Polycentric urban development based on spatial changes of employment and activities in Tehran

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Geography and Urban Planning, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Urban spatial structure can be considered as a partial or general description of the distribution of phenomena in urban geographical space. Cities can grow in different spatial structures and functions. This is the objective result of interactions between land and topography markets, infrastructure, laws and regulations, taxation, industrial development, distribution of socio-economic enterprises, transportation network, decisions of real estate planners and developers, and investors, businessmen and policymakers. Understanding the urban spatial structure is of paramount importance in formulating planning strategies and policy support to create habitable, vibrant, and densely populated cities that can be measured in terms of functions and activities. This type of spatial structure in one hand is a symbol of physical spaces and, on the other hand, shows the space of human activities in the form of social dynamism and urban vitality. The hypothesis of a monocentric model emphasized the concentration of employment in the commercial centers of the city, which was dedicated to commercial and residential land uses. Places were selected based only on distance from employment centers, but not all employment-related activities were concentrated in the CBD. Some production was located outside the CBD and in the areas with lower densities and less valuable land, which gradually led to the decentralization of employment from the CBD to the residential suburbs of the city. As transportation systems grow and develop in cities, the polycentric phenomenon is inevitable.
Over the past few decades, Tehran has grown from a traditional city with simple economic functions to a new urban phenomenon with the characteristics of a new industrial city. The uneven transformation of Iran's socio-economic system in the last century and the imposition of exogenous development patterns on Iranian society have disrupted its natural course. Meanwhile, Tehran, as the center and main hub of economic development and industrial development of the country, has provided the ground for its rapid and uneven development. The compulsory process of migration and activity around its periphery the last five decades has made the city expand on its new axis and develops new sub-center. Thus, the process of industrial development and urban development in Tehran has emerged in an unbalanced manner.
Methodology
In order to analyze the spatial structure of activities and employees, statistical data of the years 1996-2017 as well as data of the structural-strategic plan of Tehran were used. Kernel density was used for employee density and spatial autocorrelations such as general Moran I statistic, local indicators of spatial association (LISA) and  Statistic for both employee and activity dimensions. The modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) problem was also used to determine spatial units.
Results and discussion
Findings show that in the studied periods, the main density of employees has spread periphery the sub-centers. In the 1996 period, the main core of Tehran, which should be the high-density part of urban activity, did not have a large population. During this period, Tehran had a not so strong main economic center. The situation in which urban managers seek to reform the various comprehensive and structural-strategic plans in polycentric structure can play a prominent role in the management. In the statistical period of 2006, the formation of the nucleus of activity is in the 21st and 22nd districts of Tehran; That is, the district where the largest commercial-leisure and industrial centers of Tehran are located. On the other hand, the emerging cores expand into the sub-centers. In the period of 2011 and 2016, the eastern core of Tehran will be strengthened. Active areas in District 18 are emerging and taking shape. A strong center in Tehran's District 5, which was formed in the previous period, is also being strengthened. During this period, contrary to expectations, not only was it not added to the density of the central district, but its stagnation was stabilized. Then, the spatial pattern of employees and activities was analyzed. The results confirm the status of clustering for the employees of these statistical courses. Analysis of activities shows that the performance of Tehran is more service; as most of the unit includes this activity. On the other hand, the share of this activity along with the commercial district in the main core and sub-center and other space units of Tehran is high. Tehran takes on a special shape in terms of the distribution of activities. The southern districts are mostly engaged in activities such as assembly, transportation and industry. Health and Aid also has the largest number of employees in the southern parts of Tehran. Activities in the public sector and salaries, technicians and assistants, specialists, legislators and managers live in the northern areas of Tehran as affluent areas and from the axis of Enghelab Street to the north.
Conclusion
In Iran, oil revenues provide about 85 percent of foreign exchange earnings and play a major role in government budget, industrialization, and urban development. The rapid growth of Tehran and the concentration of the country's facilities and industries have caused other cities in the country to be considered as satellites of the capital of Iran. In fact, the reason for locating industries in Tehran is its consumer market. Tehran has become especially important with the formation of its new factory industries. Most establishments and factories were located in the south of the city, and as a result, the area gradually became an industrial area. Therefore, in the development process of Tehran, the new plan of the city was greatly affected by the economic and physical performance of industries. On the other hand, due to the congestion and inefficiency of scale economies, it entered the broadcast stage. In subsequent urban development, new sub-centers accelerated their growth, and peripheral areas were integrated into urban contexts. Industrial decentralization policies from Tehran slowed down the establishment of industries in Tehran over a period of time, causing the process of industrial decentralization to be transferred to the areas around Tehran in a chain and in connection with Tehran. Therefore, the results of this study can be a guide for urban planners and managers to be able to evaluate the objectives of the structural-strategic plan of Tehran and to propose the main and main sub-centers for researching its polycentric structure.

Keywords

References

  1. Alonso, W., 1964, Location and Land Use, Toward a General Theory of L and Rent, Harvard University Press.
  2. Anas, A., Arnott, R.,   and Small, K. A., 1998, Urban Spatial Structure, Journal of Economic Literature, PP. 1426-1464.
  3.  and erson, N. B.,   and Bogart, W. T., 2001, The Structure of Sprawl: Identifying and Characterizing Employment Centers in Polycentric Metropolitan Areas, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 60, No.1, PP. 147-169.
  4. Anselin, L. 1995, Local Indicators of Spatial Association-LISA. Geographical Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 2, PP. 93-115.
  5. Arbury, J. 2005, From Urban Sprawl to Compact City: An Analysis of Urban Growth Management in Auckland Doctoral Dissertation, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.
  6. Asadi, M., 1990, Iran's Uneven Growth and Economic Duality. Economic Research, No. 42, PP. 88-103. (In Persian)
  7. Barrett, P., 1983, The Automobile and Urban Transit: the Formation of Public Policy in Chicago, 1900-1930, Temple University Press.
  8. Bazrgar, M.R and Negahban, M.B. 2003, Urban Planning and Urban Main Structure, First Edition, Koushamar Publications, Shiraz. (In Persian)
  9. Bertaud, A., 2001, Metropolis: A Measure of the Spatial Organization of 7 Large Cities. Disponible Sur, http://alain-bertaud.com/images/ab_metropolis_spatial_organization.pdf.

10. Bertaud, A., 2004, The Spatial Structures of Central and Eastern European Cities: More European Than Socialist, in Winds of Societal Change, International Conference Proceedings, June, Urbana: UIUC.

11. Bertaud, A., and Malpezzi, S., 2003, The Spatial Distribution of Population in 48 World Cities: Implications for Economies in Transition, Center For Urban L and Economics Research, University of Wisconsin.

12. Bothe, K., Hansen, H. K.,  and Winther, L., 2018, Spatial Restructuring and Uneven Intra-Urban Employment Growth in Metro- and Non-Metro-Served Areas in Copenhagen, Journal of Transport Geography, No. 70, PP. 21-30.

13. Bourne, L. S., 1971, Physical Adjustment Processes and Land Use Succession: A Conceptual Review and Central City Example, Economic Geography, PP. 1-15.

14. Bourne, L. S., 1976, Urban Structure and Land Use Decisions, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 66, No. 4, PP. 531-535.

15. Broitman, D., 2012, Dynamics of Polycentric Urban Structure. Dissertation Ph.D in Town Planning, Institute of Technology.

16. Burger, M. J., De Goei, B., Van Der Laan, L.,  and Huisman, F. J. M., 2011, Heterogeneous Development of Metropolitan Spatial Structure: Evidence From Commuting Patterns in English and Welsh City-Regions, 1981–2001, Cities, Vol. 28, No. 2, PP. 160-170.

17. Burger, M., and Meijers, E., 2012, Form Follows Function? Linking Morphological and Functional Polycentricity, Urban Studies, Vol. 49, No. 5, PP. 1127-1149.

18. Chen, T., Hui, E. C., Wu, J., Lang, W., and Li, X. 2019, Identifying Urban Spatial Structure and Urban Vibrancy in Highly Dense Cities Using Georeferenced Social Media Data. Habitat International, 89, 102005.

19. Clark, W. A., 2000, Monocentric to Polycentric: New Urban Forms and Old Paradigms, a Companion to the City, PP. 141-154.

20. Davoudi, S., 2003, European Briefing: Polycentricity in European Spatial Planning: From an Analytical Tool to a Normative Agenda. European Planning Studies, 11(8), 979-999.

21. Dehghan. A., 2000, Identifying and Describing the Problems of Industrial Workshops in Tehran, Work and Society, No. 35, PP. 6-16. (In Persian)

22. Ding, C., and Zhao, X. 2014, L and Market, L and Development and Urban Spatial Structure in Beijing, Land Use Policy, No. 40, PP. 83-90.

23. Dökmeci, V.,  and Berköz, L., 1994, Transformation of Istanbul From a Monocentric to a Polycentric City, European Planning Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, PP. 193-205.

24. Fallahian, N., 2006, Analysis of the Role of Industrialization in Spatial Formation of Tehran Urban Complex. Doctoral Dissertation on Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran. (In Persian)

25. Feng, Y., Wu, S., Wu, P., Su, S., Weng, M., and Bian, M., 2018, Spatiotemporal Characterization of Megaregional Poly-Centrality: Evidence for New Urban Hypotheses and Implications for Polycentric Policies, Land Use Policy, No. 77, PP. 712-731.

26. Fina, M. H., 2000, Urban Spatial Structure and Household Travel Time, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

  1. 27.  Fuizat, A., 1988, Industrialization of Iran (1925 Onwards, Hesabdar Accountant), Vol. 1, No. 5, PP. 27-41, In This Case, We Have the Following. (In Persian)

28. Fujii, T., and Hartshorni, T. A., 1995, the Changing Metropolitan Structure of Atlanta, Georgia: Locations of Functions and Regional Structure in a Multinucleated Urban Area. Urban Geography, Vol. 16, No. 8, PP. 680-707.

29. Fujita, M. 2010, The Evolution of Spatial Economics: From Thünen To the New Economic Geography, Japanese Economic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1, PP. 1-32.

30. García-Palomares, J. C., 2010, Urban Sprawl and Travel to Work: the Case of the Metropolitan Area of Madrid, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18, No. 2, PP. 197-213.

31. Giuliano, G., Redfearn, C., Agarwal, A., Li, C.,  and Zhuang, D., 2007, Employment Concentrations in Los Angeles, 1980–2000, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 39, No. 12, PP. 2935-2957.

32. Green, N., 2007, Functional Polycentricity: A Formal Definition in Terms of Social Network Analysis, Urban Studies, Vol. 44, No. 11, PP. 2077-2103.

33. Griffith, D. A.,  and Wong, D. W., 2007, Modeling Population Density Across Major US Cities: A Polycentric Spatial Regression Approach, Journal of Geographical Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1, PP. 53-75.

34. Hall, P. G., and Pain, K. 2006, The Polycentric Metropolis: Learning From Mega-City Regions in Europe, Routledge.

35. Hamidi, M., Sabri, S., Habibi, M., and Salimi, J., 1996, Urban Structure of Tehran, Tehran Engineering and Consulting Organization, Vol. 1, Tehran. (In Persian)

36. Helsley, R. W., and Sullivan, A. M., 1991, Urban Subcenter Formation, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 21, No. 2, PP. 255-275.

37. Herrschel, T., 2009, City Regions, Polycentricity and the Construction of Peripheralities through Governance, Urban Research and Practice, Vol. 2, No. 3, PP. 240-250.

38. Horton, F. E., and Reynolds, D. R., 1971, Effects of Urban Spatial Structure on Individual Behavior, Economic Geography, PP. 36-48.

39. Hosseini, A., Pourahmad, A., and Ziari, K., 2019, Analysis of Urban Spatial Structure Based on the Spatial Distribution of Population in Tehran, A Polycentric City Morphological Approach. Geographical Planning of Space Quarterly Journal, Vol. 8, No. 30, PP. 10-38. (In Persian)

40. Kim, H., Lee, N., and Kim, S. N., 2018, Suburbia in Evolution: Exploring Polycentricity and Suburban Typologies in the Seoul Metropolitan Area, South Korea, Land Use Policy, No. 75, PP. 92-101.

41. Kloosterman, R. C.,  and Lambregts, B., 2001, Clustering of Economic Activities in Polycentric Urban Regions: The Case of the Rand stad, Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4, PP. 717-732.

42. Kloosterman, R. C., and Musterd, S., 2001, The Polycentric Urban Region: Towards A Research Agenda. Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4, PP. 623-633.

43. Lambregts, B., 2009, The Polycentric Metropolis Unpacked: Concepts, Trends and Policy in the R and stad Holland, Amsterdam Institute for Metropolitan and International Development Studies.

44. Leslie, T. F., and Huallacháin, B. Ó., 2006, Polycentric Phoenix, Economic Geography, Vol. 82, No. 2, PP. 167-192.

45. Madanipour, A., 2006, Urban Planning and Development in Tehran, Cities, Vol. 23, No 6, PP. 433-438.

46. Mahdizadeh, J., 2002, City and History: An Overview of the Historical Trend of Physical-Spatial Development in Tehran; Part Two, Renewal and Generation in Tehran Metropolitan, Urban Planning Studies 3, 16-26. (In Persian)

47. Mahdizadeh, J., 2003, City and History: An Overview of the Historical Trend of Physical-Spatial Development in Tehran; Third Section, Tehran Metropolitan Period 1974-1979, Urban Planning Studies 4, 37-43. (In Persian)

48. Maier, K. 2009, Polycentric Development in the Spatial Development Policy of the Czech Republic, Urban Research and Practice, Vol. 2, No. 3, PP. 319-331.

49. Mcconnell, S., 1981, Theories for Planning: An Introduction, Trafalgar Square Publishing.

50. Mcmillen, D. P., 2001, Nonparametric Employment Subcenter Identification, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 50, No. 3, PP. 448-473.

51. Meijers, E. J., and Burger, M. J., 2009, Spatial Structure and Productivity in US Metropolitan Areas.

52. Meijers, E.,  and Romein, A., 2003, Realizing Potential: Building Regional Organizing Capacity in Polycentric Urban Regions, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, PP. 173-186.

53. Meijers, E., 2007, From Central Place to Network Model: Theory and Evidence of a Paradigm Change, Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, Vol. 98, No. 2, PP. 245-259.

54. Meijers, E., 2008, Measuring Polycentricity and Its Promises. European Planning Studies, Vol. 16, No. 9, PP. 1313-1323.

55. Openshaw, S., and Taylor, P. J., 1979, A Million or So Correlation Coefficients: Three Experiments on the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem, Statistical Applications in the Spatial Sciences, No. 21, PP. 127-144.

56. O'sullivan, A., 2007, Urban Economics, Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin.

57. Pacione, M., 2001, Urban Geography: A Global Perspective, Psychology Press, Routledge.

58. Parr, J., 2004, The Polycentric Urban Region: A Closer Inspection, Regional Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3, PP. 231-240.

59. Pourahmad, A.,  and Fallahian, N., 2005, Investigating the Process of Forming Industrial Around Tehran City with Emphasis on Karaj-Qazvin, Journal of Geographical Studies, Vol. 53, No. 3, PP. 173-192. (In Persian)

60. Rashidi, A., 2000, Iran's Industrial Development; Past Experience and Future Horizon. Political-Economic Information, Vol. 5, No. 14, PP. 195-196. (In Persian)

61. Riyazi, A., 2010, the Impact of Modernization on the Space Organization of Tehran in the Late Qajar Period, Cultural Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, PP. 129-148. (In Persian)

62. Rodrigue, J. P., Comtois, C., and Slack, B., 2013, The Geography of Transport Systems, Third Edition, Routledge.

63. Romein, A., Verkoren, O., and Fern and EZ, A. M., 2009, Polycentric Metropolitan Form: Application of a ‘Northern’concept in Latin America, Footprint, Vol. 3, No. 2, PP. 127-146.

64. Saidiniya, A, 1997, Tehran Book, Vol. 5 and 6, Roshanegan Publications, First Edition, Tehran. (In Persian)

65. Sánchez-Mateos, H. S. M., Sanz, I. M., Francés, J. M., and Trapero, E. S., 2014, Road Accessibility and Articulation of Metropolitan Spatial Structures: The Case of Madrid Spain, Journal of Transport Geography, No. 37, PP. 61-73.

66. Sasaki, K. 1990, the Establishment of a Subcenter and Urban Spatial Structure. Environment and Planning A, 22(3), 369-383.

67. Smith, D. 2011, Polycentricity and Sustainable Urban Form. An Intra-Urban Study of Accessibility, Employment and Travel Sustainability for the Strategic Planning of the London Region.

68. Soja, E. W. 2000, Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Oxford: Blackwell.

69. Sultanzadeh, H., 1996, An Introduction to Urbanization in Iran, First Edition, Abi (Blue) Publishing, Tehran. (In Persian)

70. Sun, T. 2009, Population and Employment Distribution and Urban Spatial Structure: An Empirical Analysis of Metropolitan Beijing, China in the Post-Reform Era, Dissertation Ph.D in Planning, University of Southern California, USA.

71. Van Houtum, H.,  and Lagendijk, A., 2001, Contextualising Regional Identity and Imagination in the Construction of Polycentric Urban Regions: the Cases of the Ruhr Area and the Basque Country, Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4, PP. 747-767.

72. Yang, J., French, S., Holt, J.,  and Zhang, X., 2012, Measuring the Structure of US Metropolitan Areas, 1970–2000: Spatial Statistical Metrics and An Application to Commuting Behavior, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 78, No. 2, PP. 197-209.

Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR)
Volume 7, Issue 4
January 2020
Pages 677-699

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics