تحلیل عوامل موثر بر ایمنی فضاهای شهری برای عبور عابران پیاده سالمند در شهر اهواز
صادق الهیاری
1
(
استادیار گروه جغرافیا، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران
)
سعید امانپور
2
(
استاد گروه جغرافیا دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز
)
زهرا صحراییان
3
(
دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی شهری، مدرس مرکز آموزش علمی کاربردی هلال احمر شیراز، ایران
)
کلید واژه: سالمندان, ایمنی, ترافیک, عابر پیاده, شهر اهواز,
چکیده مقاله :
هدف این پژوهش واکاوی عوامل مؤثر بر ایمنی عابران پیاده سالمند در شهر اهواز است. پژوهش حاضر از نظر هدف کاربردی، از نظر روش توصیفی- تحلیلی است. جامعه آماری کارشناسان و خبرگان مسائل شهری است. به صورت غیراحتمالی و به صورت نمونهگیری هدفمند 50 نمونه انتخاب شد. برای گردآوری دادهها ازپرسشنامه استفاده شد.جهت تجزیه و تحلیل دادهها از آزمون رتبه‌ای هم انباشتگی نامحدود اکتشافی (روش جوهانسن) استفاده شد. نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که از بین 5عامل کلی به ترتیب اولویت سه عامل 1)طراحی و برنامهریزی شهری دوستدارسالمند با ضریب عددی(501/0)، 3) عوامل محیطی،تجهیزاتی و زیرساختی مرتبط با سالمندان (491/0)، 3) وویژگیهای فیزیکی، جمعیتی و اجتماعی سالمندان(346/0) مهمترین عوامل کلی مؤثر بر ایمنی عابران پیاده سالمند در شهر اهواز هستند. همچنین 10 عامل طراحی معابر و فضاها با در نظر گرفتن خصوصیات سالمندان، احداث گذرگاههای ایمن با توجه به محدودیت حرکتی سالمندان، تبلیغات شهری برای ترویج فرهنگ احترام به سالمندان، تمرکز مناسب خدمات شهری ویژه سالمندان، توسعه امکانات حمل و نقل دوستدار سالمند، فرهنگ سازی و احترام به عابران پیاده سالمند، افزایش تعداد گذرگاههای عابر پیاده ویژه سالمندان، مشارکت دادن سالمندان در فرآیند برنامهریزی شهری، اولویت دهی به نیازهای سالمندان در طراحی شهری،و ایجاد سایه بان در پیادهروها و نصب صندلیهای استراحت در مسیرهای پرتردد شهر مهمترین شاخصهای مؤثر بر ایمنی عابران پیاده سالمند و راهکارهای رفع مشکل سالمندان شهر اهواز هستند که برای پیش‌بینی وقوع تصادفات عابران پیاده سالمند مفید خواهد بود و می‌تواند در اولویت‌بندی پروژه‌های شهری مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.
چکیده انگلیسی :
|
The purpose of this research is to investigate the factors affecting the safety of elderly pedestrians in the city of Ahvaz. The study is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of method. The statistical population consists of urban experts and specialists. A non-probabilistic, purposive sampling method was used to select 50 samples. A questionnaire was employed for data collection. The exploratory unrestricted cointegration rank test (Johansen method) was used for data analysis.The results showed that among the five main factors, the three most influential factors, in order of priority, are: 1)elderly-friendly urban design and planning (coefficient: 0.501), 2) environmental, equipment, and infrastructure factors related to the elderly(0.491),and 3) physical, demographic, and social characteristics of the elderly(0.346).Additionally,the ten most significant indicators affecting elderly pedestrian safety and solutions to address their challenges in Ahvaz are:designing pathways and spaces considering elderly characteristics, constructing safe crossings tailored to elderly mobility limitations, urban advertising to promote respect for the elderly,concentrating appropriateurbanservicesforthe elderly, developing elderly-friendly transportation facilities,fostering aculture of respect for elderly pedestrians, increasing the numberof pedestrian crossings designed for the elderly, involving the elderly in urban planning processes, prioritizing elderly needs in urban design, and providing canopies on sidewalks and rest seats alonghigh-traffic routes.These findings can be useful for predicting elderly pedestrian accidents and prioritizing urban projects. |
1- Aromal, V., & Naseer, M. A. (2022). A methodology for the identification of significant factors for the improvement of pedestrian facilities in an urban area. Journal of Urban Management, 11(3), 353-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2022.04.007
2- Aboutalebi Esfahani, M., Afshari, A. (2020). Investigating the Impact of Constructing Mechanized Pedestrian Bridges on Reducing Accidents and Enhancing Safety for People with Disabilities (Case Study: Isfahan City). *Urban Sustainable Development*, 1(1), 49-58. Doi: 20.1001.1.27170128.1399.1.1.5.9 [In Persian]. # # 3- Buffel, T., Phillipson, C., & Rémillard-Boilard, S. (2019). Age-friendly cities and communities: New directions for research and policy. Encyclopedia of gerontology and population aging, 1, 1-11. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-69892-2_1094-1 # # 4- Chao, T. Y. S. (2018). Planning for greying cities Age-friendly City Planning and Design Research and Practice Routledge. DOI:10.4324/9781315442884
5- Dickerson, A. E., Molnar, L. J., Bédard, M., Eby, D. W., Berg-Weger, M., Choi, M., & Silverstein, N. M. (2019). Transportation and aging: An updated research agenda to advance safe mobility among older adults transitioning from driving to non-driving. The Gerontologist, 59(2), 215-221. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnx120
6- Fang, T., Xu, F., & Zou, Z. (2025). Causal Factors in Elderly Pedestrian Traffic Injuries Based on Association Analysis. Applied Sciences, 15(3), 1170. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031170 # # 7- Gálvez-Pérez, D., Guirao, B., & Ortuño, A. (2024). Analysis of the elderly pedestrian traffic accidents in urban scenarios: the case of the Spanish municipalities. International journal of injury control and safety promotion, 31(3), 376-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2024.2335482
8- Gálvez-Pérez, D., Guirao, B., Ortuño, A., & Picado-Santos, L. (2022). The influence of built environment factors on elderly pedestrian road safety in cities: the experience of Madrid. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(4), 2280- 2296. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042280 # # 9- Ghaffari Gilandeh, A., Mohammadi, C., Davari, S. E. (2022). Indicators of an Age-Friendly City: A Case Study of Sari City. *Environmental Planning*, 15(56), 1-26.doi: 20.1001.1.2676783.1401.15.56.1.0 [In Persian]. # # 10- Gholami, M., Aminejad, G., Banari, K. (2022). Assessment and Evaluation of Age-Friendly City Indicators (Case Study: Borazjan City). Urban Environment Policy, 5(2), 17-30. DOR: 20.1001.1.27833496.1401.2.5.1.4 [In Persian]. # # 11- Higueras, E., Román, E., & Fariña, J. (2021). Guidelines for healthier public spaces for the elderly population: recommendations in the Spanish context. Handbook of quality of life and sustainability, 35-51. . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50540-0_3. # # 12- Khaliji, M. A., Rezaei Hajideh, S. (2023). Problems and Challenges of the Elderly in Urban Spaces: A Case Study of District 13, Tehran. *Scientific and Research Quarterly of Urban Research and Planning*, 14(54), 153-168. Doi: 10.30495/JUPM.2021.28031.3885 [In Persian]. 13- Kim, D. (2019). The transportation safety of elderly pedestrians: Modeling contributing factors to elderly pedestrian collisions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 131, 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.07.009 # # 14- Kim, S., Choi, S., & Kim, B. H. (2025). Analysis of factors affecting pedestrian safety for the elderly and identification of vulnerable areas in Seoul. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 211, 1078-1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2024.107878 # # 15- Laković, S., Tollazzi, T., & Gruden, C. (2023). Elderly pedestrians and road safety: findings from the Slovenian accident database and measures for improving their safety. Sustainability, 15(2), 16- 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.105281 # # 16- Lee, S. R., & Yang, H. J. (2021). The factors influencing pedestrian safety in residential areas and their implications for urban design-Focused on older pedestrians. Journal of the Urban Design Institute of Korea, 22(4), 121-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104847 # # 17- Lee, S., Yoon, J., & Woo, A. (2020). Does elderly safety matter? Associations between built environments and pedestrian crashes in Seoul, Korea. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 144, 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105621 # # 18- Lord, S., Cloutier, M. S., Garnier, B., & Christoforou, Z. (2018). Crossing road intersections in old age—With or without risks? Perceptions of risk and crossing behaviours among the elderly. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 55, 282-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.005 # # 19- Mahmoudzadeh, H., Aghayari Hir, T., Hatami, D. (2020). Analysis and Investigation of the Aging Status of the Urban Population in Khuzestan Province. Urban Civil Studies Quarterly, 4(12), 77-94. [In Persian]. # # 20- Maroufi, S., Zarabadipour, F., Mohammadi, F., Alizadeh, A., Motalebi, S. A. (2024). The Predictive Role of Age-Friendly City Indicators in the Social Belonging of the Elderly in Mahdieh County, Qazvin. *Iranian Journal of Ageing*, 19(3), 398-409. http://salmandj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-2693-fa.html.[In Persian].
21- Marston, H. R., & Van Hoof, J. (2019). “Who doesn’t think about technology when designing urban environments for older people?” A case study approach to a proposed extension of the WHO’s age-friendly cities model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3525- 3536. DOI:10.3390/ijerph16193525. # # 22- Rasidah, B., Marsoosi, N., Taleshi, M., Mousa Kazemi, S. M. (2023). Analysis of Indicators of Infrastructures for an Age-Friendly City in Mashhad Metropolis. *Scientific Quarterly of Urban Ecology Research*, 14(3, Serial 32), 1-16. Doi: 10.30473/GRUP.2023.65521.2736 [In Persian]. # # 23- Razzaghi, A., Pourrajabi, A., Daneshi, S. (2017). Barriers and Problems Related to Elderly Pedestrians: A Qualitative Study. *Journal of Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention*, 5(2), 73-78. https://doi.org/10.22037/meipm.v5i2.18685 [In Persian]. # # 24- Rémillard-Boilard, S. (2018). The development of age-friendly cities and communities. In Age-Friendly Cities and Communities (pp. 13-32). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010133 # # 25- Rezaei, M., Tadayon, B., Javanbakht Ghahfarokhi, M. (2023). Evaluation and Assessment of the Desirability of Urban Spaces in Terms of Psychological Satisfaction of the Elderly Community: A Case Study of Mellat Street, Shahrekord. *Geographical Research on Urban Planning*, 11(3), 79-98. Doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2023.361322.1838 [In Persian].# # 26- Sharbati, A. (2016). Analysis of Factors Affecting Citizens' Reluctance to Use Pedestrian Bridges (Case Study: Gorgan City). Scientific and Research Quarterly of Urban Research and Planning, 7(27), 147-162.doi: 20.1001.1.22285229.1395.7.27.9.2 [In Persian]. # # 27- Sheykhfard, A., Haghighi, F., Bakhtiari, S., & Pariota, L. (2023). Safety margin evaluation of pedestrian crossing through critical thresholds of surrogate measures of safety: area with zebra crossing versus area without zebra crossing. Transportation research record, 2677(1), 396-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198122109951 # # 28- Siu, B. W. (2019). Assessment of physical environment factors for mobility of older adults: A case study in Hong Kong. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 30, 100- 118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2019.100370 # # 29- Sun, X., Nie, X., Wang, L., Huang, Z., & Tian, R. (2024). Spatial Sense of Safety for Seniors in Living Streets Based on Street View Image Data. Buildings, 14(12), 3973- 3986. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14123973 # # 30- Thurairaj, D., Rashid, S. M. R. A., & Nor, N. N. F. M. (2025). Challenges in implementing age-friendly cities: A systematic literature review. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(10), 2025334-2025334. DOI:10.1108/BEPAM-01-2020-0008 # # 31- Tournier, I., Dommes, A., & Cavallo, V. (2016). Review of safety and mobility issues among older pedestrians. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 91, 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.02.031# # 32- Van Hoof, J., Marston, H. R., Kazak, J. K., & Buffel, T. (2021). Ten questions concerning age-friendly cities and communities and the built environment. Building and environment, 199, 107-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107922 # # 33- Vanleerberghe, P., De Witte, N., Claes, C., Schalock, R. L., & Verté, D. (2017). The quality of life of older people aging in place: a literature review. Quality of Life Research, 26, 2899-2907. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-017-1651-0 # # 34- Wasserman, R., Barrie, H., Dikken, J., Van Hoof, J., & Soebarto, V. (2025). Validating the Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Questionnaire in Australia: revealing five distinct groups of older people in Greater Adelaide. Habitat International, 156, 103-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2024.103278 # # 35- WHO, W. (2024). Ageing and health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health. # # 36- Wilmut, K., & Purcell, C. (2022). Why are older adults more at risk as pedestrians? A systematic review. Human factors, 64(8), 1269-1291. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208219895 # # 37- World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework. The Aging Male, 5(1), 1-37.# # 38- World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. World Health Organization.# # 39- Yadav, A., & Kumari, R. (2024). Gender safety perspective in urban planning: The case of pedestrian mobility in Kanpur city. Cities, 147, 104-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104845 # # 40- Zarghami, H., Farimaneh, M. (2015). Investigation and Analysis of Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Elderly in Iran, Iranian Journal of Official Statistics Studies, 26(2), 139-160. .[In Persian].# # 41- Zhou, J., & Ujang, N. (2024). An Analysis of Pedestrian Preferences for Wayfinding Signage in Urban Settings: Evidence from Nanning, China. Buildings, 14(9), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092986 # #
