ارزیابی روش های سنجش عدالت فضایی در توزیع کاربری اراضی شهری، نمونه موردی: شهر قزوین

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی ، قزوین، ایران.

2 کارشناس ارشد برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه بی نالمللی امام خمینی، قزوین، ایران.

چکیده

با وجود آنکه لزوم تجلی توزیع متعادل یا به عبارتی عدالت در توزیع خدمات شهری امری پذیرفته شده است اما چگونگی سنجش و ارزیابی شرایط برقراری آن در شهر همچنان مورد سؤال است. در مقاله حاضر، با هدف تحلیل و مقایسه روش های ارزیابی توزیع عادلانه خدمات شهری، ضمن شناسایی سه روش فرصت های تجمعی، رقابت در دسترسی به فرصت ها و رتبه مکان به عنوان روش های کارآمد در این زمینه، کاربست آن ها بر روی دو نوع از خدمات یک نمونه موردی واقع در شهر قزوین  به صورت تطبیقی و مقایسه ای، مورد ارزیابی واقع شده است. یافته های این پژوهش، در وهله اول مؤید وجود عدم تعادل نسبتاً شدید در توزیع این دو نوع کاربری در سطح شهر قزوین است اما از نظر جزئیات و میزان این عدم تعادل، تفاوت های معناداری در نتایج سه روش مطروحه، مشاهده شده است. مقایسه این مقادیر با دو رویکرد مجزا، نتایجی را مبنی بر موارد کاربرد مناسب هر یک از این سه روش در پی داشته است. در رویکرد اول با شناسایی نواحی واجد بهترین رتبه دسترسی در هر یک از روش ها، تفاوت در رتبه های به دست آمده به صورت علی و مقایسه ای بررسی شده است؛ در رویکرد دوم نیز میزان انطباق پذیری نتایج هر روش با تصویر ذهنی شهروندان از دسترسی آنها به خدمات  به عنوان ذینفعان اصلی نحوه توزیع امکانات  بررسی شده است. بر این اساس با توجه به خصوصیات نمونه مطالعاتی، روش فرصت های تجمعی در زمینه تشخیص برقراری تعادل به عنوان تحلیلی ساده و اجمالی مؤثر بوده و روش رقابت در دسترسی به فرص تها تحت شرایطی خاص، قابلیت به تصویر کشیدن میزان این عدم تعادل در توزیع این دو نوع از خدمات محلی را دارا خواهد بود. همچنین بررسی میزان انطباق نتایج سه روش با تصویر ذهنی شهروندان از میزان دسترسی، حاکی از انطبا قپذیری نسبتاً مناسب روش فرصت ها تجمعی و سپس روش رقابت، با فاصله اندکی از آن می باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Spatial Justice Measurement Methods in UrbanLand-Use Distribution, Case Study: Qazvin

نویسندگان [English]

  • Bahram Aminzadeh 1
  • Mina Roshan 2
1 Associate Professor Urbanization, Department of Urbanization, Faculty of Urbanization and Architecture, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
2 M.A. in Urbanization, Department of Urbanization, Faculty of Urbanization and Architecture, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Due to their complicated multidimensional nature, cities are linked to some principles and fundamentals from different human sciences. City’s confrontation with critical and idealistic concept of Social Equity, obtained from political and social sciences while forms a multi-dimensional concept known as Spatial Equity. The necessity for justice in urban facilities distribution is something reasonable, yet how to measure it is a big question. In this research, evaluating spatial justice measurement methods and their appropriate applications is considered as the main objective and measuring the amount of spatial justice in neighborhood facilities distribution in Qazvin, as a following one. In this regard, three methods of Cumulative Opportunities, Competition Factors in Accessibility and Place Rank are introduced as efficient methods in this subject. In addition, their practical application in a case study, neighborhood facilities of Qazvin, is evaluated comparatively. Research results show a relatively high imbalance in neighborhood facilities distribution of Qazvin (primary school and green space) but regarding to the details and amount of such imbalance, meaningful differences are found in results of presented methods. Comparison of these findings, with two independent approaches, ended in some results showing appropriate and efficient applications for each of these methods. Through first approach, after identifying areas with highest accessibility ranking in each method, the difference among those ranks is analyzed comparatively. In second one, the amount of conformability between results obtained using each method and citizen’s imagination about facilities accessibility is considered. Accordingly, choosing a suitable evaluation method is completely bound to the nature of study, its goals and characteristics of case study. Research findings show that place- rank method will be useful just when land-use and transportation analyses are considered simultaneously. According to findings from comparisons of methods, cumulative opportunities method can be considered as an efficient method for measuring spatial equity level if urban areas are monotonous from population distribution point of view and the capacity of service units is relatively similar and homogenous. On the other side, due to its easiness, this method seems to be the best one for a quick and short investigation. In competition method, considering the capacity of facilities supply in service units and the level of demand for each unit, two limitations of the former method were eliminated. It seems that the only issue which will possibly cause errors for applying this method is developing and forming areas of the city. Moreover, if the facilities exist, due to low resident population, the ratio of supply to demand will show a high value. Some northern parts of Qazvin face such condition and considering rank of access to facilities by using competition method, they are falsely considered in appropriate access to facilities. Finally, results of comparative assessment of methods show that, based on kinds of factors and their correlation, each method considers equitable accessibility from a different points of view. Therefore, selecting an appropriate method is dependent on planners’goals and characteristics of the place being studied. Regarding to this, considering current case study, place’s ranking will be applicable just in investigations related to integrated plan of land- use and transportation, where their effects on access level is considered. In addition, it seems that if our goal is to investigate areas separately, due to relative uniformity of physical and social conditions in each area, cumulative opportunities method isappropriate as a simple short method. Besides, if accessibility measurement is simultaneously considered in all areas- as it is in current research- with a little overlook and omitting northern part of the city which includes the areas being formed, competition factors method seems to be more appropriate for measuring spatial equity level. In addition, results of investigating the conformity of objective values obtained from methods to citizens’ idea about accessing show the highest conformity between objective and subjective access in competition factor, then in a short distance from it, there exists cumulative opportunities method. Place-rank method is in a farther distance from two other ones, in this regard. In this manner, based on the values obtained from competition factors method, the level of access to schools throughout Qazvin’s zones, according to its actual values is from 0 to 222, with an average of 22.68, and standard deviation of 0.0191. These actual values are between 0 to 2000 for local green space with an average of 151.17 and standard deviation of 0.043, where a severe imbalance is explicitly seen; particularly in acquiring facilities (especially local green space). This can be occurred due to lack of an integrated land-use and transportation planning which despite of its increasing importance and proved efficiency is still neglected in cities like Qazvin. So, to improve the equity in distribution of local facilities of this city, integration of these two fields will be the first step. It also seems that in future studies, considering economic potential and social conditions of inhabitants in spatial equity measurement factors can help to improve equitable landuse distribution.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Land Use Distribution
  • Spatial justice
  • Cumulative Opportunities
  • Competition Factors
  • Place Rank
-- Baradaran, S., Ramjerdi, F. (2001). Performance of accessibility measures in Europe. Journal of Transportation

Statistics, 4, 31- 48.

-- Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S. R. (1979). Disaggregate Travel and Mobility Choice Models and Measures

Of Accessibility, Behavioral Travel Modeling, (pp. 654-679), London.

-- Cerda, A. (2009). Accessibility: A Performance Measure for Land-Use and Transportation Planning in

the Montréal Metropolitan Region. published research at School of Urban Planning McGill University

-- Djist, M. (1999). Action Space as Planning Concept in Spatial Planning. Netherlands Journal of Housing

and the Built Environment, 14 (2), 163-182.

-- Dadashpoor, H., Rostami, F. (2011). Measurement of Integrated Index of Spatial Justice in the Distribution

of Urban Public Services Based on Population Distribution, Accessibility and Efficiency in

Yasuj City, Journal of Regional and Urban Researches and Studies, Tehran, 4, 1-22.

-- El-Geneidy, A., Levinson D. (2011). Place Rank: Valuing Spatial Interactions, Springer Science

-- Geurs, K. T. (2006). Accessibility, Land-Use and Transport: Accessibility Evaluations of Land-Use

and Transport Developments and Policy Strategies Utrecht University.

-- Geurs, K. T., Ritsema van Eck, J. (2001). Accessibility Measures: Review and Applications. Evaluation

of Accessibility Impacts of Land-Use Transport Scenarios, and Related Social and Economic Impacts,

National Institute of Public Health and the Environment.

-- Gutierrez, J., Urbano, P. (1996). Accessibility in the European Union: The Impact of the Trans-European

Road Network. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(1), 15-25.

-- Handy, S., Niemeier, D. (1997). Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of Issues and Alternatives.

Environment and Planning A, 29(7), 1175-1194.

-- Harvey, D. (1998), Social Justice and the City, Tehran: Urban Planning Publishing Co.

-- Kim, H.-M., Kwan, M. P. (2003). Space-Time Accessibility Measures: A Geocomputational Algorithm

with a Focus on the Feasible Opportunity Set and Possible Activity Duration. Journal of Geographical

Systems, 5, 71-91.

-- Kwan, M.-P., Weber, W. (2003). Individual Accessibility Revisited: Implications for Geographical

Analysis in the Twenty-First Century. Geographical Analysis, 35(4), 341-353.

-- Lotfi, S., Koohsari, M. J. (2009). Measuring Objective Accessibility to Neighborhood Facilities in the

City (A Case Study: Zone 6 in Tehran, Iran). Cities, 26, 133– 140

-- Miller, H. (2005). Place-Based Versus People-Based Accessibility. In D. Levinson & K. Krizek (Eds.),

Access to Destinations (pp. 63-89). Netherlands: Elsevier Inc.

-- Portugali, J., (1980). Distribution, Allocation, Social Structure and Spatial Form: Elements of Planning

Theory, Journal of Progress In Planning, volume 14, part 3, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

-- Rahnama, M., Zabihi, J. (2011). Evaluation of Urban Facilities Distribution Based on Integrated Accessibility

Model for Mashhad, Journal of Geography and Development, 23.

-- Roymer, J. (2006). Equality of Opportunity, Tehran Institute of Strategic Studies.

-- Shen, Q. (1998). Location Characteristics of Inner-City Neighborhoods and Employment Accessibility

of Low-Wage Workers. Environment Planning B: Planning and Design, 25, 345-365.

-- Tabibian, M., Shokoohi, M., Arbab, P (2010). Evaluation of Social Justice in Landscape Plan of Khoob-

Bakht Neighborhood, Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Design, 5, 111-122.

-- Talen, E. (2001). School, Community and Spatial Equity. An Empirical Investigation of Access to

Elementary Schools in West Virginia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(3),

465-486.

-- Talen, E., Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing Spatial Equity: An Evaluation of Measures of Accessibility to

Public Playgrounds. Environment & Planning A, 30, 595-313.

-- Telis, R. (2006). On Rawls Philosophy, Tehran: Tarh-e-No Publishing Co.

-- Tsou, K., Hunkg, Y., Chang, Y. (2005). An Accessibility-Based Integrated Measure Of Relative Spatial

Equity In Urban Public Facilities, Department of Urban Planning, National Cheng Kung University,

Tainan 70101, Taiwan

-- Wu, Y., Miller, H. (2002). Computational Tools for Measuring Space-Time Accessibility within Transportation Networks with Dynamic Flow (Special Issue on Accessibility. Journal of Transportation and

Statistics, 4(2/3), 1-14.