تحلیل و بررسی شاخص‌های موثر بر تحقق شهر سالم؛ نمونه موردی: شهر رشت

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران.

2 دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران.

3 کارشناسی ارشد برنامه‌ریزی شهری، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران.

چکیده
رشد بی رویه جمعیت و گسترش نامتوازن شهرها در قرن اخیر موجب بروز مشکلات زیست محیطی و کالبدی فراوانی شده است که همین امر موجب تاکید بیشتر برنامه‌ریزان شهری بر مبحث شهرسالم شده است. در همین راستا پژوهش حاضر با هدف ارزیابی شاخص‌های شهر سالم در شهر رشت و سپس بررسی روابط میان شاخص‌های شهر سالم می‌باشد. روش پژوهش از نوع توصیفی- کمی بوده و جهت جمع‌آوری اطلاعات تعداد 384 پرسشنامه در میان ساکنین شهر رشت توزیع و تکمیل گردیده است. داده‌های به‌دست آمده با استفاده از نرم‌افزار SPSS  مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفتند. جهت تحلیل داده‌ها از آزمون‌های دوجمله‌ای، همبستگی پیرسون و رگرسیون خطی گام به گام استفاده گردید. نتایج حاصل از تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها نشان داد که میانگین کلی گویه‌ها برابر مقدار 2/86 بوده که نشان از وضعیت نامطلوب شاخص‌های شهر سالم در شهر رشت می‌باشد. همچنین براساس میانگین تک‌تک شاخص‌ها، به جز دو شاخص «کیفیت مسکن» و «سلامتی و بهداشتی»، میانگین چهار شاخص دیگر پایین‌تر از حد متوسط بوده و وضعیت نامطلوبی در این شهر دارند. در نهایت مشخص گردید که شاخص «مدیریتی و سازمانی» که نمود مدیریت شهری در این شهر می‌باشد، بیشترین تاثیر و همبستگی را بر وضعیت سلامتی و بهداشتی شهروندان دارد.

چکیده تصویری

تحلیل و بررسی شاخص‌های موثر بر تحقق شهر سالم؛ نمونه موردی: شهر رشت

تازه های تحقیق

- ارزیابی شاخص‌های شهر سالم با استفاده از روش کمی در شهر رشت.
- شاخص سازمانی و مدیریتی مهمترین شاخص در تحقق شهر سالم در رشت.
- وضعیت نامطلوب شاخص‌های "اجتماعی"، "زیست محیطی و کالبدی"، "اقتصادی" و "سازمانی و مدیریتی" و اما در مقابل وضعیت مطلوب شاخص‌های "کیفیت مسکن"، "سلامتی و بهداشتی" در شهر رشت.
- همبستگی بالای شاخص‌های "سلامتی و بهداشتی" و "سازمانی و مدیریتی" و اما در مقابل همبستگی ضعیف میان شاخص‌های "کیفیت مسکن" با "سازمانی و مدیریتی".

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Analysis and evaluation of effective indicators on the realization of a healthy city; Case study: Rasht city

نویسندگان English

Saber Mohammadpour 1
Arman Hamidi 2
Hamidreza Sabouri 3
1 Associate Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.
2 Ph.D. Candidate in Urban planning, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.
3 Master of Urban Planning, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.
چکیده English

Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: The purpose of this research is to evaluate the indicators of a healthy city in Rasht in and finally to examine the relationships between the indicators of a healthy city, including identifying the most important factors affecting the realization of a healthy city. For this purpose, the city of Rasht has been chosen as a case study in this research.
Methods: The current research is considered an applied research in terms of purpose and, according to the method of answering research questions, it is considered a descriptive-quantitative research. In this study, the information was collected through surveys and documents. In order to investigate and evaluate the indicators of a healthy city, a questionnaire with a 5-level Likert scale was designed. The information obtained from the questionnaires was analyzed and evaluated by SPSS software. First, in order to confirm the accuracy of the questionnaire, the value of Cronbach’s alpha was checked, and this value with a coefficient of 0.913 indicated the very favorable and reliable internal validity of the questionnaire questions. Then, by using binomial tests, Pearson correlation and linear regression test, the findings have been analyzed step by step. The sample size was calculated using Cochran’s formula of 384, according to the population of Rasht in the latest population and the housing census in 2015, that was reported to be 679,995 people.
Findings: According to the average results of the indicators, the “housing quality” index has the highest average value of 3.12. On the other hand, the “organizational-managerial” index has the lowest average among the indices, with an average of 2.52. Also, according to the average results of the research items, the item of “residential unit’s access to facilities such as water, electricity and gas” from the housing quality index has the highest average with a number of 4.15, as well as the item “the existence of special bicycle paths in the place of residence”. The environmental and physical index with an average of 1.93, they have the lowest average among all items. And finally, the average of all items in the current research is equal to 2.86. Then, a step-by-step regression test was used to investigate the relationship between the “health and hygiene” index and other research indicators. At first, by entering the index of “health and sanitation” as a dependent index and 5 other research indices as independent indices, the effective indices identified by this test are entered into the model in order of effect. According to findings, “organization and management” index had the greatest impact on the health and hygiene of the citizens, as it was able to predict 34.4% of the variance share of the “health and hygiene” index alone with a correlation coefficient of 0.586. Also, in the fourth model, where all the effective indicators are included in the model, the model has a correlation coefficient of 0.704, which shows the high correlation between these factors and the health of the citizens; It could form 49.5% of the share of the variance of the “health and sanitation” variable. Finally, only the “economic” index has been removed from the model due to its insignificant effect on the “health and sanitation” index.
Conclusion: Based on the step-by-step regression test, firstly, the “management and organizational” index alone is able to predict 34.4% of the variance share of the “health and hygiene” index. Also, these two indicators have the highest correlation among all the indicators of this research, which indicates the continuity and high influence of these two indicators on each other. Therefore, Rasht’s urban management can place special emphasis on the topic of a healthy city and the health indicators of the citizens in its planning, in order to ultimately improve the health and health status of the city and its citizens. In the next step, the indicators of “housing quality” and then “environmental and physical” have the greatest effect on the health status of citizens, which indicates the importance of physical issues and the quality of life of citizens in addition to environmental issues. But at the last stage, the “social” index has an undeniable effect on the health index. Based on this, it is possible to improve the indicators of a healthy city with proper planning in order to increase interactions between citizens and raise the level of people’s participation in urban affairs and provide a suitable platform for the direct relationship between citizens and city officials to increase two-way interaction between them. The point to be pondered in this research is the exclusion of the economic index from the final model, which shows the insignificant and negligible impact of this index on the health status of the citizens, which indicates that this index has a lower priority than other indices, and can be a suitable subject for future research in this city.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Healthy City
Urban Management
Citizens’ Health
Rasht City
  1. Annerstedt van den Bosch, M., Mudu, P., Uscila, V., Barrdahl, M., Kulinkina, A., Staatsen, B., ... & Egorov, A. I. (2016). Development of an urban green space indicator and the public health rationale. Scandinavian journal of public health, 44(2), 159-167.
  2. Barton, H., & Grant, M. (2011). A review of progress of the European Healthy Cities Programme. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 90(S1), s129-s141.
  3. Barton, H., & Grant, M. (2013). Urban planning for healthy cities. Journal of urban health, 90(1), 129-141.
  4. Boggia, A., Rocchi, L., Paolotti, L., Musotti, F., & Greco, S. (2014). Assessing rural sustainable development potentialities using a dominance-based rough set approach. Journal of environmental management, 144, 160-167.
  5. Butterworth, I. (2000). The relationship between the built environment and wellbeing: a literature review. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.
  6. Corburn, J. (2017). Equitable and healthy city planning: towards healthy urban governance in the century of the city. In Healthy Cities (pp. 31-41). Springer, New York, NY.
  7. Dajian, Z. (2010). Life quality is the uppermost goal of sustainable development, 2010 World Expo and Urban Life Quality in terms of Sustainable Development, china. Zhongshan North.
  8. De Leeuw, E. (2001). Global and local (glocal) health: the WHO healthy cities programme. Global Change and Human Health, 2(1), 34-45.
  9. Donchin, M., Shemesh, A. A., Horowitz, P., & Daoud, N. (2006). Implementation of the Healthy Cities' principles and strategies: an evaluation of the Israel Healthy Cities Network. Health Promotion International, 21(4), 266-273.
  10. Drakakis-Smith, D. (1995). Third world cities: sustainable urban development, 1. Urban studies, 32(4-5), 659-677.
  11. Duhl, L. J. (1986). The healthy city: Its function and its future. Health promotion international, 1(1), 55-60.
  12. Ghorbani, R., Ebrahimpour, A., & Noshad, S. (2012). Motivational modeling in developing of urban fringe recreational places an approach for improving the quality of life case study: Recreational place of Oun-Ebn-Ali, Tabriz, Iran. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 13, 297-306.
  13. Hamidi, A., Salaripour, A., & Hesam, M. (2021). Evaluation of urban management policies in utilizing creative city brand, case study: Rasht city, Iran. Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR)9(2), 439-461. doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2021.314497.1412 [in persian]
  14. Harpham, T., Burton, S., & Blue, I. (2001). Healthy city projects in developing countries: the first evaluation. Health Promotion International, 16(2), pp. 111-125.
  15. Hayward, E., Ibe, C., Young, J. H., Potti, K., Jones, P., Pollack, C. E., & Gudzune, K. A. (2015). Linking social and built environmental factors to the health of public housing residents: a focus group study. BMC public health, 15(1), 1-8.
  16. Heritage, Z., & Dooris, M. (2009). Community participation and empowerment in Healthy Cities. Health Promotion International, 24(suppl_1), i45-i55
  17. Heydari, Asghar; Qolipour, Sara; Abdali, Yaqoub (2015) Review and analysis of healthy city indicators in Kerman city, Second International Earth, Space and Clean Energy Congress, March 18, 2015, University of Tehran, pp. 1-15. [in persian]
  18. Iran Statistics Center (2013), the results of national tourist statistics in the summer of 2013, Country Management and Planning Organization, Iran Statistics Center, Tehran. [in persian]
  19. Jun Young Lee: (2011),” Healthy City Project in Seoul”,International Journal of Urban Sciences, The University of Seoul, Korea, 100-108.
  20. KenarKoohi, E., Azani, M., KhademolHoseiny, A., & Saberi, H. (2020). Explanation of the Impacts of Sociocultural Factors on Achieving Healthy City Pattern Case Study: Behbahan City. Sustainable city3(3), 1-16. doi: 10.22034/jsc.2020.197267.1092 [in persian]
  21. Lawrence, R. J., & Fudge, C. (2009). Healthy Cities in a global and regional context. Health promotion international, 24(suppl_1), i11-i18.
  22. Lee, K. (2006). Global health promotion: how can we strengthen governance and build effective strategies?. Health Promotion International, 21(suppl_1), 42-50.
  23. McCartney, G., Hearty, W., Arnot, J., Popham, F., Cumbers, A., & McMaster, R. (2019). Impact of political economy on population health: a systematic review of reviews. American journal of public health, 109(6), e1-e12.
  24. Mokhtari, A., & Elanloo, M. (2018). Analysis of Healthy City Indicators, Case Study: Imam Khomeini Port City. Geography15(55), 297-320. [in persian]
  25. Mousavi*, S. D., Nazarian, A., Ziari, U., & Mahdavi, M. (2014). Evaluation the Sustainability of Urban Neighborhoods Based on HDI and Morris Area Technique A Case study: Malayer City. , 7(25), 83-110. [in persian]
  26. Nazmfar, H., & Alibakhshi, A. (2018). Measurement the rate of enjoyment Cities of khozestan province In terms of indicators of healthy city. , 11(42), 23-42. [in persian]
  27. Northridge, M. E., Sclar, E. D., & Biswas, P. (2003). Sorting out the connections between the built environment and health: a conceptual framework for navigating pathways and planning healthy cities. Journal of urban health, 80(4), 556-568
  28. Ortega-Álvarez, R., & MacGregor-Fors, I. (2011). Dusting-off the file: A review of knowledge on urban ornithology in Latin America. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101(1), 1-10.
  29. Rahimi, M., & Pazhand, F. (2017). Evaluation Quality of Life Kerman city with the healthy city approach from the perspective of residents. Regional Planning7(25), 69-82. [in persian]
  30. Rößler, S. (2008). Green space development in shrinking cities–opportunities and constraints. Urbani izziv, 19(2), 147-152
  31. Sufi, Ismail; Ziari, Karamatullah; Ahadnejad Roshni, Mohsen; Zamani, Mohsen (2013), A healthy city is a way for the sustainable development of cities, the second specialized congress of urban management in Iran, pp. 32 [in persian]
  32. Tabibian, Manouchehr (2013) Evaluation of the project of Salem city in Iran (case study: Kui 13 Aban), Environmental Science, Volume 20, 61-74. [in persian]
  33. Taylor, M. (2010). The healthy cities movement: Working paper for the Lancet Commission on Healthy Cities. Department of Geography, University College London.
  34. Thompson, C. W., & de Oliveira, E. M. S. (2016). Evidence on health benefits of urban green spaces. In Urban green spaces and health: A review of evidence (pp. 3-20). World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe
  35. Thurston, M. N. (2017). New Public Health, International Encyclopedia of Public Health, 231-239.
  36. Wang, Z., & Zhang, Q. (2014). Fundamental factors in the housing markets of China. Journal of housing economics, 25, 53-61.
  37. WILKINSON, P. (2008). Green space management in Bristol. Urbani Izziv, 19(2), 212-215.
  38. Ziari, Karamat Elah (2009) comparative comparison of the quantitative and qualitative indicators of housing in Babol city with urban areas of the country with confirmation on Salem city, Geographical Research Quarterly, 25(2), 83-116. [in persian]

  • تاریخ دریافت 29 آذر 1400
  • تاریخ بازنگری 18 اسفند 1400
  • تاریخ پذیرش 26 تیر 1401