and psychological impacts of transport disadvantage. Transportation, 37(6), PP:953–966.


5. Dadashpoor, H., & Rostami, F. (2017). Measuring spatial proportionality between service availability, accessibility and mobility: Empirical evidence using spatial equity approach in Iran. Journal of Transport Geography, 65, PP:44–55.


6. Dadashpoor, H., Alizadeh, B., & Rostami, F. (2015), Determination of Conceptual Framework from Spatial Justice in Urban Planning with Focus on the Justice Concept in Islamic School. Journal of Naqshejahan, 5 (1), PP:75-84. [In Persian]


7. Dadashpoor, H., Rostami, F., & Alizadeh, B. (2014) , Spatial Justice Dialectic in City, Tehran, Azarakhsh Publications [in Persian].


8. Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2011a). Exploring the relative influences of transport disadvantage and social exclusion on well-being. Transport Policy, 18(4), PP:555–562.


9. Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2011b). The spatial context of transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), PP:1130–1137.


10. Dworkin, R. (2002). Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Harvard University Press.


11. Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The just city. Cornell University Press.


12. Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures. Econometrica, 52(3), PP:


13. Foth, N., Manaugh, K., & El-Geneidy, A. (2014). Determinants of Mode Share over Time: How Changing Transport System Affects Transit Use in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2417(1), PP:67–77.


14. Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12(2), PP:127–140.


15. Handy, S. L., & Niemeier, D. A. (1997). Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29(7), PP:1175–1194.


16. Hansen, W. G. (1959). How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), PP:73–76.


17. Harvey, D. (2009). Social justice and the city (Rev. ed). Univ. of Georgia Press.


18. Ingram, D. R. (1971). The concept of accessibility: A search for an operational form. Regional Studies, 5(2), PP:101–107.


19. Jaramillo, C., Lizárraga, C., & Grindlay, A. L. (2012). Spatial disparity in transport social needs and public transport provision in Santiago de Cali (Colombia). Journal of Transport Geography, 24, PP:340–357.


20. Jeekel, J. F., & Martens, C. J. C. M. (2017). Equity in transport: Learning from the policy domains of housing, health care and education. European Transport Research Review, 9(4).


21. Kaplan, S., Popoks, D., Prato, C. G., & Ceder, A. (Avi). (2014). Using connectivity for measuring equity in transit provision. Journal of Transport Geography, 37, PP:82–92.


22. KHeyreddin, R. (2012), A scan in spatial-physical translation of the Islamic concept of justice by cartographic analysis of spatial balance in 112 districts of Tehran metropolis, Journal of Researches in Islamic Architecture, 1(1): PP:43-57. [in Persian].


23. Litman, T. (2002). Evaluating transportation equity. World Transport Policy and Practice, 8(2), PP:50–65.


24. Liu, S., & Zhu, X. (2004). An Integrated GIS Approach to Accessibility Analysis. Transactions in GIS, 8(1), PP:45–62.


25. Manouchehri Miandoab, A., Ahar, H., & Anvari, A. (2019). An Analysis of Spatial Justice and its Impact on the City's political Ecology Case study: Tehran metropolis, Journal Research and Urban Planning, 10 (33): PP:89-100. [in Persian].


26. Martens, K. (2006a). Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Social Justice. Berkeley Planning Journal, 19(1), PP:1–17.


27. Martens, K. (2006b). Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Social Justice. 19, 17.


28. Martens, K. (2007). Integrating equity considerations into the Israeli cost-benefit analysis: Guidelines for practice. Israeli Ministry of Transport.


29. Martens, K. (2012). Justice in transport as justice in accessibility: Applying Walzer’s ‘Spheres of Justice’ to the transport sector. Transportation, 39(6), PP:1035–1053.


30. Martens, K. (2015a). Traditional Transportation Planning and Its Alternatives. Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting Transportation Research Board.


31. Martens, K. (2015b). Accessibility and Potential Mobility as a Guide for Policy Action. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2499(1), PP:18–24.


32. Martens, K. (2017). Transport Justice: Designing fair transportation systems. Routledge.


33. Martens, K., Golub, A., & Robinson, G. (2012). A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice in the United States. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(4), PP:684–695.


34. McCray, T., & Brais, N. (2007). Exploring the Role of Transportation in Fostering Social Exclusion: The Use of GIS to Support Qualitative Data. Networks and Spatial Economics, 7(4), PP:397–412.


35. Meshkini, A., Rezaali, M., & Rezaei, M. (2018). An Analysis of Planning and Relationship Between Urban Justice and Social Capital in the Neighborhoods of Ferdowsiyeh City – Shahriar, Journal Research and Urban Planning, 8 (31), PP:165-186. [in Persian].


36. Miller, H. (1991). Modelling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5(3), PP:287–301.


37. Mohammadi Deh Cheshme, M., & Hajipour, N. (2021). omparative Analysis of Urban Prosperity in Copeland's Integration Model (Case Study: Urban Areas of Kermanshah), Journal Research and Urban Planning, 12 (44): PP:1-20. [in Persian].


38. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press.


39. Payab, E., Khatibie, S. M., Soltanzadeh, H., Moeinifar, M., (2020). The qualitative ranking and analysis of urban walking spaces with spatial justice approach (case study: Five busy pedestrian routes in Hamedan), Journal of Research and Urban Planning, 11(41): PP:113-130.


40. Pirie, G. H. (1979). Measuring Accessibility: A Review and Proposal. Environment and Planning A, 11(3), PP:299–312.


41. Pyrialakou, V. D., Gkritza, K., & Fricker, J. D. (2016). Accessibility, mobility, and realized travel behavior: Assessing transport disadvantage from a policy perspective. Journal of Transport Geography, 51, PP:252–269.


42. Ravallion, M. (1992). Poverty Comparisons–A Guide to Concepts and Methods; Worldbank. Living Standards Measurement Study Working Paper, 88.


43. Rawls, J. (2005). A theory of justice (Orig. ed., reprint). Belknap Press.


44. Rofé, Y., Benenson, I., Martens, K., Ben-Elia, E., & Mednik, N. (2015). Accessibility and Social Equity in Tel-Aviv Metropolitan Area-examination of the current conditions and development scenarios. Technical Report.


45. Salonen, M., & Toivonen, T. (2013). Modelling travel time in urban networks: Comparable measures for private car and public transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 31, PP:143–153.


46. Sellers, J. M., Arretche, M. T. da S., Kübler, D., & Razin, E. (Eds.). (2017). Inequality and governance in the metropolis: Place equality regimes and fiscal choices in eleven counties. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sen, A. (1983). Poor, Relatively Speaking. Oxford Economic