In collaboration with Payame Noor University and Iranian Geography and Urban Planning Association

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. of School of Civil- Architecture and Arts, Science and Research Branch, Islamic AZAD University, Tehran

2 Professor, School of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran

3 Professor, School of Civil- Architecture and Arts, Science and Research Branch, Islamic AZAD University, Tehran

Abstract

Social sustainability is a subject that has attracted the attentions of researchers since the early years of 21st century. Social, economic, and ecological sustainability are considered as the three components of urban sustainable development. On the other hand, the urban form, as an important component of the city comprises communication networks, public transportation systems, pedestrian and bicycle accesses, spatial structures, spatial distribution of activities, housing and settlement size, natural phenomena and non-spatial aspects which all are important for studying and analyzing a city from different viewpoints. Considering the interdependence of the components of this concept with different dimensions of the city, its role on different aspects of sustainability, including social sustainability, would be indisputable. The emergence of urban sustainable development concept pushed the international NGOs and planners to introduce new frameworks for redesigning and reorganizing of cities in order to achieve the sustainability. A critical review of these approaches suggests a disagreement upon the most desirable form of urban sustainability. Social sustainability, due to its intangible nature as well as its focus of mankind and his interactions is subject for such contradictions. The present study was seeking to explain the relationships between the components of urban form and social sustainability in 22 districts of Tehran using a descriptive-analytic research method. Quantitative models such as factor analysis and linear regression as well as resident’s questionnaire (2200 questionnaires were completed among 22 districts of the city) and SPSS software helped the researchers to navigate this route. The findings of the present research showed that there is a significant relationship between the main factors of urban form and the factor of combined social sustainability indicators in all 22 districts of Tehran. Social sustainability indicators included citizen’s access to local services, social security, participation rates in social and group activities, interaction with other residents or social groups, residence satisfaction, and access to affordable housing for citizens. It was also determined that districts 5 and 6 had the highest scores in terms of social sustainability in Tehran.

Keywords

پاکزاد، جهانشاه (1385)، سیمای شهر آنچه کوین لینچ از آن می‏فهمید، فصلنامه آبادی، 53 (18)، 25- 20.
دانشپور، سید عبدالهادی؛ راضیه رضازاده؛ فرزان سجودی و مریم محمدی (1392)، بررسی کارکرد و معنای فرم شهر مدرن از منظر نشانه‏شناسی لایه‏ای، دو فصلنامه معماری و شهرسازی، 6 (11)، 87- 71.
 صلیبا، جمیل (1366)، فرهنگ لغت فلسفی، ترجمه  صانعی بیدهندی، منوچهر، نشر حکت، تهران. (نشر اثر اصلی 1978).
عزیزی، محمدمهدی (1380)، توسعه شهری پایدار: برداشت و تحلیلی از دیدگاه‏های جهانی، نشریه علمی پژوهشی، (33)، 27- 15.
 
 
Alberti, M., (1996), Measuring urban sustainability, Environmental impact assessment review, 16(4), 381-424.
Alberti, M., (2005), The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function, Int. Reg. Sci. Rev, 28 (2), 168- 192.
AURDR, (1995), Green Cities, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberr.
Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., Brown, C., & Watkins, D., (2009), Social
sustainability and urban form: evidence from five British citie, Environment and planning. A, 41(9).
Bramley, G., & Power, S., (2009), Urban form and social sustainability: the role of density and housing type, Environment and Planning B Planning and Design, (36), 30-48.
Crook, Kenneth, F., (2007), Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, Encycloopedia Britannica Crop. (Available, at: www.britannica.com).
Echenique, M. H., Hargreaves, A. J., Mitchell, G., & Namdeo, A., (2012), Growing cities sustainably: does urban form really matter?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(2), 121-137.
Hirschfield, A. and Bowers, K., (1997), The effects of social cohesion on levels of recorded crime in disadvantaged areas, Urban Studies, (34), 1275- 1295.
Jabareen, Y.R., (2006), Sustainable Urban Forms: Their Typologies, Models and Consepts, Journal of planning Education and Research, 26(1), 38-52.
Jenks, M., & Jones, C. (Eds.), (2009), Dimensions of the sustainable city, (Vol. 2), Springer Science & Business Media.
Lynch, Kevin, (1981), Theory of Good City Form, MIT press.
Maclaren, V., (2004), Urban Sustainability Reporting The sustainable urban development reader, Routledge.
Marquez, L..O & Smith, N.C, (1999), A framework for linking urban form and air quality, Environmental Modelling and Software, (14), 541- 548.
ODPM, (2003), Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, The Stationery Office, London.
Polese, M., Stren, R., (2000), The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and Management of Change, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
Steadman, P., Bruhns, H.R., Holtier, S., Gakivic, B., (2000), A Classification of Built Forms, Environment and Planning B, Planning and Design, 27 (1), 73-91.
WCED, (1987), Our Common  Future, The World Commission on Environment  and Development. Oxford, Oxford University  Press.
Wheeler, S. M., (2003), The evolution of urban form in Portland and Toronto: implications for sustainability planning, Local Environment, 8(3), 317-336.
Williams, K., (2000), Does intensifying cities make them more sustainable in Achieving Sustainable Urban Forms, Spon, London, 30- 45.
Woolever, C., (1992), A contextual approach to neighbourhood attachment, Urban Studies, (29), 99- 116.