Evaluation of Environmental Quality and Satisfaction of New Residential Settlements (Case Study: Tohid Shahr Sabzevar)

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Hakim Sabzevari University, Iran

2 MA in Geography and Urban Planning, Hakim Sabzevari University, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
The rapid growth of cities and their structural development have caused various problems in urban life such as environmental problems and decline in the environmental quality. The quality of urban environment is a multidimensional concept. As one of the important aspects of life quality, it can have many effects in the life of residents. This concept can also have commonalities with other concepts like quality of the place, perception of residential satisfaction and dissatisfaction of residents from living places and so on. The importance of urban environment is for the fact that all urban problems have an environmental quality component. Therefore, the evaluation of urban environment quality and the satisfaction of residents are indispensable to recognize the environmental quality status and to perform procedures to improve it and present appropriate environmental quality patterns for new developments which are formed by preplanning and programming. Accordingly, Tovidshahr in Sabzevar has been selected as one of the preplanned environments and the quality of urban environment in this town has been evaluated.
Methodology 
This study is conducted as an applied and developmental research through a descriptive-analytic and survey-method. For collecting the required data, we have used questionnaires. The samples of the study have been selected from the residents of Tovhidshar in Sabzevar. They are ranged in 18-70 years old. Based on the Cochran sampling formula, the participants are 374 persons which explored individually. The random sampling method is used to identify the participants. The procedures like factor analysis and Pearson correlation coefficients are used for analysis of the data. In addition, GIS software is used for complementing the analysis and pictorially presenting the data. 
Results and discussion   
For doing factor analysis, at first the items were categorized into nine indexes and then they were subdivided into three dimensions of environmental quality (objective, subjective and objective-subjective) (objective) and then the factor analysis procedure was run. The values of KMO tests for objective, subjective and objective-subjective environmental quality were 0.789, 0.813 and 0.813, respectively. For exploring the satisfaction rate and the degree of environmental quality, at first the Pearson correlation coefficient was estimated among the variables. Based on the results obtained from the correlational matrix tables, we can state that there was a positive relationship among the variables. Factor analysis for residential quality in the subjective, objective and their mixture was conducted in three stages. In the final stage, all the indices were combined into nine categories.   
Some factors have been able to account for the variables of the study. The factors are as following: The first factor, i.e., satisfaction with the spatial-physical structure, has aacounted for 6.872 % of variation; the second factor, i.e., feeling of satisfaction of living in the town, has 13.6 % of percent variation; the third factor, i.e., dissatisfaction with abnormal behaviors in the town, with 20.0%; the fourth factor, i.e., satisfaction with family relations and sense of community in the town, with 26.296%; the fifth factor, i.e., satisfaction with housing space, with 31.906%; the sixth factor, i.e., satisfaction with public transportation services, with 36.738%; the seventh factor, i.e., the extent of sense of belonging to the town, with 41.272%; the eight factor, i.e., satisfaction with the vision and nature of the town, with 45.268%; the ninth factor, i.e., satisfaction of security, with 48.495% and collectively the objective-subjective residential satisfaction with 48.495 % of variance.  
The satisfaction rate from the viewpoints of Tovhidshahr residents based on the factor analysis revealed that objective dimension with the value of 56.97 is higher than the subjective satisfaction rate with 46.75 percent. In the combined indexes, the highest level of satisfaction refers to the physical and environmental index with 0.577 percent and the lowest rate is related to the social pathologies with 0.126 percent. In addition, based on the obtained map of environmental quality, the objective dimension has the lowest satisfaction rate with 2.73 percent value and the subjective dimension with 3.36 percent value. Generallythe objective-subjective quality has a moderate rate with 3.47 percent value.  
Conclusion
Satisfaction with life is a subject related to other issues like environmental quality. Since one of the objectives of urban planners is to enhance the satisfaction rate of residents regarding their living environment, the various dimensions must be considered to reach such an objective. Therefore, the environmental quality indexes, as introduction to the dimensions and various features in living environment, can be used to analyze the satisfaction of residents from their physical and social environment. The findings of the study indicate that the satisfaction has a moderate rate. In addition, it has been found that Tovhidshar, which is created by preplanning to account for the future overpopulation of Sabzevar, has not been able to attract the optimal satisfaction rate of the residents.
Contrary to the common expectation, there is no direct relationship between the objective and subjective conditions. The satisfaction in the objective dimension is low and in the subjective it is higher. Consequently, the research hypotheses are not confirmed. In explaining the satisfaction rate of residents from their living condition, it can be stated that based on the field investigations, it was recognized that residents are unsatisfied with some influential features on the quality of urban environment or have problems in using these assets.  
According to the theoretical principles and the findings of the study, it can be argued that the viewpoints towards the quality of urban environment in the frameworks of the subjective and objective views can present two different views of the quality of urban environment and the satisfaction rate. Therefore, adopting more practical and logical decisions for improving the quality of urban environment is impossible unless close relations with residents is established and their cooperation based on the principles of optimal urban government is sought about the quality of urban environment of their living condition. Finally, it is suggested that the residents must be consulted regarding the procedures which can improve the quality of their living environment and, thus, can in turn enhance their satisfaction rate.  

Keywords

References

  1. Bahraini, H. ,2007 , Urban Design Process, Fourth Edition, published by Tehran University, Tehran.
  2. Bramley, G., S., Power. 2008. Urban Form and Social Sustainability: The Role of Density and Housing Type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 36, No. 1, PP: 30-48.
  3. Choguill. C, L. 2008. Developing sustainable neighborhoods. Habitat International, Vol. 32, PP: 41–48.
  4. Costanza, R. 2007, Quality Of Life: An Approach Integration Opportunities, Human
  5. Das D., 2008, Urban Quality of Life: A Case Study of Guwahati2 Social Indicators Research2 No. 88.environment, Vol. 17, No. 1.
  6. Eziyio, N., Iben, D. A. 2013, Subjestive life satis faction in public housing in urban areas
  7. Foo, T. S., 2000, Subjective Assessment of Urban Quality of Life in Singapore (1997- 1998), Habitat International, Vol. 24, No. 1.
  8. Ge, J. & Kazunori Hokao, 2006."Research on Residential Lifestyles in Japanese Cities from the Viewpoints of Residential Preference, Residential Choice and Residential Satisfaction", Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 78, No. 3, Pp.165-78,
  9. Gifford, Robert. Steg, Linda, 2005 , Sustainable transportation and quality of life, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 13, PP.59-69.

10. Golkar K., 2001, The quality of the urban environment magazine platform components manufacturer, martyr Beheshti University, No. 32, pp. 68-38.

11. Goodey, B.1993.,"Two Gentlemen in Verona: The Qualities of Urban Design", Streetwise, 4(2):3-5

12. Jacobs, A & D. 1987, Appleyard, "Toward an Urban Design Manifesto" JAPA, , 53(1): 112-120.

13. Kaplan S, Kaplan R .1982. Human Scape: Environments for People, Ann Arbor, Ulrich’s Books.

14. Khademolhosseini A and Mansourian H and Sattari M.H, 2010,Subjective quality of life in urban areas, Geography and Environmental Studies Quarterly, Vol. I,No. 3, pp. 60-45.

15. Khaksari, a. rohani, a. 2014, Sustainable transport to improve the quality of urban environment with an emphasis on historical textures, case study:  Comparison of the historical center of Mashhad and Freiburg. Quarterly: Urban Development Planning. No. 1 (1), pp. 52-73.

16. Leen, Y. J.2008, Subjective quality of life Measurement in Taipei, Journal Building and

17. Leng J., 2009, The creation of architectural theory-the role of behavioral science in environmental design, visual translation of the oven, AR,Fourth Edition, published by Tehran University, Tehran.

18. Marais, L., Ntema, J. 2013. The upgrading of an informal settlement in South Africa: Two decades onwards, Habitat

19. Marans, R. W.; Couper, M.; 2000. Measuring the quality of community life: a program for longitudinal and comparative international research, In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities, vol: 2, Singapore.Needs and Subjective Well-Being, Economics, No. 61, 267-276.

20. Meshkini A and Sajadi G and Tafakori A ., 2011, The impact of government housing policy, land tenure and physical development of citiesin Kermanshah Case Study, Journal of Geography and Development, No. 23, pp. 67-47.

21. Owen, K., Wong, D. 2013. An approach to differentiate informal settlements using spectral, texture, geomorphology and road accessibility metrics, Applied Geography, Vol. 38, pp. 107-118

22. Porteous, J. Douglas, 1971, Design with people: The Quality of the Urban Environment Environment and Behavior.

23. Porteous, J.D.1971., "Design with People: The Quality of the Urban Environment", Environmental and Behavior, Vol. 3, Pp. 55-78.

24. Poursarajiyan, m . 2015. Historical Neighborhood Values and Measures for Changing it from the Realities of Residents,Journal bagh nazar, No. 12(35), pp. 25-39.

25. Rafieian M and Asgari A and Asgarzade Z. , 2009,Citizensatisfaction withtheresidential environment, Journal of Environmental Sciences, the seventh year, No. 1, pp. 68-57.

26. Rafieian M and Molavi J. , 2011,Approaches andmethods formeasuring the quality of residential environment,The first edition, published bylightning, Tehran. And preparation space, period, XV, No. 3, pp. 38-19.

27. Rezaee M and Moazen S and Nafar N., 2014,Satisfactionan alysis of environmental quality indicators in new cities jumping Case study New Town parand. ,Journal of geography, urban planning,Vol. 2,No. 1,pp.47-31.

28. Rossouw, S., Pacheco, G. 2011, Measuring Non-Economic Quality of Life on a Sub-National Level: A Case Study of New Zealand, Journal of Happiness Studies, online first, pp. 25-42.

29. Sajjadzadeh, h and ezadi, s and haghi, m. 2016, Strategies for promoting the quality of the environment Informal settlements based on residents' views, case study: Hesar neighborhood in Hamedan.Journal of Ecology, No. 42(1), pp. 81-96.

30. Schmit, R., 2002, Considering Social Capital in Quality of Life Assessment: Concept and Measurement, Social Indicators Research, No. 58, PP. 403-428.

31. Sedaghatnia, S., et al. 2013. An Evaluation of Residents‟ Quality of Life through Neighborhood Satisfaction in Malaysia. Environmental Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 2, No. 1, PP: 114-125.

32. seik, T. F. 2000, Subjective assessment of urban quality of life in Singapore (1997-1998).

33. Shahabiyan P and Saeeid pour S and Piraye gar M ., 2013, Residential satisfaction measurement residents Mnzryh(new tissue) and residents sister of Imam(old) in Rasht, Journal of manipulating the environment, No. 24, pp. 62-41.

34. Shokrifirouzjah P., 2013, Study factors influencing citizen satisfaction with the quality of residential environment(Case distics 8 of Tabriz), Journalof geographical space, the fourteenth year, No. 47, pp. 82-67.

35. Statistical Center of Iran, Census . 2016.

36. Usamah, M., Handmer, J., Mitchell, D., Ahmed, I. 2014. Can the vulnerable be resilient? Co-existence of vulnerability and disaster resilience: Informal settlements in the Philippines, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 10, pp. 178- 189.

37. Van Kamp Et al.2003, "Urban Environmental Quality and Human Well-being Towards a Conceptual Framework and Demarcation of Concepts", Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 65, Pp. 5-18.

38. Williams, K.; Burton, E.; Jenks, M.; 2000. Achieving Sustainable Urban Form, Spon Press,London & New York.

39. Zarei M and Salehi M., 2013, Assess the quality ofthe physical environmentin urban areas, with emphasis on the role ofsocial capitalincaseofSirAligholineighborhood, Journal ofUrban and Regional Research, Vol. V, No. XV III, pp. 174-155.

Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR)
Volume 6, Issue 4
January 2019
Pages 827-844

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics