ارزیابی سیاست های تامین مسکن بر ادراک کیفیت محیط مسکونی از منظر بهره برداران ( مورد کاوی سیاست های سه گانه تأمین مسکن شهر بجنورد)

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

روزبه دادجو ¹ (دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت، تهران، ایران.)
عبدالهادی دانشپور ² (دانشیار گروه شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت، تهران، ایران.)
مهران علی الحسابی ³ (دانشیار گروه شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت، تهران، ایران.)

تاریخ دریافت : 1399/01/04 تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/07/29 تاریخ انتشار : 1401/11/01

کلید واژه: «سیاست تأمین مسکن», «مسکن گروه های کم درآمد», «کیفیت مسکن», «کیفیت محیط مسکونی», «شهر بجنورد»,

چکیده مقاله :

تأمین مسکن مناسب یکی از مسائل پیچیده و بنیادین شهرهای امروزی به خصوص در کشورهای در حال توسعه تلقی می شود. در مواجه با این مسئله، در کشور ایران نیز تا کنون سیاست های متفاوتی برای تامین مسکن بکار گرفته شده است که با توجه به گذشت زمان هم اکنون پیامدهای آن ها آشکار شده است. با وجود مطالعات متعدد بر روی ارزیابی سیاست های مسکن، تا کنون مطالعه ای به منظور مقایسه پیامدهای سیاست های مختلف مسکن بر روی رضایتمندی ساکنان انجام نشده است.
این پژوهش این پژوهش بر مبنای روش تحقیق مقایسه ای و با استفاده از تحلیل واریانس (ANOVA) انجام شده است. ابزار گردآوری اطلاعات، پرسشنامه و روش نمونه گیری نیز تصادفی ساده است.
به منظور آشکارسازی پیامدهای انواع سیاست گذاری مسکن در تأمین نیازهای گروه های هدف، سه محله در شهر بجنورد که سیاست های متفاوت در آن ها اجرا شده است، با یکدیگر مقایسه شده اند. شهرک ولیصعر نماینده سیاست تأمین زمین و خدمات، گلستان شهر نماینده سیاست عرضه مسکن و احمدآباد نماینده سیاست توانمندسازی است. با استفاده از تحلیل واریانس، کیفیت ادراک شده این محلات از دیدگاه بهره وران در دو سطح مسکن (8 شاخص) و محیط مسکونی (12 شاخص) ارزیابی و مورد مقایسه قرار گرفته است.. در مجموع شهرک ولیعصر، وضعیت بهتری را از لحاظ اکثر شاخص های مسکن و محیط مسکونی نشان می دهد و سطح رضایتمندی در این محله به صورت محسوسی بالاتر از دو مورد دیگر بوده است. در مقایسه دو محله دیگر، هر دو محله وضعیت نامناسبی به لحاظ کیفیت محیط مسکونی دارند. در شاخص های مسکن، محله گلستان شهر در شاخص های کالبدی مسکن و محله احمد آباد در شاخص های اجتماعی مسکن وضعیت بهتری داشته اند. نتایج نشان دهنده تفاوت معنادار شاخص ها میان محلات است. بطور کلی در تمامی محلات کیفیت محیط مسکونی از کیفیت مسکن پایین تر بوده است که علت اصلی را می توان در توجه بیشتر سیاست ها به مسکن و نه محیط مسکونی دانست.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Abstract
The effective housing supply is a fundamental issue in many of today’s cities, especially in developing countries. Facing this issue, Iran has followed and implemented diverse policies concerning housing supply and the repercussions of these policies are now felt. Despite many studies conducted on the evaluation of the effects of these housing policies, there have been few investigations to compare different existing housing policies, especially in terms of occupants’ satisfaction.
This study used a causal-comparative design and employed Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the data analysis. The research instrument included a questionnaire and the sample was chosen using random sampling.
In the present study, to unearth the repercussions of implementing various housing policies on meeting the needs of the target groups, three neighborhoods in Bojnurd, which have followed a differing policy, were compared and contrasted against each other. Valiasr Complex, Golestan region and Ahmadabad region represent, the policy of land and service supply, the policy of housing supply and the policy of empowerment, respectively Using Analysis of variance, we compared the perceived quality in these neighborhoods from the perspective of occupants at two levels; housing quality (8 indicators) and residential environment quality (12 indicators). Overall, Valiasr Complex has a more appropriate status in the housing and residential environment indicators and the occupants’ satisfaction was meaningfully higher, when compared with that of the occupants in other neighborhoods. The other two neighborhoods had a poor status in the residential environment quality indicators. Golestan Complex had a better status in physical indicators of housing, while Ahmadabad region had a better status in social indicators of housing. The results indicated to significant differences between indicators in the neighborhoods under investigation. . On a general level, in all the neighborhoods, the residential environment quality was less than satisfactory, when compared with the housing quality. The reason could be ascribed to the fact that the policies have prioritized housing quality indicators over residential environment ones.

منابع و مأخذ:

• Archer, D. (2012), " Baan Mankong participatory slum upgrading in Bangkok, Thailand: community perceptions of outcomes and security of Tenure", Habitat International, 36, 178-184.


• Ashouri, K., habibi, K., & Doostvandi, M. (2021). The Evaluation of Quantitative and Qualitative Indicators of Urban Housing in Iran. Geography and Urban Space Development, 8(1), 225-257. (In Persian)


• E. Lester, L. (2017), "Multiple Housing problem: A view through the Housing niche lens", cities, 62, 146-151.


• N, Yazdanpanah.M.. Conceptioal Relationship between Social Capital And Quality OF Life In Urban Enviroments (CASE STUDY: Pardis New Town). JAMEPAZHUHIY FARHANGI[Internet]. 2011;2(1):25-49. (In Persian)


• Brenoord, J. Lindret, P.V. (2010), " pro-poor housing policies: rethinking the potential of assisted self-help housing", Habitat international, 34, 278-287.


• Buckley , R.M. Kalarickal, J. (2005), "Housing policy in developing countries: conjectures and refutations", the world bank research observer, 20(2), 233-257.


• Das,A. (2016), " is innovative also effective? a critical of pro-poor shelter in South-east Asia", international journal of housing policy, 1-33.


• Donoso, R.E., & Elsinga, M. (2018). Management of low-income condominiums in Bogota and Quito: The balance between property law and self-organisation. International Journal of Housing Policy.


• Emmanuel, J. B. (2011). “Housing Quality” To the Low Income Housing Producers in Ogbere, Ibadan, Nigeria. social and behavioral Sciences, 483-494.


• Gilbert, A.G. (2014), " Free Housing for the poor: an effective way to address poverty?", Habitat international, Vol.41, pp:253-261.


• Harris, R. (2003), "a mixed message: the agents and forms of international housing policy 1945-1973", Habitat international, Vol.27, pp:167-191.


• Huong Le,L. Dung Ta,A. Quyen Dang,H. (2016). Building up a system of indicators to measure social housing quality in Vietnam.116-123


• Khodaei, Z. Mire, M. (2016), "A review of global experiences in the field of providing housing for low-income urban groups", the first conference of urban economy of Iran, Mashhad. (In Persian)


• Libertun de Duren, N.R. (2017), " the social housing burden: comparing households at the periphery and the center of cities in Brazil,Colombia and Mexico, international journal of housing policy, 2-27.


• Monkkonen, P. (2018)," Do we need innovation in housing policy? Mass Production, Community- based upgrading and the politics of urban land in the Global South", International journal of housing policy, 18(2), pp:161-176.


• National Affordable Homes Agency. (2008). 721 Housing Quality Indicators (HQI) Form.


• Nuruddin, A.R. Seyed Abu Bakar, S.P. Jafar, M. (2015), "Unveiling the challenges faced by Mallaysian housing Developers through Government policy change", Journal of construction in developing countries, 20(2), pp:37-52.


• Pourahmad, A., Farhudy, R., Habibi, K., & Keshavarz, M. (2011). Analysis the Role of Residential Environment Quality in Spatial Movement of Intra-urban Population, (Case Study: The Old Texture of Khorramabad). Human Geography Research, 43(1), 17-36. (In Persian)


• Pugh, C. (1997). The changing roles of self-help in housing and urban policies 1950–1996. Third World Planning Review , 19 , 91–109


• Rafieeyan, D. M., Masoudi Rad, M., Rezaiee, M., & Masoudi Rad, M. (2014). The Evaluation of inhabitants' Satisfaction about the Residential Quality of the Mehr Housing, Case Study: Zahedan City. Geography and TerritorialSpatial Arrangement, 4(12), 135-150. (In Persian)


• Rid, W., Lammers, J., & Zimmermann, S. (2017). Analysing sustainability certification systems in the German housing sector from a theory of social institutions. Ecological Indicators, 76, 97-110.


• Rittle, W.J. Webber, M.W. (1973), “dilemma in a general theory of planning”, Policy science, 4:155-169.


• Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2002). How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Social indicators research, 59(1), 79-114


• Stren, R. (1990). Urban housing in Africa. The changing role of government policy. In P. Amis, & P. Lloyd (Eds.),Housing Africa’s urban poor (pp. 35–53). Manchester: Manchester University Press.


• Streimikiene, D. (2014). Housing indicators for assessing quality of life in Lithuania. Intelektine Ekonomika, 8(1).


• Talocci, G., & Boano, C. (2018). The de-politicisation of housing policies: The case of Borei Keila land-sharing in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. International Journal of Housing Policy, pp:1-22.


• Turner, J.F.C. (1967), "Barriers and channels for housing development in modernizing countries" , Journal of the American institute of planners, 33(3), 167-181.


• Werlin, H. (1999), " The Slum upgrading Myth", Hournal of Urban studies, Vol.36 (9), 1523-1534.


• Westaway, M.S. (2006), " A Longitudinal investigation of satisfaction with personal and environmental quality of life in an informal South African housing settlement", Habitat International, Vol.30: pp175-189.


• yazdani, M. H., Soleimani moghadam, H., pashazadeh, A., & zadvali, F. (2021). Measuring and ranking citizens' satisfaction with affordable housing sustainability (Case study: Ardabil five districts). Geography and Urban Space Development, (), 27-1(In Persian)