Evaluation of Elderly Friendly City Planning Criteria with Emphasis on Vitality in District 2 of Tehran

Subject Areas :

Malihe Ahmadi ¹ , Samaneh Heydari ²

1 - Department of Urban Planning, Shahr-e- Qods Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Department of urbanization, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2020-01-05 Accepted : 2020-04-08 Published : 2021-12-21

Keywords: "Urban Planning" , " Elderly" , " Vitality" , "District 2, Tehran",

Abstract :

The Elderly Friendly City is an environment for better support for the elderly by activating them in civil society and the neighborhood which provides many opportunities for their desired participation. The important question is whether our urban spaces, By creating the right facilities , Has it met the needs of the elderly in order to create vitality, especially in Tehran's District 2? The purpose of this study was to develop Elderly Friendly City Planning Criteria with emphasis on vitality. The purpose of this research is descriptive-analytical and library and field resources were used for data collection. The sample population was the elderly of District 2 and statistical Society of the study was randomly selected according to Cochran formula of 384 people, from elderly age group. Data were analyzed using statistical methods quantitative and qualitative. Excel software is used to better display the results and Extracted data, using spss 23 software and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression test. Examination of statistical calculations and analysis of the indicators of this research and the results single sample t-test shows First: from the five components and 28 selected indicators resulting from theoretical foundations, In total, except for 4 indicators, the respondents were not relatively important ,The remaining 24 indicators have contributed to the improvement and improvement of urban spaces for the use of the elderly. Second: The relative satisfaction of the respondents has been obtained only in the field of 7 indicators out of 28 indicators because the average number obtained is not in the desired condition. Third: Comparing the mean difference between the meanings obtained from one-way analysis of variance as well as regression analysis test, the "transportation" component was the least effect & acceptable and the "economic" component was the most effect & acceptable to the residents of Region 2.

References:


1- اعرابی، هوشنگ و کریمی فرد، لیلا (1394)، شهر دوستدار سالمند و معیارهای طراحی مراکز تعاملات اجتماعی سالمندی با رویکرد سلامت روان، فصلنامه مدیریت شهری، شماره 39.
2-امجدی، مریم. علی محمدزاده،خلیل. وحدت،شقایق. مسعودی اصل،ایروان.(1400). بررسی میزان مشارکت شهرداری هاي کلانشهرهای ایران در ارتقا سلامت شهری وارائه یک مدل پیشنهادی، فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی آمایش محیط، شماره52.ص 170-147.
3- حیدري، محمد ابن علی (1389)، ارائه رویکرد جدیدي در طراحی شهر: طراحی شهر سالمند محور و ارگونومیک با رویکرد توان بخشی محیطی شهری، همایش ملی معماري و شهرسازي انسان گرا، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی قزوین.
4- خستو، مريم، سعيدي رضواني، نويد (1389)، عوامل موثر بر سرزندگي فضاهاي شهري، نشريه هويت شهر، سال چهارم، شماره 6، بهار و تابستان.
5- خوارزمی, امیدعلی سیدهادی زرقانی و لیلا جوهری، (۱۳۹۳)، ارزیابی فضاهای باز شهری و حمل و نقل درون شهری در مشهد بر اساس شاخصهای شهر دوستدار سالمند (رویکرد مشارکتی)، ششمین کنفرانس ملی برنامه‌ریزی و مدیریت شهری با تأکید بر مؤلفه‌های شهر اسلامی، مشهد
6-زرقانی،سید هادی، خوارزمی، امید، جوهری، علی،(1393) ،ارزیابی شاخص های شهر دوستدار سالمند در شهرمشهد با تأکید بر شاخص های فرهنگی- اجتماعی، فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی،دوره47،شماره4، زمستان1394، ص688-673.
7-علیزاده، مهتاب، فخرزاد، حسین، شریفی، فرشاد، محمدی آذر، مریم، نظری، ندا،تحلیل مروری عملکرد سازمان های متولی در برنامه سالمندی کشور،مجله دیابت ولیپید ایران.1392،13(1):74 -81 .
8-غفاری گیلانده، عطا. محمدی، چنور. داوری، الهام. (1401)ارزیابی شاخص های شهر دوستدار سالمند، مطالعه موردی: شهر ساری، فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی آمایش محیط، شماره56.ص26-1
9- نتایج تفصيلي سرشماری عمومي نفوس و مسكن 1395شهرستان تهرانhttp://thmporg.ir/Uploads/User/1/amar.pdf
10- هرندی،مینا. رفیعیان،مجتبی. صابری،حمید. شبانی،امیرحسین.(1402). تدوین مدل نظری محله ی دوستدار سالمند با تأکید بر سالمندی ماندگار در مکان، فصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی آمایش محیط، شماره 63.ص49-27 .
11-Bloomberg, M., and Quinn, C. (2009). Age Friendly NYC: Enhancing Our City’s Livability for Older New Yorkers. New York.
12-BS, F. (1992). Psychological aspects of staying at home. The American condition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(4), 191-200.
13-Cowan, Robert, (2005).”The Dictionary of Urbanism”, Streetwise press.
14-Fitzgerald, K., Caro F. (2015). An Overview of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities around the World. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26, 1-18.
15-Hanson, D. (2012). Age-Friendly Portland and Multnomah County. Portland: Portland State University.
16-Jackisch, J., Zamaro, G., Green, G., and Huber, M. (2015). Is a healthy city also an age-friendly city? Health Promotion International, 30 (S1).
17- Jacobs. J, (1961), “The death and life of great American cities: the failure of modern town planning”, Peregrine books, London.
18- H. Khosravi, F. gharai, Sh. Taghavi,(2015) The impact of local built environment attributes on the elderly sociability, International Journal of Architecture & Urban Planning,Vol.25,No.1.
19-Steve Cinderby et all (2018). Co-designing Urban Living Solutions to Improve Older People’s Mobility and Well-Being, Journal of Urban Health, Volume 95, Issue 3, pp 409–422.
20-Joost van Hoof et all (2018).The Challenges of Urban Ageing: Making Cities Age-Friendly in EuropeEnvironmental Research & Public Health15 (11), 2473; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112473.
21-Jackson, L. E. (2003). The relationship of urban design to human health and people's requirements in public open spaces: A case study in Bornova District (Izmir, Turkey). Building and Environment, 42(5).
22-Landry, R. & Lamari, N .M. (2000). Does Social capital determine innovation? Paper presented at the 4th international conference on technology policy and innovation Brazil.
23-O’Hehir, J. (2014). Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: A Literature Review. Adelaide: the Centre for Work + Life.
24-Plouffe, L., and Kalache, A. (2010). Towards Global Age-Friendly Cities: Determining. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 87 (5), 733-739.
25- Sonmez Turel, H; Malkoc Yigit, E; & Altug, I. (2007). Evaluation of elderly Spaces. Applied Acoustics, 66(2), 211-229.
26- Yang, W; & Kang, J. (2005). Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public Applied Acoustics, Volume 66, Issue 2, February, Pages 211–212.
27-World Health Organization: WHO, https://www.who.int.
28- https://www.tahlil-amari.com/890