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

Document Type : Review article

Authors

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

  1. 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, Volume 19, Number 2.
  2. Asayesh, Hossein (1380). Measuring the quality of life in one hundred large cities of the world, Urban Management Quarterly, No. 8, p. 23.
  3. Benzeval, M. Judge, K, Whitehead, M, (1995),Tackling Inequalities in Health. Kings Fund, London.
  4. 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.
  5. Bowling, A. (1997). Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales. Main Head. Open University Press.
  6. Boyer, R., Savageau, D. (1981).Places Rated Almanac. Rand Mc- Nelly, Chicago.
  7. Broadbent,  G.  (1979).  The  Development  of  Design Methods, Design Methods and Theories, 13, 41-45.
  8. Campbell, A. Converse, P, & Rodgers, W. (1976). The quality of American life. New York: Russell Sage.
  9. Cheung, C. (1997).Toward a theoretically based measurement model of the good life. J. Gen. Psychol. 158 (2), 200–215.

10. Detailed plan of district 11 of Tehran municipality, 2011.

11. Diener,  E.,  Suh,  E. (1997).  Measuring  quality  of  life:  economic.Soc. Indicators Res. 40 1 (2), 189–216.

12. 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, p. 3.

13. Fayers PM, Machin D. (2000), Quality of Life Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation, Jhon Willy, New york

14. GETZ, M. and HUANG, Y. C, (1978), Consumer revealedpreference for environmental goods, Review of Economics and Statistics, 60.

15. Iranian Statistics Center, Population and Housing Census 2012, available at http://www.amar.org.ir.

16. 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, Volume 4, Issue 8, Zahedan, Pages 18-5

17. Kline E. (2001). Indicators for Sustainable Development in Urban Areas.

18. Liu, B. (1976). Quality of Life Indicators in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: AStatistical Analysis. Praeger, New York.

19. 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.

20. Massam,H. Brayn. (2002), Quality of Life: Public Planning and Private Living, Progress in Planning ,14-146.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. Municipality site of 11th district of Tehran, http://region11.tehran.ir.

24. Musschenga, A.W. (1997). The relation between concepts ofquality-of-life. J. Med. Philos. 22 (1), 11–28.

25. 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).

26. 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

27. Pacione, M (2003): Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social geographical perspective, Landscape and Urban Planning 65 (2003) 19–30

28. Pacione, M. (1982). The use of objective and subjective measures of quality of life in human geography. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 6 (4), 495–514.

29. 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. 

30. Pasione, M. (2005). Urban Geography (Aglobal perspective), Second edition, New York, Routledge Puplisher.

31. 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).

32. 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.

33. Raphael, D, Renwick, R., Brown, I, Rootman, I.(1996). Quality of life indicators  and  health:  current  status  and  emergingconceptions.  Soc.Indicators Res. 39 (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.

34. RIVM,( 2002).  In:  Bouwman,  A.,  van  Kamp,  I.,  van  Poll,  R.  (Eds.), Workshopverslag  Leefomgevingskwaliteit  II.  Verslag Workshop, 18 December 2001, in press.

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. Samandri, Marzieh (1395). Master's Thesis, Guideline: Shadenush, Nosratollah, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, University of Management and Accounting.

38. Seifodini, Frank (2002). Urban and Regional Planning Vocabulary Culture, Second Edition, Shiraz University.

39. 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

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. Sun, Y. (2005). Development of Neighborhood Quality of Life Indicators. Community-University Institute for Social Research. University of Saskatchewan.

43. Szalai, A. & Andrews, F.M. (1980). The Quality of Life: Comparative Studies. SAGE Studies in International Sociology. Sponsored by the International Sociological Association/ ISA.

44. Ulengin, B. F., Ulengin, U. (2001). A Multidimensional Approach to Urban Quality of Life: The Case of Istanbul.

45. 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.

46. WHO,  World  Health  Organization. (1999).  WHOQOL:  annotated  bibliography (October 1999 version). Geneva: WH; 1999.

47. Yung-Jaan Lee, (2008): Subjective quality of life measurement in Taipei, Building and Environment, 43, pp: 1205–1215.

48. 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, Pages 27-42.

Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR)
Volume 5, Issue 3
October 2017
Pages 357-379

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics