ارزیابی کیفیت زندگی در مناطق شهری (مطالعۀ موردی: منطقۀ 11 شهرداری تهران)

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی - بنیادی

نویسندگان

1 دکترای تخصصی، دانشیار گروه جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه خوارزمی

2 دانشجوی دکتری، رشتة جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه خوارزمی

3 دکترای تخصصی، استادیار گروه جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه خوارزمی

چکیده

کیفیت زندگی رویکردی جامع و دارای ابعاد گوناگون کالبدی، اجتماعی، اقتصادی و فرهنگی است. برنامه‌ریزان شهری در طرح ها و برنامه‌های خود ارتقای شاخص‌های کیفیت زندگی و رضایتمندی ضروری می‌دانند. کیفیت زندگی از لحاظ عینی شامل: محیط طبیعی به‌منزلة بستر، کیفیت ساخت‌وسازهای شهری، اقتصاد، امکانات رفاهی و تعاملات اجتماعی و... است. از لحاظ بعد ذهنی شامل: جنبه‌های معنوی، روحی و روانی فرد است. ارتقاء کیفیت زندگی در فضاهای شهری با ساماندهی این ابعاد و شاخص‌ها، موجب آسایش و آرامش جامعه می‌شود. هدف این پژوهش ارزیابی کیفیت زندگی در ابعاد کالبدی، اجتماعی-فرهنگی و اقتصادی به‌منظور دستیابی به راهکارهای ارتقای کیفیت زندگی منطقة 11 شهرداری تهران است. روش پژوهش توصیفی- تحلیلی و پیمایشی با بهره‌گیری از نرم‌افزارهای SPSS و Excel و در بخش استنباطی و تحلیل‌های آماری t-test تک‌نمونه‌ای و آزمون پیرسون انجام شده است. تعداد نمونه با استفاده از فرمول کوکران 400 نفر از شهروندان منطقة 11 شهر تهران و به‌صورت تصادفی ساده است. یافته‌های حاصل از تجزیه‌وتحلیل پرسشنامه نشان می‌دهد که کیفیت زندگی شهری این منطقه از نظر بعد اقتصادی، 58 درصد در سطح متوسط و در بعد اجتماعی-فرهنگی 53 درصد در سطح متوسط و در بعد کالبدی 64 درصد وضعیت متوسط دارد. بیشترین رضایتمندی شهروندان از نظر عینی در بعد کالبدی و از نظر ذهنی در بعد اجتماعی-فرهنگی کمترین میزان را دارا است. بنابراین چالش‌هایی همچون کمبود وسایل حمل و نقل عمومی، کاستی خدمات عمومی شهری، مسکن نامناسب، کمبود فرصت‌ها و موقعیت‌های شغلی مناسب، نارسایی تعاملات اجتماعی و مشارکت مردمی موجب پایین بودن سطح کیفیت زندگی در محله‌های منطقه 11 شهر تهران شده است. درنتیجه برنامه‌ریزی اجتماعی، اقتصادی و کالبدی با مشارکت شهروندان برای ارتقای کیفیت زندگی ضروری است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Quality of Life in Urban Areas (Case study: District 11 of Tehran Municipality)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Shamai 1
  • Afsaneh Fakhri Poor Mohammadi 2
  • Ahmad Zanganeh 3
1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Geography, University of Kharazmi, Tehran
2 MA in Geography and Urban Planning
3 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Geography, University of Kharazmi, Tehran
چکیده [English]

Introduction  
Urban quality of life and promotion of citizen satisfaction about their living environment have attracted the attention of many urban planners and policy makers. The quality of life has to kinds of natural and human dimensions. The natural environment of a city in the form of physical setting, economic, cultural and social structures can affect the promotion of the quality of life. Attendance at religious places or membership in trade unions can be different in different climatic regions. Quality of life is the main goal prepared by planners. Issues and needs of citizens in the urban neighborhoods faced urban planners and managers with the challenges that mainly as a result of the quality of life. According to Aristotle Mkan‌Hayy, cities are a base for residents to bring happiness and security. In fact, as long as mankind has achieved a kind of peace and relative security in thought and action, cities were formed. Over time with development of the cities, the realization of human ideals such as justice, public relations, law were gradually formed. However, in recent decades, cities with rapid population growth and migration of population are faced with many problems including overcrowding, pollution, pressure on natural resources, unplanned growth of cities, weak sources of income, lack of public transport, lack of opportunities and jobs and health centers, social inequalities. To achieve a suitable environment for the citizens, it is very important to consider the different issues. Given all the problems and difficulties in cities such as improper use and unbalanced distribution of landuses, lack of adequate municipal facilities and so on, it is required to study the nature of socio-cultural, economic and physical quality of urban life. District 11 of Tehran Municipality with 19 neighborhoods in the central part of Tehran is today faced with problems of poor life, including chaotic situation of vulnerable deteriorated areas, no necessary vitality, poor quality of education and health, low income level of residents, poor employment. Accordingly, old infrastructure, shortcomings and in plans of street network, intersections and squares, poor public green space, poor public transportation, low education and general welfare,  and environmental pollution are among the most important problems in the city. The study for evaluation of quality of life is considered as an approach that represents the benefits of citizens in the district 11 of Tehran Municipality. Thus, appropriate solutions can be achieved by improving the quality of life in the region.
Methodology
This cross-sectional study has employed survey methods for collecting library data and a particular questionnaire. Up to 400 residents of district 11 in Tehran have been selected as the samples of the research. We have used SPSS and Excel to analyze data and information. We have applied one-sample t-test to test the research hypothesis. District 11 of Tehran, with an area of 1,200 hectares, has  a population of about 288 thousand people in central part of Tehran metropolitan area.
Results and discussion
Analysis of the questionnaires has indicated that satisfaction of the residents in the district mainly show lower-middle quality of life. The greatest satisfaction is in terms of socio-cultural citizens (security, Partnership, health, leisure, vitality) and the lowest is in terms of the physical (housing quality, installations and infrastructure, educational access and treatment).  
Conclusion  
The results highlight that the residents of District 11 of Tehran Municipality have low satisfaction level in terms of quality of life measures (in physical, economic, socio-cultural aspects). A significant portion of the residents of the district is poor economic situation of people. The results of the analysis have also indicated that, in its economic dimension, the quality of the urban environment show 58 percent relative to the average state. Finally, we can conclude that the highest satisfaction of spaces and buildings (building density, building aesthetics, building size), business services (shopping centers, shops), security and social relations ( neighborhood safety, neighborhood vitality and connect with neighbors) and the size and housing (size of the room, the home facilities and climatic conditions of household) suffer from low satisfaction with the organization of access and transport, entertainment services, life  and the cost of housing. Therefore, the greatest satisfaction is the socio-cultural aspects of the citizens and the lowest is in terms of the physical. Eightfold increase in applications services, restrictions in construction industry jobs and plants in the neighborhoods.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • quality of life
  • dimensions of quality of life
  • physical quality
  • socio-cultural quality
  • economic quality
  • District 11 of Tehran Municipality
  • ابراهیم‌زاده، عیسی و همکاران (1391)، «تحلیل کیفیت زندگی در دو بافت قدیم و جدید شهر مراغه با بهره‌گیری از مدل‌های آنتروپی و الکتره»، فصلنامة آمایش محیط، شمارة 26، ص 3.
  • آخوندی، عباس و همکاران (1393)، «سنجش کیفیت زندگی شهری در کلان‌شهر تهران، نشریة هنرهای زیبا، معماری و شهرسازی، دورة 19، شمارة 2، صص 5-22.
  • آسایش، حسین (1380) «سنجش کیفیت زندگی در یک‌صد شهر بزرگ جهان»، فصلنامة مدیریت شهری، شمارة 8، ص 23.
  • زبردست، اسفندیار، خلیلی، احمد و مصطفی دهقانی (1392)، «کاربرد روش تحلیل عاملی در شناسایی بافت‌های فرسودة شهری»، نشریة هنرهای زیبا، معماری و شهرسازی، دورة 18، شماره ۲، صص 27 - 42.
  • جاجرمی، کاظم و ابراهیم کلته (1385)، «سنجش وضعیت شاخص‌های کیفیت زندگی در شهر از نظر شهروندان، مطالعة موردی: گنبد قابوس»، فصلنامة جغرافیا و توسعه، دورة 4، شمارة 8، صص 5-18.
  • سایت شهرداری منطقة 11 شهرداری تهران، http://region11.tehran.ir.
  • سمندری، مرضیه (1395)، پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد،تأثیر سرمایه‌های اجتماعی بر کیفیت زندگی در محله‌های مسکونی متراکم (مورد مطالعه: منطقة 11 شهر تهران)  استاد راهنما: شادنوش، نصرت‌الله، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه مدیریت و حسابداری.
  • سیف‌الدینی، فرانک (1381)، فرهنگ واژگان برنامه‌ریزی شهری و منطقه‌ای، چاپ دوم، دانشگاه شیراز.
  • طرح تفصیلی منطقة 11 شهرداری تهران، (1390).
  • مرکز آمار ایران، سرشماری عمومی نفوس و مسکن سال 1390، قابل‌دسترسی از طریق http://www.amar.org.ir.
  • مهدزاده، جواد، (1385 )، برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی توسعة شهری، تجربیات اخیر جهانی و جایگاه آن در ایران، چاپ اول، تهران، مرکز مطالعات و تحقیقات معماری و شهرسازی ایران.
    • Apparicio, Philippe,  Anne-Marie Se´guin,  Daniel Naud, (2008) The Quality of the Urban Environment Around Public Housing Buildings in Montre´al: An Objective Approach Based on GIS and Multivariate Statistical Analysis, social Indicators Res , NO. 86:355 
    • Benzeval, M. Judge, K, Whitehead, M, (1995), Tackling Inequalities in Health, Kings Fund, London.
    • Blomquist, G.C., Berger, M.C., Hoehn, J.P (1988), New estimates of quality of life in urban areas, American Economic Review NO.1: 89-107.
    • Bowling, A. (1997), Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales, Main Head. Open University Press.
    • Boyer, R., Savageau, D. (1981), Places Rated Almanac, Rand Mc- Nelly, Chicago.
    • Broadbent, G. (1979), The Development of Design Methods, Design Methods and Theories, No. 13: 41-45.
    • Campbell, A. Converse, P, & Rodgers, W, (1976), The quality of American life, New York: Russell Sage.
    • Cheung, C. (1997), Toward a theoretically based measurement model of the good life. J. Gen. Psychol, Vol. 158, No. 2: 200–215.
    • Diener, E, Suh, E, (1997), Measuring quality of life: economic.Soc. Indicators Res. No.40 . 189 –216.
    • Fayers PM, Machin D, (2000), Quality of Life Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation, Jhon Willy, New york
    • GETZ, M. and HUANG, Y. C, (1978), Consumer revealedpreference for environmental goods, Review of Economics and Statistics, 60:449-458 
    • Kline E. (2001), Indicators for Sustainable Development in Urban Areas.
    • Liu, B, (1976), Quality of Life Indicators in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: AStatistical Analysis, Praeger, New York.
    • Massam,H. Brayn. (2002), Quality of Life: Public Planning and Private Living, Progress in Planning,14-146.
    • Mc crea, Rod, Tung-Kai Shyy & Robert Stimson. (2004), Modelling Urban Quality of Life in South East Queensland by linking subjective and objective indicators, 28th Australian and New Zealand regional Science Association International annual Conference, Wollongong, NSW, 28th September to 1 October.
    • McCrea, R., Shyy, T.K. and Stimson, R., (2006), what is the Strength of the Link between Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life? Applied Research in Quality of Life, Vol. 1, No. 1,. 79-96.
    • Musschenga, A.W. (1997), The relation between concepts ofquality-of-life, J. Med. Philos, Vol. 22, No. 1: 11–28.
    • NORDHAUS, W. D. and TOBIN, J. (1972), is growth obsolete? In Economic Research: Retrospect and Prospect, vol. 5 Economic Growth, pp. 21-49. New York: Columbia University Press (for National Bureau of Economic Research).
    • Oktay, D  and Rustemla, A (2010), Measuring the quality of urban life and neighbourhood satisfaction: Findings from Gazimagusa (Famagusta) Area study international journal of social sciences and humanity studies Vol. 2, No. 2, ISSN: 1309-8063 Online.
    • Pacione, M (2003), Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing-a social geographical perspective, Landscape and Urban Planning. Vo;.65: 19–30
    • Pacione, M. (1982). The use of objective and subjective measures of quality of life in human geography. Prog. Hum. Geogr.Vol. 6 No. 4: 495–514.
    • Parker, M. (2005), Loss in the lives of Southeast Asian Elders. In H. Lee Meadow, development in quality if life studies in marketing. Vol,1,blacksbourg Virginia. International socity for quality studies.
    • Pasione, M. (2005), Urban Geography (Aglobal perspective), Second edition, New York, Routledge Puplisher.
    • polinsky, A. M. and rubinfeld,D. L. (1977).Property values and the benefits of environmental improvements: theory and measurement, in: L. WINGO and A. EVANS (Eds) Public Economic and the Quality of Life, pp. 154-180, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press (for Resources for the Future).
    • Rahman & Mittelhamer & Wandschaneder (2003), Measuring the Quality of Life Across countries: A sensitivity Analysis of well-being indices, wider internasional conference on inequality, poverty and Human well-being, May 30-31, 2003, Helsinki, Finland.
    • Raphael, D, Renwick, R., Brown, I, Rootman, I. (1996), Qualityof life indicators and health: current status and emergingconceptions. Soc.Indicators Res.Vol. 39, No.1: 65–88. Ruut Veenhoven, (1996), happy life expectancy a comprehensive measure of quality-of-life in nation, Published in Social Indicators Research, vol. 39: 1-58.
    • RIVM, (2002). In: Bouwman, A., van Kamp, I., van Poll, R. (Eds.), Workshopverslag Leefomgevingskwaliteit II. Verslag Workshop, 18 December 2001, in press.
    • ROSEN, S, (1979), Wages-based indexes of urban quality of life, in: P. MIESZKOWSKI and M. STRASZHEIM (Eds) Current Issues in Urban Economics, pp. 74-104. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    • Senlier, Nihal, Yildiz, Reyhan, E. Dig˘dem Aktas, (2009),  A Perception Survey for the Evaluation of Urban Quality of Life in Kocaeli and a Comparison of the Life Satisfaction with the European Cities, Social Indicate Res. vol. 94:213–226
    • Smith, T. Nelischer. M., Perkins, N. (1997). Quality of an urbancommunity: a framework for understanding the relationship between quality and physical form, Landscape and Urban Planning 39 229-241,0169.2046/97/$17.00 0 1997 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rightsreserved. PII SO169-2046 (97) 00055-8.
    • Sufian, A.J.M. (1993), A multivariate analysis of the determinants of urban quality of life in the world’s largest metropolitan areas. Urban Studies,Vol. 30, No. 8:1319-1329.
    • Sun, Y. (2005), Development of Neighborhood Quality of Life Indicators. Community-University Institute for Social Research. University of Saskatchewan.
    • Szalai, A. & Andrews, F.M. (1980), The Quality of Life: Comparative Studies. SAGE Studies in International Sociology. Sponsored by the International Sociological Association/ ISA.
    • Ulengin, B. F., Ulengin, U. (2001), A Multidimensional Approach to Urban Quality of Life: The Case of Istanbul.
    • Van Kamp I., Leidelmeijer K., Marsman G., deHollander A. (2003), Urban environmentalquality and human well-being towards aconceptual framework and demarcation ofconcepts: A literature study; J. Landscape andUrban Planning, Vol 65: 5-18.
    • WHO, World Health Organization. (1999). WHOQOL: annotated bibliography (October 1999 version). Geneva: WH; 1999.
    • Robert W. Marans, (2012), Quality of Urban Life Studies: An Overview and Implications for Environment-Behaviour Research, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35, pp: 9–22.
    • Yung-Jaan Lee, (2008), Subjective quality of life measurement in Taipei, Building and Environment, 43, pp: 1205–1215.
 

 References

  • Akhundi, Abbas Ahmad, Berkpour, Naser, Khalili, Ahmad, Sedaghatnia, Saeed (1393). Measurement of urban quality of life in Tehran metropolitan area. Beautiful Urban Architecture and Urban Development, Vol. 19, No. 2.
  • Asayesh, Hossein (1380), Measuring the quality of life in one hundred large cities of the world, Urban Management Quarterly, No. 8: 23.
  • Benzeval, M. Judge, K, Whitehead, M, (1995), Tackling Inequalities in Health. Kings Fund, London.
  • Blomquist, G.C., Berger, M.C., Hoehn, J.P (1988), New estimates of quality of life in urban areas. American Economic Review 78 1: 89-107.
  • Bowling, A. (1997), Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales. Main Head. Open University Press.
  • Boyer, R., Savageau, D. (1981), Places Rated Almanac. Rand Mc- Nelly, Chicago.
  • Broadbent, G. (1979). The Development of Design Methods, Design Methods and Theories,No. 13: 41-45.
  • Campbell, A. Converse, P, & Rodgers, W. (1976), The quality of American life. New York: Russell Sage.
  • Cheung, C. (1997), Toward a theoretically based measurement model of the good life. J. Gen. Psychol, Vol. 158, No. 2: 200–215.
  • Detailed plan of district 11 of Tehran municipality, 2011.
  • Diener, E., Suh, E. (1997), Measuring quality of life: economic.Social Indicators Reserch, 40. 189–216.
  • Ebrahimzadeh, Jesus, Ahar, Hassan, Tahmasebi, Farrokh, Manouchehri, Ayub and Ali Akbar, Shahnaz (1391), Analysis of quality of life in old and new old textures in Maragheh city using entropy and electric models, Quarterly Journal of Environmental Studies, No. 26: 3.
  • Fayers PM, Machin D. (2000), Quality of Life Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation, Jhon Willy, New york
  • GETZ, M. and HUANG, Y. C, (1978), Consumer revealedpreference for environmental goods, Review of Economics and Statistics, 60.
  • Iranian Statistics Center, Population and Housing Census 2012, available at http://www.amar.org.ir.
  • Jajarmi, Kazem, Ebrahim Kalteh (2006), Assessment of the Status of Life Quality Indicators in the City for Citizens Case Study: Gonbad Qaboos, Geography and Development Quarterly, Vol 4, Issue 8, Zahedan, 18-5
  • Kline E. (2001), Indicators for Sustainable Development in Urban Areas.
  • Liu, B. (1976), Quality of Life Indicators in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: AStatistical Analysis, Praeger, New York.
  • Mahdizadeh, Javad (2006), Strategic Planning for Urban Development, Recent World Experiences and its Position in Iran, First Edition, Tehran, Center for Iranian Architecture and Urban Studies and Research, 2003.
  • Massam,H. Brayn. (2002), Quality of Life: Public Planning and Private Living, Progress in Planning,14-146.
  • Mc crea, Rod, Tung-Kai Shyy & Robert Stimson. (2004), Modelling Urban Quality of Life in South East Queensland by linking subjective and objective indicators, 28th Australian and New Zealand regional Science Association International annual Conference, Wollongong, NSW, 28th September to 1 October.
  • McCrea, R., Shyy, T.K. and Stimson, R., (2006), what is the Strength of the Link between Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life? Applied Research in Quality of Life, Vol. 1, No. 1,. 79-96.
  • Municipality site of 11th district of Tehran, http://region11.tehran.ir.
  • Musschenga, A.W. (1997), The relation between concepts ofquality-of-life. J. Med. Philos, Vol. 22, No.1: 11–28.
  • NORDHAUS, W. D. and TOBIN, J. (1972), is growth obsolete? In Economic Research: Retrospect and Prospect, vol. 5 Economic Growth, pp. 21-49. New York: Columbia University Press (for National Bureau of Economic Research).
  • Oktay, D and Rustemla, A (2010), Measuring the quality of urban life and neighbourhood satisfaction: Findings from Gazimagusa (Famagusta) Area study international journal of social sciences and humanity studies Vol. 2, No. 2, ISSN: 1309-8063 Online
  • Pacione, M (2003): Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing-a social geographical perspective, Landscape and Urban Planning, Social Indicators Reserch, 65:19–30.
  • Pacione, M. (1982), The use of objective and subjective measures of quality of life in human geography. Prog. Hum. Geogr, Vol. 6 No. 4: 495–514.
  • Parker, M. (2005), Loss in the lives of Southeast Asian Elders. In H. Lee Meadow, development in quality if life studies in marketing. Vol,1,blacksbourg Virginia. International socity for quality studies.
  • Pasione, M. (2005), Urban Geography (Aglobal perspective), Second edition, New York, Routledge Puplisher.
  • polinsky, A. M. and rubinfeld,, D. L. (1977), Property values and the benefits of environmental improvements: theory and measurement, in: L. WINGO and A. EVANS (Eds) Public Economic and the Quality of Life, pp. 154-180, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press (for Resources for the Future).
  • Rahman & Mittelhamer & Wandschaneder (2003), Measuring the Quality of Life Across countries: A sensitivity Analysis of well-being indices, wider internasional conference on inequality, poverty and Human well-being, May 30-31, Helsinki, Finland.
  • Raphael, D, Renwick, R., Brown, I, Rootman, I. (1996), Quality of life indicators and health: current status and emergingconceptions. Soc.Indicators Res. Vol. 39, No. 1: 65–88. Ruut Veenhoven, (1996), happy life expectancy a comprehensive measure of quality-of-life in nation, Published in Social Indicators Research, 1996, Vol. 39: 1-58.
  • RIVM, (2002), In: Bouwman, A., van Kamp, I., van Poll, R. (Eds.), Workshopverslag Leefomgevingskwaliteit II. Verslag Workshop, 18 December 2001, in press.
  • Robert W. Marans, (2012), Quality of Urban Life Studies: An Overview and Implications for Environment-Behaviour Research, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 35: 9–22.
  • ROSEN, S, (1979), Wages-based indexes of urban quality of life, in: P. MIESZKOWSKI and M. STRASZHEIM (Eds) Current Issues in Urban Economics, pp. 74-104. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Samandri, Marzieh (1395), Master's Thesis, Guideline: Shadenush, Nosratollah, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, University of Management and Accounting.
  • Seifodini, Frank (2002). Urban and Regional Planning Vocabulary Culture, Second Edition, Shiraz University.
  • Senlier, Nihal, Yildiz, Reyhan, E. Dig˘dem Aktas, (2009), A Perception Survey for the Evaluation of Urban Quality of Life in Kocaeli and a Comparison of the Life Satisfaction with the European Cities, Soc Indic Res: 94:213–226
  • Smith, T. Nelischer. M., Perkins, N. (1997), Quality of an urbancommunity: a framework for understanding the relationship between quality and physical form, Landscape and Urban Planning 39 (1997) 229-241,0169.2046/97/$17.00 0 1997 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rightsreserved. PII SO169-2046(97)00055-8.
  • Sufian, A.J.M. (1993), A multivariate analysis of the determinants of urban quality of life in the world’s largest metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 30(8):1319-1329.
  • Sun, Y. (2005), Development of Neighborhood Quality of Life Indicators. Community-University Institute for Social Research. University of Saskatchewan.
  • Szalai, A. & Andrews, F.M. (1980), The Quality of Life: Comparative Studies. SAGE Studies in International Sociology. Sponsored by the International Sociological Association/ ISA.
  • Ulengin, B. F., Ulengin, U. (2001), A Multidimensional Approach to Urban Quality of Life: The Case of Istanbul.
  • Van Kamp I., Leidelmeijer K., Marsman G., deHollander A. (2003), Urban environmentalquality and human well-being towards aconceptual framework and demarcation ofconcepts: A literature study; J. Landscape andUrban Planning, Vol 65: 5-18.
  • WHO, World Health Organization. (1999), WHOQOL: annotated bibliography (October 1999 version). Geneva: WH; 1999.
  • Yung-Jaan Lee, (2008): Subjective quality of life measurement in Taipei, Building and Environment, 43: 1205–1215.
  • Zarbast, Esfandiar, Khalili, Ahmad and Dehghani, Mostafa (1392), Application of Factor Analysis Method in Identifying Urban Bustards, Fine Arts, Architecture and Urban Development, Vol. 18, No. 2,:27-42.