Assessment of Livability in Peri Urban Villages: a Case Study of the Central District of Shiraz County

Subject Areas : Regional Planning

amin khorasani ¹ , saeed reza akbarian ronizi ²

1 - Assistant Professor of Geography and Rural Planning, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 - Associate Professor of Geography and Rural Planning, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

Received: 2019-04-29 Accepted : 2019-11-26 Published : 2021-01-20

Keywords: livability, peri urban villages, central district of Shiraz county,

Abstract :

Investigating the livability of peri urban rural areas has special importance and place in geographical research. Both urban planners and rural development planning scholars and researchers should open the door to balance and sustainable regional development through efforts to identify and explain these rural issues. The purpose of this study is investigate and analyze the livability status of peri urban Shiraz villages. The research method is descriptive-analytical and the data were collected by both documentary and field methods. The study area of the study is 13 villages located in the central part of Shiraz. From total rural population living in villages, 295 heads of households were selected as statistical sample. Given the varied geographical location of the study area, the natural position of the villages was also taken into account. The results show that the livelihood status of the villages with the mean value is 185.266 above the average (177). The results also showed that the level of livability was different in major indices. Other results showed that there was a significant difference in the livelihood status of the villages based on their natural position and it found that plain villages had a better livability status compared to other villages.
Introduction
Because Awareness from the dangers such as rapid population growth, congestion, loss of agricultural land and open spaces, lack of adequate housing, increased social inequality and loss of sense of belonging, place identity and social life that threats quality of life of communities, the concept of livability has come and gone (Wheeler, 2001). therefore, it supported both locally and by planners to create more sustainable, functional, and enjoyable living spaces. livable neighborhoods have a greater sense of belonging to the community and place, and a lower rate of migration. Therefore, planners at all levels are increasingly interested in livability as a strategy of neighborhood revitalization, redevelopment, affordable housing, environmental protection, improved security and reduced crime rates (Larice, 2005: 91-92). The term livability was first coined in 1970 by the US National Bureau of the Arts to achieve urban planning ideas, and was later used by other research centers and organizations to address the problems of human societies and communities. The decline in the quality of life of the inhabitants of different places has very strong (Ibid, 93).
Shiraz, as one of the major metropolitan areas of the country, has a large urban area which, due to its increasing physical development, has affected the dimensions and living conditions of its surrounding villages. Among these areas are villages located in the central district of Shiraz which, along with the relatively short distance, more influenced by Shiraz due to administrative processes and relations. Since these villages are environmentally vulnerable and economically and socially sensitive in comparison with other villages, it is necessary to study and analyze their livability status. Therefore, the present study seeks to answer the following questions: a) Which level is the livelihood peri urban villages located in the central part of Shiraz county? C) What is the relationship between individual characteristics and perceptions of livability?
Methodology
The research method is descriptive-analytical and the data collected by both documentary and field methods. The study area of ​​the present study is the villages located in the central district of Shiraz which are six villages. the number of residential areas in this section is 138, of which 61.5% are residential and have 20 households and more. In this study, based on natural location, population size, spatial distribution and distance from Shiraz, 13 villages over 20 households were selected as sample villages. From the total rural population of the study area, 3858 households are located in sample villages and 295 household heads selected based on Cochran method. With regard to the intended purpose and access to the required data, by analyzing the content of the relevant studies, 59 indicators were selected in form of 11 major indicators.
Results and Discussion
Analysis of the livability status of the sample villages carried out based on a single sample T-test and the results indicate that livability level in six major indices including: Health, pollution, transportation, housing, infrastructure services, placement and participation, social security and prospects are above average. In other indices, the results indicate that the average value is higher than the average, statistically significant. Also in the three major indices of leisure, employment and education, the observed average is lower than the average, but the result is only statistically significant for the leisure index. Overall, considering the average value of total livability indices compared to the average value, it is observed that the total livability in the sample villages was above average which The p value obtained was statistically significant.
In assessing the role of rural natural position in local residents' perception of livability, the calculation of the average value of total livability indicates that this value is 1.99 in lowland rural area, In the forest it is calculated to be 1.67 and in villages with valley position equal to 1.58. one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) used to explain the presence or absence of livability of the sample villages in terms of natural location. Results with respect to the calculated significance level indicate that there is a significant difference in local residents' perception of total livability among the sample villages of the study in terms of natural location. Also, to determine which of the natural situations there is a difference between the three groups, post hoc test used to analyze this point. As the results, with respect to the level of significance obtained, there is a significant difference in livability between all three natural situations.
Also the results showed that there is a direct and significant statistical relationship between the three variables of gender, age and job. There was also a significant inverse relationship between education variables and livability index. In other words, as the level of education of the respondents increased, their perception of livability decreased. The present analysis of this variable is that as people's education increases, their expectations of the conditions and dimensions increase.
Conclusion
The results showed that overall livability in the studied rural areas was above average which in relation to the indicators of participation and location, social security, is in agreement with the results of Sajasi et al. (2019) and Khorasani (2012) and Majedi and Lalsaeizadeh (2003) and contrasts with the results of Esmaeilpour et al. (2018), Jomehpour and Tahmasebi Tehrani (2013). The results of this research in housing indicator are in line with the research (2009) entitled "Housing in Quality of Life and Satisfaction of Life in its Settlements on the outskirts of Tehran Metropolitan Area" which showed a direct relationship between the main reasons for migration to these settlements. In ​​employment, leisure and recreation, the findings of this study are in line with the results of Khorasani (2012), Choi et al. (2009). Regarding the facilities and services in the studied villages, Khorasani (2012) showed that there is no significant relationship between the level of service provision and the livability of the villages, which is in contradiction with the findings of this study.

References:

1. 1.       Abdi Daneshpour, Z (2008) Analysis of Spatial Inequality in Piraeus-Urban Environments (An Attempt to Use Strategic Planning and Management Approach in Tehran), Fine Arts, No. 28, pp. 14-5.


2. 2.       Barzegar, S and Heidari, T and Anbarloo, A (1998) Analysis of Informal Settlements with a Biodiversity Approach (Case Study: Informal Neighborhoods of Zanjan), Regional Planning Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 33, pp. 152-137.


3. 3.       Bandar Abad, A & Ahmadinejad, F (2014) Evaluation of Quality of Life Indicators with Emphasis on the Principles of Sustainable City in Tehran District 22, Journal of Urban Research and Planning, Fifth Year No. 16, Spring 2014, pp. 55-74.


4. 4.       Bandarabad, A (2010) Developing the Principles of Spatial Development Pattern and Shape of Iranian Sustainable City Case Study: Regions 1, 15, 22 of Tehran, Doctoral dissertation on urban planning under the supervision of Dr. Hamid Majedi, Islamic Azad University of Science and Research.


5. 5.       Choy, D, L. Sutherland, C. Glesson, B. Dodson, Jago. Spice, N (2007) CHANGE AND CONTINUITY IN PERI-URBAN AUSTRALIA: Peri-Urban Case Study: Soth East Queensland, Monograph 3 Urban Research Program, Griffith University.


6. 6.       Esmaeilpour, A Monazam, S, Hadith, R, Chehrazi, E (1397), Prioritizing Rural Areas Based on Rural Livelihood Indicators Case Study of Zagheh District, Journal of Planning Studies of Human Settlements, Vol 13, No 4 , pp 988-971.


7. 7.       Faiz, A., Faiz, A., Wang, W., & Bennett, C. (2012). Sustainable rural roads for livelihoods and livability. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 53, 1-8.‏


8. 8.       Firouznia, G & Eftekhari, A and Badri, S (2010) Perspective and Management System for Physical Development Program of Rural Areas of Iran, Housing Foundation of Islamic Revolution.


9. 9.       Jafari Asadabadi, H (2013), Surveying the Sustainability of Cities for Sustainable Urban Development (Case Study: Tehran Metropolis), Thesis under the supervision of Dr. Farzaneh Sasanpour, School of Geography, Kharazmi University, Tehran.


10. 10.   Jomehpour, M, Tahmasebi Tehrani, S (2013) Explaining the Livelihoods and Quality of Life in Suburban Villages Case Study of Central District of Shahriar County, Physical Planning Quarterly Journal, No 1, Vol 3, pp. 60-49.


11. 11.   Khorasani, M (2012) Explaining livability with Quality of Life Approach; Case Study: Varamin County, Ph.D. Dissertation in Geography and Rural Planning, under the supervision of Dr. Mohammad Reza Razvani, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran.


12. 12.   Khorasani, M, Razvani, M (2013) Recognizing and Analyzing the Differences of the Sustainability of Suburban Villages in Varamin County, Journal of Space Economy and Rural Development, Vol 2, No. 2,  pp74-55.


13. 13.   Larice, M. A. (2005). Great Neighborhoods: The Livabililtly and Morphology of High Density Neighborhoods in Urban North America. University of California, Berkeley.


14. 14.   Lennard (1995): liveable communities ties observed Carmel: Gondolier press, Vehicular Communications27.


15. 15.   Majedi S and Lalsaeizadeh, A (2006) Investigating the Relationship between Contextual Variables, Social Capital and Satisfaction with Quality of Life: A Case Study in Fars Province Villages, Journal of Rural and Development, Vol 9, No 4, pp. 135-91.


16. 16.   Majedi, H & Bandar Abad, A (2014) Evaluation of Global and Indigenous Criteria for the Biodiversity, Identity of the City, Issue 17, Eighth Year, Spring 2014.


17. 17.   Mc Gregor.D & Simon. D. & Thompson. D (2005) The Peri-urban Interface; Approaches to Sustainable Natural and Human Resource Use, EARTHSCAN.


18. 18.   Moser, Gabriel (2009): Quality of life and sustainability:Toward  person–environment congruity.Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 29, PP.351–357.28.


19. 19.   Naqdi, A & Zare, S (2012) Marginalization as Urban Appendicitis (Case Study: Jafarabad, Kermanshah), Regional Planning Quarterly, Vol 2, No 5, pp. 65-81.


20. 20.   National Research Council (2002) Community and quality of life; data needs for informed decision making, National Academy Press, Washington.


21. 21.   Noordin, MD.  NAZRI MOHD (2013): Planning for Liveable Cities, Organized by JPBW Sabah, Heliyon Partner Journa


22. 22.  Phillips, D. Williams, K. Andrews, G. Clarke, J. Carter, M. Kinsman, P. Smith, D. Willis, K. Bradbury, I. Wu, K. and Hillyer, A (1999) Literature Review on Peri-Urban Natural Resource Conceptualization and Management Approaches, Final Technical Report, DFID Natural Resources Systems Program(NSRP), University of Nottingham and University of Liverpool.


23. 23.   Portland State University, "Ecolopolis 4.0: Livability in Cascadia" (2009). Regional Planning and Metropolitan Growth Management Research Projects. 4.


24. 24.   Radcliff, Benjamin (2001) Politics, markets and life satisfaction: The Political economy of human happiness, American Political Science Review, Vol 95, No 4, pp 939-955.


25. 25.   Sadeghlou, T and Sajasi Gheidari, H (2017) Investigating the Relationship between Rural Settlements on Resilience of Villagers to Natural Risks of Rural Areas of Maraveh Tapeh and Palizan, Crisis Management Journal, No. 6, pp. 44-37.


26. 26.   Saeedi, A (2003) City-Village Relations and Rural-Urban Links: A Perceptual Review, Journal of Geography, Autumn and Winter Issues, pp. 92-73.


27. 27.   Sajasi, H, Sadeghlou, T, Mahmoudi, H (2019), Ranking Villages Based on the Viability Indicators Case Study of Nizam Abad District, Azadshahr County, Journal of Human Geography Research, Vol 51, No 1, pp 144-129.


28. 28.   Sasanpour, F. Tolai, S, Jafariasad Abadi, H (2015), Measurement and Evaluation of Urban Viability in 22 Areas of Tehran Metropolis, Regional Planning Quarterly, Vol 5, No. 18, pp42-27.


29. 29.   Smith, C. S. (2012). Rural public transportation strategies for responding to the livable and sustainable communities' initiative. National Cooperative Highway Research Program.


30. 30.   Southworth, M. (2003) ‘Measuring the livable city’, Built Environment, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 343-354.


31. 31.   Timmer Vanessa and Nola-Kate Seymoar) 2005) THE WORLD URBAN FORUM 2006 Vancouver Working Group Discussion Paper, International Centre for Sustainable Cities. 


32. 32.   Wheeler, S.M. (2001).  Livable communities: Creating safe and livable neighborhoods, towns and regions in California (Working Paper 2001–2004). Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California.  http://www-iurd.ced.berkeley.edu/pub/WP-2001-04.PDF (accessed 8 July 2006).


33. 33.   Working Group II (2007) Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.