Evaluation of Urban Prosperity (Case Study: Eight Districts of Karaj City)
Subject Areas :
taher parizadi
1
(Assistant Professor, Faculty Member of Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.)
Hadi Hoseinkhani
2
(Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran)
Keywords: Urban Prosperity, Keywords: Evaluation, Karaj, Urban district, WASPAS Model,
Abstract :
The expansion of urbanization and the many issues and problems arising from it in urban life have made it more necessary to pay attention to all aspects of urban development and prosperity. In this regard, the examination of cities based on the urban prosperity Index as a broad and comprehensive conceptual framework is an important issue in the discussion of urban planning. Therefore, the purpose of this study is the comparative evaluation of the eight districts of the Karaj City based on the Urban Prosperity Index (CPI). The research method is descriptive-analytical and its purpose is applied. This research is based on the method of descriptive-analytical research and based on practical purpose. The method of data collection was documented-library, and the method of their analysis was quantitative-qualitative. Also, Shannon Entropy methods (to calculate the weight of the criteria) and WASPAS multi-criteria decision-making technique have been used to analyze data and information. The results of the research show that the condition of Karaj metropolitan areas is very unfavorable condition in terms of productivity indicators and infrastructure development. The stratification of the districts in terms of Urban Prosperity Index (CPI) has shown that region 9 of Karaj City with a final score of 0.510 has a favorable condition, regions 1, 8 and 11 have semi-favorable condition and districts 2, 5, 6 and 7 (four out of eight Karaj metropolitan area) have an unfavorable condition. Also, zone five is in the most unfavorable condition with a final score of 0.235. The conclusion of this research shows that based on the final score (Qi) there is a severe inequality between the eight districts of the Karaj City in terms of urban prosperity Index (CPI). Also, the deprived districts of Karaj are geographically, the unfavorable districts of Karaj are mostly located in the east of this metropolis, and the unfavorable condition in terms of infrastructure development is a common point of these districts. Extended Abstract Introduction Today, urban areas are more than half of the world's population. These areas, before being a place for growth and prosperity, have become the biggest threat to the planet in various ecological, social and economic fields. The rapid growth of urbanization, especially in developing countries, has fueled these threats, which will have destructive effects on citizens. The current urbanization trend shows that by 2050, more than 3 billion people will live in cities, which will increase the population distribution ratio by two-thirds. It is expected that this global trend of urbanization, on the one hand, will cause economic growth and development, and on the other hand, it will cause emerging challenges such as social anomalies, reduction of social identity, the spread of environmental problems, and socio-economic inequalities. The lack of proper infrastructure and the overall decrease in the quality of life in cities.The concept of prosperity was proposed by describing success, health, progress and living well. The dimensions of urban prosperity include infrastructure development, productivity, justice and social participation, governance and urban legislation, quality of life and livability. In fact, in order to become sustainable, the cities of developing countries should pay attention to the participation of different social groups, especially the poor and the preservation of the environment, in addition to improving their overall economic structure. In fact, urban prosperity, along with preserving the environment, economic production and technological development, also pays attention to indicators such as happiness, vitality, and dynamism, and it can be said that it seeks higher goals than sustainable development. This new attitude has two important functions for cities; first, it acts as a structure for measuring global competitiveness, where cities can evaluate their condition and compare their performance with other cities in the world, and secondly, it can identify problems. Methodology The research method is descriptive-analytical, and its purpose is applied. The librarian and documentary methods were also used for data collection; articles and similar internal and external patterns and other scientific sources have also been used. The required data were collected from the official statistics of the Iranian Statistics Center and the detailed plan of Karaj. And then Shannon's entropy methods (to calculate the weight of the criteria) and the multi-criteria decision-making technique (WASPAS) are used to analyze data and information. Results and discussion One of the most important tasks of urban and regional planners is to evaluate and identify the development of geographical areas to provide balanced development and development of urban areas and neighborhoods. The classification of the districts can reveal their spatial, social, cultural, and economic differences, so leveling requires careful study and study. The advantage of this is that there is a competitive atmosphere between different cities and districts in a city, which in turn provides more motivation for urban development, as well as city officials being aware of the awareness of urban development. The current performance of the city in each of the aspects of this index can make better decisions. In this study, with an analytical -descriptive approach, the measurement and comparison of Karaj city were based on the urban prosperity Index. The results of the WASPAS model and the score of the districts of Karaj city (based on the criteria of urban prosperity) show that the nine districts (0.510) are in a favorable condition in terms of urban prosperity. Also, districts one (0.346), eight (0.397) and eleven (0.328) are in a semi-favorable condition and in terms of prosperity (relatively prosperous). Districts two (0.252), six (0.253) and seven (0.248) are in an unfavorable condition in terms of prosperity, and finally, region five (0.235) is in the most unfavorable condition in terms of urban prosperity, and also, this region is at the first level of priority for development planning. Also, districts one (0.346), eight (0.397) and eleven (0.328) are in a semi-favorable condition and in terms of prosperity (relatively prosperous). Districts two (0.252), six (0.253) and seven (0.248) are in an unfavorable condition in terms of prosperity, and finally, region five (0.235) is in the most unfavorable condition in terms of urban prosperity, and also, this region is at the first level of priority for development planning. Conclusion In fact, the more than double difference between the final score (Qi) of the ninth region as the most privileged region with a score of (0.510) and the fifth region as the most deprived region (0.235) in terms of urban prosperity Index, indicates imbalance and inequality. It is deep between the districts of Karaj metropolis. Also, the deprived districts of Karaj are Geographically, the unfavorable districts of Karaj are mostly located in the east of this metropolis, and the unfavorable condition in terms of infrastructure development is the common point of these district.
_||_
