تحلیل روش‌شناختی مطالعات جهانی در حوزه سیاست‌های فضایی و فقر شهری
محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه آینده پژوهی شهری
مهدا نخعی نیازی
1
,
کیانوش ذاکر حقیقی
2
*
,
مهرنوش حسن زاده
3
1 - گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده تهران جنوب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نام شهر تهران، نام کشور ایران
2 - گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده تهران جنوب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نام شهر تهران، نام کشور ایران
3 - گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده تهران جنوب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نام شهر تهران، نام کشور ایران
کلید واژه: سیاست فضایی, تله فقر, فقر شهری, روش‌شناسی.,
چکیده مقاله :
فقر و ساست فضایی همواره از مسائل اساسی جوامع بوده و نوآوری در سیاست‌های فضایی مرتبط با زمین می‌تواند راهکاری مؤثر برای کاهش آن در شرایط محدودیت منابع اقتصادی باشد؛ بنابراین هدف این پژوهش، تحلیل روش‌شناسی مطالعات مرتبط با سیاست فضایی و تله فقر شهری و بررسی نحوه به‌کارگیری رویکردهای تحقیق، ابزارهای تحلیلی و چارچوب‌های نظری در این حوزه، به‌منظور تبیین ارتباط میان سیاست‌گذاری فضایی و پایداری فقر شهری است. این مطالعه با بهره‌گیری از مرور سیستماتیک و تحلیل‌های کیفی و کمی، ۲۱ مقاله علمی بین‌المللی منتشرشده بین سال‌های ۲۰۰۵ تا ۲۰۲۴ را موردبررسی قرار داده است، اطلاعات پژوهش از پایگاه‌هایی چون Scopus، Semantic Scholar، Web of Science استخراج‌شده است. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که بیشتر مطالعات از روش‌های کمی مانند تحلیل رگرسیون، مدل‌سازی آماری و GIS بهره برده‌اند و پژوهش‌های کیفی و ترکیبی سهم کمتری داشته‌اند تله‌های فقر شهری، پدیده‌هایی چندبعدی و پیچیده‌اند که در اثر سیاست‌های فضایی نامتوازن، انزوای جغرافیایی، ضعف دسترسی به زیرساخت‌ها و تبعیض در تخصیص منابع در مناطق حاشیه‌نشین ایجاد می‌شوند. به‌طوری‌که مطالعات نشان می‌دهند که سیاست‌های فضایی ناکارآمد می‌توانند به بازتولید فقر و تعمیق نابرابری‌های فضایی منجر شوند. نتایج پژوهش حاکی از آن است که برای درک بهتر تعامل بین سیاست فضایی و فقر شهری، استفاده از رویکردهای ترکیبی و توسعه مدل‌های تحلیلی دقیق‌تر ضروری است. همچنین پیشنهاد می‌شود که شاخص‌های عملیاتی و مبتنی بر عدالت فضایی برای سیاست‌گذاری طراحی‌شده و از ظرفیت‌های فناوری‌های نوین مانند هوش مصنوعی برای تحلیل روندها و ارائه راهکارهای کاربردی بهره گرفته شود.
Poverty and spatial policy have consistently remained fundamental societal challenges. Innovation in land-related spatial policies presents an effective strategy for poverty reduction, particularly under conditions of limited economic resources. This study, therefore, aims to critically analyze the methodologies employed in research pertaining to spatial policy and urban poverty traps, examining the application of various research approaches, analytical tools, and theoretical frameworks within this domain. The ultimate objective is to elucidate the intricate relationship between spatial policymaking and the perpetuation of urban poverty. This study adopts a systematic review approach, integrating both qualitative and quantitative analyses, to scrutinize 21 international scholarly articles published between 2005 and 2024. Research data were systematically extracted from reputable databases including Scopus, Semantic Scholar, and Web of Science. The research findings indicate a predominant reliance on quantitative methodologies, such as regression analysis, statistical modeling, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), across the reviewed literature, with qualitative and mixed-methods research contributing a smaller proportion. Urban poverty traps are revealed as multifaceted and intricate phenomena, typically arising from unbalanced spatial policies, geographical isolation, inadequate access to infrastructure, and discriminatory resource allocation in marginalized urban areas. Specifically, studies demonstrate that inefficient spatial policies can lead to the reproduction of poverty and the exacerbation of spatial inequalities. The findings underscore the imperative for employing mixed-methods approaches and developing more precise analytical models to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the interaction between spatial policy and urban poverty. Furthermore, it is recommended that operational indicators grounded in spatial justice be meticulously designed for policymaking. Leveraging the capabilities of novel technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, for trend analysis and the provision of actionable solutions, is also strongly advocated.
منابع
خیر الدین، رضا؛ دلایی میلان، ابراهیم. (1395). تحلیل محتوای سطوح چهارگانه روش‌شناسی پژوهش در مطالعات شهرسازی (مورد پژوهی: پایان‌نامه‌های شهرسازی دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران 1380-1393). روش شناسی علوم انسانی، 22(89)، 107-136. https://method.rihu.ac.ir/article_1292.html
کشمیری، هادی؛ پیوسته گر، یعقوب؛ کریمی، محمدقاسم. (۱۳۹۵). ارایه‌ی الگوی روش تحقیق ترکیبی در شهرسازی. مطالعات محیطی هفت حصار، ۵(۱۸)، ۳۱-۵۲. http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-268-fa.html
References:
Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2013). A multidimensional approach: poverty measurement & beyond. social indicators research, 112(2), 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0257-3
Alkire, S., & Seth, S. (2015). Multidimensional poverty reduction in India between 1999 and 2006: Where and how?. World Development, 72, 93-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.02.009
Babbie, E. (2020). The practice of social research (15 th ed.). Cengage Learning. https://doi.org/10.4236/ait.2011.11001
Barbier, E. B., & Hochard, J. P. (2019). Poverty-environment traps. environmental and resource economics, 74(3), 1239-1271. DOI: 10.1007/s10640-019-00366-3
Bergin, T. (2018). An introduction to data analysis: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682854
Blank, R. M. (2018). It takes a nation: A new agenda for fighting poverty-updated edition. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv346sr6
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Carraquico, T., & Matos, F. (2019). Science-with-business: improving innovation and competitiveness in smes. in european conference on knowledge management (pp. 1173-xvii). academic conferences international limited. DOI:10.34190/KM.19.272
Carraro, A., & Ferrone, L. (2021). Measurement of multidimensional child poverty. in no poverty (pp. 517-527). cham: springer international publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95714-2_106
Chambers, R. (2006). poverty unperceived: traps, biases and agenda. https://www.amazon.de/Rebecca-M-Blank/dp/0691004013
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). sage publications. https://collegepublishing.sagepub.com/products/research-design-5-255675?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Curtis, B. (2021). Geographical and spatial poverty. in understanding global poverty (pp. 106-129). routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003043829
De Schutter, O. (2020). Combating poverty in a world withlimitedresources. building back better, 8. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/404661606955558548
Dejaeghere, J. G. (2024). Reflexive mixed methods research in comparative and international education: context, complexity, and transdisciplinarity. taylor & francis. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003322436
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.). (2018). The sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). sage publications. https://doi.org/10.4236/health.2011.39091
Eriksson, J., & Privalov, R. (2020). Russian space policy and identity: visionary or reactionary? Journal of International Relations and Development, 24, 381-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41268-020-00195-8
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). sage publications http://dx.doi.org/10.53841/bpsptr.2017.23.2.95
Grant, U. (2010). Spatial inequality and urban poverty traps. overseas development institute. london, uk. https://odi.org/en/publications/spatial-inequality-and-urban-poverty-traps/
Herath, G. (2005). Analysis of the potential and problems of new institutional economics for third world development. international journal of social economics, 32(10), 877-892. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290510618515
Hersperger, A. M., Bürgi, M., Wende, W., Bacău, S., & Grădinaru, S. R. (2020). Does landscape play a role in strategic spatial planning of european urban regions?. landscape and urban planning, 194, 103702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103702
Hoerber, T. C., & Lieberman, S. (2019). A european space policy : past consolidation, present challenges and future perspectives. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203703526
Kaibarta, S., Mandal, S., Mandal, P., Bhattacharya, S., & Paul, S. (2022). Multidimensional poverty in slums: an empirical study from urban india. geojournal, 87(4), 527-549. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10708-021-10571-7
Kashmiri ,H., Peyvastehgar ,Y,. Karimi, . (2016).Presenting a model of mixed research method in urban planning. Haft Hesar Environmental Studies. 2016; 5 (18): 31-52. http://hafthesar.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-268-fa.html [In Persian]
Khairuddin, R., Delai Milan, A. (2016). Content analysis of the four levels of research methodology in urban planning studies (Case study: Urban planning theses of Iran University of Science and Technology 1380-1393). Methodology of Humanities, 22(89), 107-136. https://civilica.com/doc/1294214 [In Persian]
Kisiała, W., & Rącka, I. (2021). Spatial and statistical analysis of urban poverty for sustainable city development. sustainability, 13(2), 858. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020858
Kumar, S. (2017). Does “participation” in common pool resource management help the poor? a social cost-benefit analysis of joint forest management in jharkhand, india. in development (pp. 295-314). routledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00004-9
Lahcen, A., & Andrijasevic, D. (2019). Space policy. research anthology on reliability and safety in aviation systems, spacecraft, and air transport. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11956/150376
Liu, M., Ge, Y., Hu, S., & Hao, H. (2023). The spatial effects of regional poverty: spatial dependence, spatial heterogeneity and scale effects. isprs international journal of geo-information, 12(12), 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi12120501
Liu, P., & Biljecki, F. (2022). A review of spatially-explicit geoai applications in urban geography. international journal of applied earth observation and geoinformation, 112, 102936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2022.102936
Lucci, P., Bhatkal, T., & Khan, A. (2018). Are we underestimating urban poverty?. world development, 103, 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.022
MacKinnon, D., Kinossian, N., Pike, A., Béal, V., lang, T., Rousseau, M., & Tomaney, J. (2025). Spatial policy since the global financial crisis. european urban and regional studies, 32(3), 243-260.
Neuman, W. L. (2019). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches (8th ed.). pearson. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3211488
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). sage publications. https://collegepublishing.sagepub.com/products/qualitative-research-evaluation-methods-4-232962?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Pelton, J. N. (2019). A path forward to better space security: finding new solutions to space debris, space situational awareness and space traffic management. journal of space safety engineering, 6(2), 92-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2019.04.005
Pogge, T. (2017). Fighting global poverty. international journal of law in context, 13(4), 512-526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552317000428
Pratschke, j., & Morlicchio, E. (2023). Poverty and social cohesion in metropolitan areas. in handbook on local and regional governance , 267-281. edward elgar publishing https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800371200.00029
Rath, A. (2022). Urban poverty and vulnerability in global south: an alternative multidimensional framework for measurement and targeting. regional science policy & practice, 14(2), 376-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12511
Rosa, A. B., Kimpeler, S., Sturminster, E., & Warnke, P. (2021). Participatory foresight and reflexive innovation: setting policy goals and developing strategies in a bottom-up, mission-oriented, sustainable way. european journal of futures research, 9(1), 2. https://chatgpt.com/c/6861234b-e57c-8005-9fe0-250f10134395#:~:text=DOI%E2%80%8C%3A%2010.1186/s40309%2D021%2D00171%2D6
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. pearson education.https://www.pearson.com/store/p/research-methods-for-business-students/P100000010080
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). pearson. https://www.pearson.com/store/p/research-methods-for-business-students/P100000421940
Shrestha, M. (2021). Access to basic services and its linkage with ending poverty. in no poverty (pp. 1-12). cham: springer international publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69625-6_1-1
Smith, J., & Brown, K. (2020). Systematic review as a research method: analyzing key discussions and challenges in knowledge domains. journal of research methods, 15(3), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.2196/17572
Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
Sulaiman, J., Azman, A., & Khan, Z. (2014). Re-modeling urban poverty: a multidimensional approach. international journal of social work and human services practice, 2(2), 64-72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263581156_Remodeling_Urban_Poverty_A_Multidimensional_Approach
Thomas, D., & Zubkov, P. (2023). Quantitative research designs. quantitative research for practical theology, 103-114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370630979_Quantitative_Research_Designs
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: design and methods (5th ed.). sage publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.30.1.108
Yu, J., Zhao, W., & Zhu, J. (2023). The construction of chinese metropolitan area from the perspective of politics of scale: a case study of nanjing metropolitan area, china. land, 12(7), 1320. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071320
Zhou, Y., Guo, Y., Liu, Y., Wu, W., & Li, Y. (2018). Targeted poverty alleviation and land policy innovation: some practice and policy implications from china. land use policy, 74, 53-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.037
Zhu, M., Sari, A., & Lee, M. M. (2018). A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical mooc literature (2014–2016). the internet and higher education, 37, 31-3 DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.002.