Identifying and Prioritizing the Factors Affecting the use of Underground Spaces for the Sustainable Development of Urban Public Spaces using the TOPSIS Method (case study: Tehran)
Subject Areas : Environmental crises
Mohammad Mahdi Safaee
1
(Ph.D. student in Architecture, Islamic Azad University campus, Kish International Branch, Iran )
محمد سعید ایزدی
2
(استادیار گروه طراحی شهری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران.)
Ali Afshar
3
(Institute of Higher Education of Eqbal Lahoori, Mashhad)
Hamid Reza Ameri Siyahouei
4
(گروه معماری . دانشگاه پیام نور . سازمان مرکزی .ایران)
Keywords: Urban public space, sustainable development, underground space, TOPSIS method, Tehran city,
Abstract :
|
Introduction: One of the major issues facing today's cities is the rapid population growth and the decline in per capita urban spaces, which subtly reduces social interactions. Underground urbanism can enhance urban sustainability and resilience. These spaces can contribute to the creation of compact cities, increased density, and prevention of unchecked urban sprawl. The goal of this research was to identify and prioritize the factors influencing the sustainable development of underground spaces as part of urban public areas in Tehran and six selected districts. Materials and Methods: The research was of applied type, which was done in a combined method and in 4 steps. First, a list of effective components and factors was prepared with in-depth study, and then 23 experts were used to evaluate and rank the factors and options. The sampling method was a targeted type that continued until reaching the theoretical saturation point. Confirmatory factor analysis method was used to fit the model. In this way, structural equation model was used by partial least square (PLS) method based on SmartPLS software. Also, TOPSIS technique was used for normalization, de-scaling and finally ranking. |
|
|
Results and Discussion: The results showed that the effective components included 4 main factors and 20 sub-factors, and all components in the causal conditions section (main and sub-factors) had Cronbach's alpha coefficient and composite reliability. The average value of R2 coefficients (0.088) and the average value of its shared values (0.93) were obtained. The value of GOF equal to (0.382) was obtained, which shows the strong fit of the final research model. Finally, the best choice of Azadi Cultural Complex (0.861) was chosen, followed by Valiasr Crossroads (0.774). Also, the Bamland entertainment complex and the Qur'an museum were ranked last with 0.661 and 0.573, respectively. Conclusion: The use and development of underground spaces as urban public areas face several challenges. These include inefficiency and lack of vibrancy, increased crime rates and insecurity, limited access during emergencies, and additional costs for ventilation and lighting. Furthermore, there are negative public perceptions of underground spaces and issues with communication and location identification. Improving the design of these spaces and gaining public acceptance could enhance the use of underground architecture, potentially addressing the shortage of public spaces in Tehran and leading to greater acceptance. |
|
1. Bahadori A, Pourjafar M, Ranjbar E. The relationship between natural factors of urban public spaces and psychological well-being in Tehran. Armanshahr architecture and urban planning, 2022, 14(36), 132-146 pp. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/956426/fa (In Persian).
2. Barmayeh B, Kokbi L. Analyzing the formation of cyberparks as smart urban public open spaces (case study: pioneering cyberpark projects). Urban Planning Geography Research, 2018, 7(4), 855-877. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/379628/fa (In Persian).
3. Bobylev N. Underground space as an urban indicator: Measuring use of subsurface. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 55 (2016) 40–51
4. Broere W. Urban underground space: Solving the problems of today’s cities. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 55 (2016) 245-248.
5. Cakir O, Evren S, Tören E, Kozak N. Utilizing the sustainable livelihoods approach to evaluate tourism development from the rural host communities’ point of view: The case of Cappadocia (Turkey). GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 2018, 21(1), 7-25.
6. Chen Z, Wang Y. The urban underground space planning. Southeast University Press, Nanjing, 2015
7. Costa CS, Bovelet J, Dolata K, Menezes M. Building a theory on co-creating a Cyberpark Lessons learnt from the COST Action CyberParks and the Flussbad Project, Berlin. Beyond Mirrors: research pathways, 2018. PP. 165-174.
8. Darabi H, Choubin, B, Rahmati O, Torabi Haghighi A, Biswajeet P, Urban Flood Risk Mapping Using the GARP and QUEST Models: A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Techniques. Journal of Hydrology, 2019, 569:142–54.
9. Dincer I, Orhan A, Frattini P, Crosta, GB. Rockfall at the heritage site of the Tatlarin Underground City (Cappadocia, Turkey). Natural Hazards, 2016, 82(2), 1075-1098.
10. Gurer N, Imran Guzel B, Kavak I. Evaluation on Living Public Space and their Qualities, Case Study from Anlara Konur, karanful & Yuksel Streets. Iop Conference. Series, materials, Science & Engineering, 2017, 245(7), 1-14. https://ur.booksc.eu/book/68379308/0bf4b9
11. Hunt DVL, Makana LO, Jefferson I, Rogers, CDF. Liveable cities and urban underground space. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 55, 8-20.
12. Kamyabi S, Alipour S, Miremadi E. Evaluation of urban space safety with emphasis on passive defense indicators using AHP and TOPSIS method (case study: Semnan city), the first national conference of urban management of Iran, Tehran. 2014. (In Persian).
13. Lawlor E, Nicholls J. Hitting the Target, Missing the Point: How Government Regeneration Targets Fail Deprived Areas.London: New Economics Foundation. 2008.
14. Li X, Hung Y, Ma X. Evaluation of the accessible urban public green space at the community-scale with the consideration of temporal accessibility and quality. Ecological Indicators. 2021, 131, 108-231. journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind
15. Margherita Z, Claudio C, Laura E, Alessandra N. A risk assessment proposal for underground cavities in Hard Soils-Soft Rocks. International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences, 2018, 103, 43-54.
16. Menezes, M, Arvanitidis P, Kenna T, Ivanova-Radovanova P. People - Space -Technology: An Ethnographic Approach, In CyberParks–The Interface between People, Places and Technology, 2019. (pp. 76-86). Springer, Cham.
17. Mohtashamnia S. Investigating environmental sustainability using ecological footprint index (Case study:Abadan city, in Khouzestan province), Journal of New Researches in Environmental Engineering, 1(1), 2022, 55-66 In Persian).
18. Moulai A. Studying the capabilities of underground urban development in improving city safety with a passive defense approach. Safe City, 2017. 1(4), 0-0. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/516123/fa (In Persian).
19. Mueller J, Lu H, Chirkin A, Klein B, Schmitt G. Citizen design science: A strategy for crowd-creative urban design. Cities, 2018, 72, 181-188.
20. Nasrasafhani R, Safari B, Bashiri M. Determining the optimal use of urban underground space (selected streets of Isfahan city). Economics and Urban Management, 2017. 6(2), (consecutive 22), 95-110. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/240358/fa. (In Persian).
21. Nikpour A, Yarahamdi M.Re-identification of street life-forming components as improving the quality of social life in small urban spaces, Shahr Padayar Quarterly, 3(1), pp. 2019, 41-54. (In Persian).
22. Pajohande N, Shia I, Moinifar M. Clarifying the key criteria of the formation process of integrated spatial quality in urban public spaces (case study: Panj District of Tehran Municipality). City Identity, 2023, 16(49), 17-34 SID. https://sid.ir/paper/985016/fa (In Persian).
23. Paul A, Sen J. Livability assessment within a metropolis based on the impact of integrated urban geographic factors (IUGFs) on clustering urban centers of Kolkata. Cities. 2018, 74, 142-150.
24. Qihu Q. Present state, problems and development trends of urban underground space in China. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 55, 280-289.
25. Ravanshad A, Sidi F, Yarmohamedtoski M. General model and indexing of women's social security in urban spaces. Cultural Studies and Communication, 2023, 18(66), 269-296. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/1033464/fa (In Persian).
26. Rudbari AA. Determining the requirements for the management of construction waste and household waste in Tehran under crisis conditions, Tehran City Planning and Studies Center, first edition, Tehran Municipality, 2023, 31 p. (In Persian).
27. Sulis P, Manley E, Zhong C, Batty M. Using Mobility Data as Proxy for Measuring Urban Vitality. Journal of Spatial Information Science, 2018, 16(16), 137-162.
28. Tano H, Aydan O, Ulusay R, Tanaka T. Geomechanical investigations and pioneering monitoring attempts in Cappadocia, Turkey. In ISRM International Symposium-EUROCK. 2016. International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.
29. Tong L. Underground space and urban modernization. China Building Industry Press, Beijing. 2016.
30. Yue W, Chen Y, Thy PTM, Fan P, Liu Y, Zhang W. Identifying Urban Vitality in Metropolitan Areas of Developing Countries from a
Comparative Perspective: HoChi Minh City versus Shanghai. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2021, 65, 102609. 31. Wang X, Zhen F, Huang X, Zhang M, Liu Z. Factors influencing the development potential of urban underground space: Structural equation model approach. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2023, 38, 235-243.
32. Zhou R, Liu G, Zhang Y. Sus trainability evaluation and spatial heterogeneity of urban agglomerations: a China case s tudy. 2021, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-021-00012-3
