p. 1−12
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 13−22
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 23−38
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 39−49
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 51−58
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 59−66
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 67−79
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 81−91
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 93−105
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 107−117
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 119−135
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 137−149
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 151−167
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 169−182
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 183−197
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 199−210
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 211−219
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
1 / 83> 1) and fairly satisfaction. The results of CEM showed that all value variants had a high relation to choose their urban space. (0 / 05> P) Access variant had the highest priority from the user viewpoints (with number 1 / 25), and also the results of CVM showed that people tend to pay 1500 Rials for entering to the Soffeh park and none of the Social - Economic user features is affected on this tendency.]]>
p. 221−232
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 233−242
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 243−258
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 259−273
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 275−292
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 293−303
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 305−320
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 321−331
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 333−342
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 343−359
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 361−381
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 383−408
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13
p. 409−424
2538-2365
Vol.7/No.13