شهر انسانی: رویکرد مطالعاتی جدید برای ارزیابی زیست‌پذیری؛ نمونه موردی: منطقه 22 کلان‌شهر تهران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران.

2 استاد، گروه جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه پیام نور ، تهران، ایران.

چکیده
زیست‌پذیری یکی از اصول راهنمای اصلی برنامه‌ریزی و سیاست‌گذاری شهری است که تعریف و ارزیابی آن به موضوع حیاتی پژوهش تبدیل شده است. همان‌طور که پیشرفت در توسعه اجتماعی-اقتصادی شتاب می‌گیرد، شرایط زندگی در مقیاس خرد نیاز به توجه فوری بیشتری دارد. تاریخ نسبتاً کوتاه مطالعات انجام شده در رابطه با زیست‌پذیری جوامع شهری نشان می‌دهد این مفهوم به علت گستره معنایی قابلیت این را دارد که با رویکردهای متفاوت و متنوعی مورد مطالعه و بررسی قرار بگیرد. پژوهش حاضر با هدف وضعیت‌ستجی زیست‌پذیری منطقه 22 کلان‌شهر تهران با رویکرد شهر انسانی انجام گرفته است. نوشتار حاضر از ازنظر هدف کاربردی و از حیث روش بررسی توصیفی- تحلیلی است. داده‌ها و اطلاعات موردنیاز پژوهش، به دو روش اسنادی (کتابخانه‌ای) و میدانی (پرسشنامه) گردآوری ‌شده است. نتایج پژوهش حاضر نشان داد که زیست‌پذیری منطقه 22 پایین‌تر‌ از حد متوسط است و محله‌ها از لحاظ زیست‌پذیری با رویکرد شهر انسانی در شرایط یکسان و همگونی قرار ندارند. در این بین، محله‌‌های دریاچه شهدای خلیج فارس، گلستان و زیبادشت به ترتیب با کسب بیشترین امتیاز ماباک (0/220)، (0/188) و (0/222) در جایگاه اول تا سوم و در مقابل مناطق هوانیروز، سروآزاد و شریف با کسب کمترین امتیاز ماباک (0/103-)، (0/136-) و (0/203) در جایگاه دهم تا دوازدهم قرار گرفتند. دربین ابعاد زیست‌پذیری بیشترین میزان شکاف در بعد کالبدی و کمترین برای بعد زیست‌محیطی است. فضای غالب زیست‌پذیری با رویکرد شهر انسانی بر محله‌های منطقه 22 در وضعیت متوسط و نامطلوب قرار دارد. به‌طوری که 16درصد مناطق در خوشه قابل قبول، 17درصد در خوشه قابل تحمل، 25درصد در خوشه متوسط، 25درصد در خوشه نامطلوب و 17درصد در خوشه غیرقابل قبول قرار گرفته بودند. مقدم بودن شهرنشینی بر شهرسازی، عدم شکل‌گیری کامل ساختار و سازمان فضایی، عدم توزیع نامناسب خدمات مسکونی، عدم تحقق‌پذیری کاربری‌های خدماتی و ابتناء به توسعه خودرو محور منطقه 22 در تقابل با توسعه انسان محور ، زیست‌پذیری آن‌را به سوی شرایط نامطلوبی سوق داده است.

چکیده تصویری

شهر انسانی: رویکرد مطالعاتی جدید برای ارزیابی زیست‌پذیری؛ نمونه موردی: منطقه 22 کلان‌شهر تهران

تازه های تحقیق

- کاربست رویکرد شهر انسانی به رویکرد جدید مطالعاتی برای سنجش و ارزیابی زیست­‌پذیری.
- توسعه نامتوازن و خودرومحور در منطقه ۲۲ باعث از بین رفتن ویژگی‌های شهر انسان‌محور مانند پیاده‌محوری، انسجام اجتماعی، امنیت و مفهوم همسایگی شده است.
- ارتقای زیست‌پذیری و تحقق شهر انسان‌محور در منطقه ۲۲ نیازمند مشارکت فعال و مسئولانه ساکنین در فرآیندهای برنامه‌ریزی شهری است تا از طریق تقویت احساس تعلق و مسئولیت جمعی، مفهوم شهروندی واقعی محقق شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

The human city: a new research approach for livability assessment; Case study: District 22 of Tehran Metropolis

نویسندگان English

Majid Akbari 1
Esmaeil Aliakbari 2
1 Ph.D. in Geography and Urban Planning, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Professor, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

Extended Abstract
Objectives and Background: In recent years, District 22 of Tehran has undergone significant transformations due to the city's expansion. Many residents from other areas have chosen this district as a preferable place to live, seeking distance from pollution. However, rapid development has brought numerous issues to the area, such as inadequate public transportation, high population density, density-selling violations, real estate speculation, uncontrolled construction, high-rise developments, water shortages, low service per capita service levels, limited access to central Tehran, a stagnant business environment, high migration rates, and weak social ties within newly developed communities. These challenges have progressively impacted the district's livability. Examining District 22’s development pattern over the past four decades reveals a marked inflation of decision-making processes, indicating a reliance more on market-driven growth than on sustainable urban planning models. As a result, car-oriented development has become the norm, exacerbating environmental and social problems. In light of this situation, the question of District 22's livability and its future is critical. Addressing this complexity requires adopting new, complementary paradigms and approaches—particularly those emphasizing human-centered urban development. The concept of the "human-centered city" offers a comprehensive framework to enhance livability and promote sustainable growth in District 22. This study thus assesses the livability status of District 22 using this approach, aiming to address urban challenges through sustainable, human-centered development strategies.
Methods: This research is applied in purpose and uses a descriptive-analytical approach in methodology. Data and information were collected through both bibliographic and field (questionnaire) methods. The statistical population includes the residents of the 12 neighborhoods within District 22 of Tehran metropolis, with a sample size of 383 individuals determined using Cochran’s formula at a 95% confidence level and assuming maximum heterogeneity (p = q = 0.5). A simple probabilistic sampling method, known for its scientific value, was applied to select the sample. The content and face validity of the questionnaire were confirmed by experts, and its reliability was calculated using Cronbach's alpha, resulting in a reliability score of 87%. Sampling was conducted in two stages. Initially, proportional allocation sampling was employed to distribute the sample across the target population, considering the overall characteristics and diversity of the study area. Accordingly, a percentage of questionnaires was assigned to each neighborhood in District 22 based on its population share. In the second stage, due to the complexity of the target population, random sampling was used to select residential units.Various conceptualizations of livability indicate that no universally accepted measurement approach exists. However, most studies focus on subjective livability perceptions, typically assessed through social surveys or questionnaires. In this study, the behavioral geography perspective was employed to evaluate the livability of Tehran's District 22 using a human-centered urban approach. Therefore, a researcher-made questionnaire was designed to measure residents' subjective perspectives across four main dimensions- economic, social, physical, and environmental- using 76 items. For data analysis, tests such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, one-sample T-test, ANOVA, and path analysis were conducted using SPSS software. Additionally, Shannon’s entropy and the MABAC (Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison) model were used to rank the neighborhoods within District 22.
Findings: The results revealed that the status of this district concerning the studied subject is below average. The neighborhoods of Lake Shohadaye Khalij Fars (Persian Gulf), Golestan, and Zibadasht ranked first to third with the highest scores for livability under the human-centered city approach. Sharif, Havanirouz, Sarvazad, and Sharif neighborhoods ranked tenth to twelfth with the lowest scores for livability. Among livability dimensions, the greatest gap was observed in the physical aspect while the least gap was found in environmental aspects. Overall livability conditions across neighborhoods in District 22 were rated as average to poor: %16 were classified as acceptable clusters; 17% as tolerable; 25% as average; another %25 as poor; and 17% as unacceptable clusters.Based on these findings, it can be concluded that factors contributing to livability issues in District 22 stem from its continuous development without adequate attention to improving necessary amenities and services for residents. Studies indicate that this area has been significantly impacted by decision-making inflation that prioritizes market demand over logical planning aligned with sustainable urban development models—effectively placing control in the hands of land speculators rather than focusing on local services and amenities.This lack of facilities and supporting infrastructure has resulted in income and employment for many residents being located outside District 22. Additionally, economic sanctions have exacerbated financial burdens on families due to insufficient amenities (for instance, over 50 thousand educational trips are made daily from District 22 to Region 5). Consequently, economic participation rates in this district dropped from %39 in 2011 to %37.1 in 2016. The social fabric predominantly consists of middle-income groups engaged mainly in service-related occupations.
Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that the current urban sprawl and unbalanced growth in District 22 of Tehran do not align with the principles of human-centered cities, such as social cohesion, walkability, safety, neighborhood connections, and community spirituality. The development of new areas within the district (such as Sharif University Town, Sarv-e Azad, and Havanirouz) has largely prioritized vehicular traffic over urban plans, diminishing the region's social and human-centered urban identity. High rates of migration, poor connectivity between residents of high-rise complexes and surrounding neighborhoods, limited security infrastructure, and fragmented functional identities have led to decreased social cohesion and a decline in the quality of public spaces, especially in newly developed areas. Additionally, the incomplete spatial structure and reliance on highways hinder the formation of streets as social spaces, discouraging human presence and social interaction in these areas. For District 22 to evolve into a human-centered and livable area, it is essential to encourage active citizen involvement alongside urban planners and policymakers. Achieving livability with a human-centered approach requires optimizing various forms of social participation, a crucial element in building human-centered cities.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Livability
Human City
Sustainable Development
Neighborhood
District 22 of Tehran Metropolis
  1. Abizadeh, S., & Akbari, M. (2023). Rereading the Ontological Areas of Livability (Livability is a "Dominant Category of Urban Discourse"). Urban Planning Knowledge, 6(4), 1-21.  [In Persian] https://doi: 10.22124/upk.2023.22773.1798
  2. Akbari, M. (2022). Presenting the livability model of the 22nd district of Tehran metropolis with a human city approach, doctoral dissertation in the field of geography and urban planning, supervisor: Dr. Ismail Ali Akbari, Faculty of Social Sciences, Payam Noor University Graduate Studies, Tehran, Iran.  [In Persian].
  3. Akbari, M., Bostan Ahmadi, V., Mousavi, S. C., and Hajipour, N. (2018). Evaluation of the livability of Shiraz metropolitan areas from the citizens' point of view. Welfare Planning and Social Development, 10(37), 124-154.  [In Persian]. https://doi: 10.22054/qjsd.2018.9899
  4. Ali Akbari, E., and Akbari, M. (2017). Interpretive structural modeling of factors affecting the livability of Tehran metropolis. Space planning and design, 21(1), 1-31 [In Persian].
  5. Ali Akbari, E., Morsoosi, N., and Akbari, M. (2020). Pathology of research on livability at the scale of Iranian metropolises, Quarterly Journal of Geography and Regional Urban Planning, 28(106), 65-97. https://doi: 10.22111/gaij.2020.5454
  6. Ali Akbari, E., Morsoosi, N., and Akbari, M. (2021). Designing a model of factors affecting the livability of Iran's megacities with metacomposite method, Majles and Strategy Quarterly, 10(35), 106-85. 28(106), 65-97. https://doi: 10.22034/mr.2021.452
  7. Al-Thani, S. K., Amato, A., Koç, M. and Al-Ghamdi, S. G. (2019). Urban Sustainability and Livability: An Analysis of Doha’s Urban-form and Possible Mitigation StrategiesSustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, 11(3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030786
  8. Andrews, C. (2001). Analyzing quality of place, Journal of Environment and planning, planning and design, V. 28 (2), 201-217. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2714
  9. Arvin, M., Farhadikhah, H., Pourahmad, A., and Moniri, E. (2018). Evaluation of urban livability indicators based on residents' perception (case example: Ahvaz city), Urban Planning Knowledge, 2(2), 1-17 [In Persian]. https://doi: 10.22124/upk.2018.8718.1003
  10. Balsas, Carlos.J. L (2004). Measuring the livability of an urban center. An exploratory study of key performance indicators planning, practice and research, 19(1), 101-110. https://doi/full/10.1080/0269745042000246603?needAccess=true
  11. Bandarabad, A. (2020). comparative analysis of the effect of city form on environmental components of livability in selected areas of Tehran, Architecture and Sustainable Urban Development, 8(1), 151-163 [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22061/jsaud.2019.4849.1415
  12. Bandarabad, A. (2011). Livable city from basics to meaning, Azarakhsh Publications, Tehran. P. 192 [In Persian].
  13. Bandarabad, A., and Ahmadinejad, F. (2014). Evaluation of quality of life indicators with emphasis on livable city principles in Tehran's 22nd district, Urban Research and Planning Quarterly, 5(16), 55-74 [In Persian].
  14. Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2020). Smart Eco-City Strategies and Solutions for Sustainability: The Cases of Royal Seaport, Stockholm, and Western Harbor, Malmö, Sweden. Urban Science, 4(11), 1–42. doi.org/10.3390/urbansci4010011
  15. Daviran, E. (2020). Assessing the livability of urban contexts with an emphasis on social sustainability (case study: informal settlements in Hamadan city), Urban Social Geography, 7(1), 47-64 [In Persian]. https://doi: 10.22103/JUSG.2020.2004
  16. Davodi, M., Khadim Al-Hosseini, A., Sabri, H., Gandhamkar, A., and Mahkoui, H. (2021). Investigating the mechanisms of municipal intervention in the livability of cities (case study: Ahvaz city), New Perspectives in Human Geography Quarterly, 13(2), 662-642  [In Persian].
  17. Douglass, M. (1998). A regional network strategy for reciprocal rural- urban linkages, TWPR, 20(1), pp 1-33.
  18. Doulatshah, S., Sarwar, R., and Tawakolan, A. (2021). an analysis of livability indicators with the right to city approach, case study: Bandar Mahshahr, New Perspectives in Human Geography Quarterly, 13(3), 110-131.
  19. Elsawy, A. A., Ayad, Hany, M., and Saadallah, D. (2019). Assessing livability of residential streets – Case study: El-Attarin, Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 58(2), 745-755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.06.005
  20. Ghanbari, M., Ajza Shekohi, M., Rahnama, M. R., and Kharazmi, O. A. (2017). Liveability of Mashhad Metropolis based on Health Index, Journal of Gorgan University of Medical Sciences, 20(4), 97-107 [In Persian]
  21. Ghasemi, I. (2019). The consequences of Corona on the city and future urban planning, Journal of Social Impact Assessment, 1(2), 253-227 [In Persian].
  22. Goudarzi, H., yousefi, S., & latifi, O. (2019). Analysis of the livability of urban neighborhoods for sustainable development in the 22nd district of Tehran municipality.. Geography and Human Relationships, 2(3), 320-334 [In Persian].
  23. Gough, M. Z. (2015). Reconciling Livability and Sustainability: Conceptual and Practical Implications for Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(2), 145–160.  
  24. Hatami-Nejad, H., Madanlu Joibari, M., and Akhwan Heydari, K. (2019). Spatial analysis of physical livability of Ahvaz metropolis. Physical Development Planning, 16(13), 11-23 [In Persian]. https://doi: 10.30473/psp.2019.5828
  25. Hekmati A, Joodaki H, Ziari Y. (2023). Urban Livability in District 22 of Tehran City, Iran. GeoRes, 38 (2), 143-150 [In Persian] doi: 10.58209/geores..38.2.143
  26. Heylen, K. (2006). Liveability in social housing: Three case-studies in Flanders. Paper presented at the ENHR conference "Housing in an expanding Europe: Theory, policy, participation and implementation", Retrieved from http://web.usm.my/jcdc/input/JCDC%20Vol%2015%281%29/JCDC%20Vol%2015%20%281%29%20ART%204%20%2867-91%29.pdf
  27. Holt-Jensen, A. (2001). Individual relational space in deprived urban neighbourhoods. Paper presented at ENHR conference, 25–29 June, 2001, Pultusk, Poland. http://www. nhh.no/geo/NEHOM/publications/ENHR%20Warsawa%202001.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2006).
  28. Howley, P., Mark, S., and Declan, R. (2009). Sustainability versus Liveability: An Investigation of Neighbourhood Satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52 (6), 847–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560903083798
  29. Iran Statistics Center (2016). Population and housing census of 2015  [In Persian].
  30. Kashef, M. (2016). Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 5(2), 239–253
  31. Kazemian, G. R., Rasouli, Af., and Khazaei, M, M, (2017). The place of new and renewable energies in making cities livable (case study: Tehran), Urban Research and Planning Quarterly, 8(29), 118-99  [In Persian].
  32. Kenworthy, J. (2006). The Eco City: Ten Key Transport and Planning Dimensions for Sustainable City Development, Environment and urbanization, 18(1), 67–85. https://doi: 10.1177/0956247806063947
  33. Khazai-nejad, F. (2014). Analysis of livability in the central part of Tehran city, subject of research: neighborhoods of District 12, PhD thesis, Department of Geography, University: Kharazmi  [In Persian].
  34. Khazai-Nejad, F., Soleimani Mehranjani, M., and Zanganeh, A. (2018). evaluation of livability of neighborhoods in district 12 of Tehran. Quarterly Journal of Geography and Urban Development, 5(1), 45-70  [In Persian]. doi.org/10.22067/gusd.v5i1.65128
  35. Krasny, M. E., Tidball, K. G. (2012). Civic ecology: A pathway for Earth Stewardship in cities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(5), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1890/110230
  36. Leby, L., Jasmine, H., and Hariza, A. (2010). Liveability Dimensions and Attributes: Their Relative Importance in the Eyes of Neighbourhood Residents, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 15(1), 67–91. 
  37. Lennard, S., and Lennard, H. (1995). Livable cities observed. Southampton: Gondolier Press.
  38. Litman, T. (2007). Developing indicators for Comprehensive and Transport Planning. Transportation Research Record 2017, 10–15. https://doi.org/10.3141/2017-02
  39. Mitchell, G. (2005). Components that Contribute to Quality of Life. Environment Centre, University of Leeds, England.
  40. Motieyan, H., and Azmoudeh, M. (2021). evaluation of land use mix at the level of urban roads with the help of spatial analysis and Gini coefficient method. Geography and Environmental Sustainability, 10(4), 5844-2308 [In Persian]. https://doi: 10.22126/ges.2021.5844.2308
  41. Mouratidis, K. (2020). Commute satisfaction, neighborhood satisfaction, and housing satisfaction as predictors of subjective well-being and indicators of urban livability. Travel Behaviour and Society, 21(1), 265–278. doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.006
  42. Paul, A., and Sen, J. (2020). A critical review of liveability approaches and their dimensions. Vol 117, 90-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.09.008
  43. Radcliff, B. (2001). Politics, markets and life satisfaction: The Political economy of human happiness, American Political Science Review, Vol 95(4), 939-955.
  44. Redaei, M., Salehi, E., Faradi, S., Masnavi, M. R., and Zabardast, L. (2020). Compilation of the rules of ecological rationality in planning the regeneration of the livability of desert city neighborhoods (case study: Yazd city). Urban structure and function studies, 7(25), 193-219  [In Persian]. https://doi: 10.22080/usfs.2020.17205.1867
  45. Ruth, M., & Franklin, R. S. (2014). Livability for all? Conceptual limits and practical implications. Applied Geography, 49, 18–23. doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.018
  46. Safari, F., and Nazm Far, H. (2023). Measuring the livability of urban areas with an emphasis on the environmental dimension (case study of Region 3 of Ardabil city). Environmental Science Studies, 8(1), 6220-6228 [In Persian]. https://doi: 10.22034/jess.2022.367177.1897
  47. Saidi Rezvani, H., and Kashmiri, M. (2012). In search of a justice-centered city: debates in urban theory and experience, Shahr Publications  [In Persian].
  48. Saitluanga, B.L. (2014). Spatial pattern of urban livability in Himalayan Region: A case of Aizawl City. India. Soc. Indic. Res. 117 (2), 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0362-3
  49. Salari Moghadam, Z., Zibari, K., and Hatami-nejad, H. (2019). measuring and evaluating the livability of urban neighborhoods, a case study: district 15 of Tehran metropolis. Sustainable City Quarterly, 2(3), 41-58 [In Persian]. https://doi: 10.22034/jsc.2019.195019.1073
  50. Setijanti, P., Defiana, I., Setyawan, W., Silas, J., Firmaningtyas, S., Ernawati, R (2015). Traditional Settlement Livability in Creating Sustainable Living. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, V. 179, 204–211. doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.423
  51. Stein, E .K. (2002). Communityand Quality of Life, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
  52. Stevens, Q. (2009). Broken’ public spaces in theory and in practice. In Town Planning Review (TPR), 80 (4-5), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2009.3
  53. Stuve, E. (2018). Livability in dense urban areas – an investigation of the built environment and residents’ perceived living quality, Master’s Thesis Urban and regional planning, supervisor Jin Xue, Faculty of landscape and society, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, May 2018.
  54. Taleshi Anbohi, M., Aghaizadeh, E., and Jafari Mehrabadi, M. (2019). Assessment of livability in dilapidated urban tissues (case study: Qazvin city area), Shahr Padayar Quarterly, 2(3), 59-78 [In Persian]. https://doi: 10.22034/jsc.2019.195007.1072
  55. Timmer, V. and Seymoar N. K. (2005). The Livable City. World Urban Forum 2006 for Sustainable Cities. Vancouver Working Grp Discussion Paper. Inter. Center. Canada.
  56. Van Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman, G., and de Hollander, A. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human well-being Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 5-18.
  57. Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life. Ordering concepts and measures of the good life Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010072010360
  58. Veysi Nab, B., Babaei Aghdam, F., and Ghorbani, R. (2019). Identifying and prioritizing factors related to the economic dimension of urban livability (case study: Tabriz metropolis), Urban Planning Geography Research Quarterly, 7(1), 127-149 [In Persian]. https://doi: 10.22059/jurbangeo.2019.271201.1020
  59. Wang, Y., Miao, Z. (2022). Towards the analysis of urban livability in China: spatial–temporal changes, regional types, and influencing factors. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20092-6
  60. Wheeler, S. M. (2014). Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable and Ecological Communities. New York: Routledge.
  61. Yurui, L., Luyin, Q., Qianyi, W., and Karácsonyi, D. (2020). Towards the evaluation of rural livability in China: Theoretical framework and empirical case study. Habitat International, 105, 102241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102241
  62. Zanella, A., Camanho, A. S., Dias, T. G. (2015). The assessment of cities’ livability integrating human wellbeing and environmental impact. Annals of Operations Research, 226(1), 695–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1666-7
  63. Zarafshan, A., Pourmohammadi, M.R., Nasiri, E., and Mousa Kazemi, S. M. (2019). A comparative study of human-centered neighborhoods with an emphasis on pedestrian-oriented components and land use mixing (a case study of traditional, modern, and automobile contexts in Tabriz metropolis), Scientific Journal of Geography and Planning, 24(71), 173-199 [In Persian]. https://doi: 10.22034/gp.2020.10536

  • تاریخ دریافت 07 آذر 1402
  • تاریخ بازنگری 08 اردیبهشت 1403
  • تاریخ پذیرش 17 تیر 1403