Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی


1 Kosar University of Bojnord

2 Kharazmi University


Extended Abstract


A city is a dynamic, alive and vibrant entity, rooted in history and nature. The starting point of every city, is the central and historical core, in which the body of the city gradually develops. However, since the beginning of the 20th century, in many cities of the world, the rapid growth of urban constituents in new regions and suburbs has been at the cost of the downfall and decline of their central part. This situation in the central part of the cities has caused physical burnout, decline and then the deterioration of the structure of the neighborhood structure, the migration of the indigenous and original population. This has consequently  resulted  in the drop of the central urban segment, the drop of environmental quality, inefficiency of urban infrastructures and degradation of social life that has led to the spread of urban instability in the central parts of the cities. All these conditions have caused urban livability as a subset of sustainability which directly affects the physical, socioeconomic and psychological aspects of people's lives and includes a collection of environmental acquisition features making it a desirable and attractive place to live, work and visit for everyone to attract the attention of the urbanists and urban planners within the discourse of sustainability and ecological outlook during the last decades.


The present paper has been done with the aim of identifying the status of the livability of the neighborhoods of district 12 Tehran with emphasis on the residents in District 12 and involves the primary and historical cores and old textures of Tehran. This region had a population more than 244000 people in 2015 living in 6 regions and 13 neighborhoods. A number of 383 households were selected as sample dividing by the neighborhood using Cochran formula. They were then questioned by Spatial Cluster method and simple random method in the next stage. The pattern governing the study is “ Evaluating-comparative.” The present study covers six aspects of the urban economy, social, environmental, servicing and infrastructural, urban management and historical within 20 parameters and 94 items. T-Test, ANOVA, TUKEY HSD tests have been used to analyze the findings, and GIS software and its lateral accessories have been used to recognize the spatial pattern of distribution of the dimensions under discussion throughout the district and neighborhoods. The reason for using the interpolation method in the present research is that a total of 383 questionnaires were distributed in the area among the resident citizens. Therefore, as all residential units and citizens had not been questioned, an interpolation method was used, which means determining the value of unknown points by the known points.


In the first step of studying livability, based on the six aspects, T-test single sample was used. Comparing the averages observed in in the aspects with expected averages, showed a significant negative difference in economic, urban management, environment and historical aspects. ANOVA Test and the findings of Post-Hoc ANOVA Test (Tukey HSD) proved that not only there is a significant difference between the status of livability in different neighborhoods of district 12 Tehran, but also this difference between different neighborhoods is to the degree that they can be classified as the worst to the best and neighborhoods with a similar condition can be placed in one category. Based on the findings of this test, Pamenar, Shahid Harandi, Baharestan, Ferdowsi, bazar and Imamzadeh Yahya were placed in one category with undesired condition and |Darvazeh Shemiran, Kosar and Takhti were placed in a homogenous rather desirable condition category and the neighborhoods Iran, Abshar, Sanglaj, and Ghiam were placed in a favored category as compared with standard 282 for livability. Studies in terms of space and preparing the plans resulted by interpolating the points being studied in the region also conform the findings of the tests.


The findings showed that in terms of the six aspects of urban livability, only the aspect of “services and infrastructures” and the “Social” aspect are higher than average and the other four aspects are lower than the average. This study also showed that the spatial pattern of the distribution of livability aspects of district 12 is in Northern- Southern direction. This means that the aspects of livability in the Northern neighborhoods have a better condition as compared to the southern neighborhoods and the neighborhoods with lower livability have been distributed in the southern parts. Furthermore, in the composition and conclusion of the set of aspects studied, the neighborhoods of the region have different situations and conditions. As Sanglaj neighborhood and parts of Pamenar neighborhood (which are located in the east of the region and beyond the power and dominance of the Bazar Bozorg Tehran and government organizations and institutions), in the best situation have the widest possible favorable conditions for livability and the districts Kosar and Shahid Harandi has the most consistent and significant density of undesirable conditions. Generally, based on the parameters of livability considered in this paper, the district 12 and its neighborhoods have a low level and only Sanglaj neighborhood located in the western half of the district is in a rather desirable condition. Therefore, we can say that this district in the central region of Tehran has lost lots of its capacities and capabilities through its historical transformations. Hence, continuing the urban life and livability as the center of this metropolitan requires plans with livability approach adapting with modern urban functions in the scale of Tehran metropolitan.  


1. آذری، ن. (1392). تجربه مدرنیته به روایت فضاهای تجاری شهر تهران، تهران: انتشارات تیسا.
2. پورطاهری، م. (1394). کاربرد روش های تصمیم گیری چند شاخصه در جغرافیا، چاپ پنجم، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
3. جوان فروزنده، ع و مطلب، ق. (1390). مفهوم حس تعلق به مکان و عوامل تشکیل دهنده آن، مجله هویت شهر، (8)، 38-27.
4. خزاعی نژاد، ف. (1394). تحلیل زیست پذیری بخش مرکزی شهر تهران (مورد پژوهش: محله های منطقه 12)، رساله دکتری، دانشکده علوم جغرافیایی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.
5. روحی، م. (1381). بررسی تحولات کالبدی بخش مرکزی شهر تهران با تاکید بر تغییرات کاربری اراضی مورد مطالعه: منطقه 11، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.
6. زنگانه، ا. (1392). تبیین پژمردگی شهری در منطقه 12 شهر تهران، رساله دکتری، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
7. سلیمانی مهرنجانی، م. تولایی، س. رفیعیان، م. زنگانه، ا.، و خزاعی نژاد، ف. (1395). زیست پذیری شهری: مفهوم، اصول، ابعاد و شاخص ها، مجله پژوهش های جغرافیایی برنامه ریزی شهری، دانشگاه تهران، (5)، 50-27.
8. سیف الدینی، ف. (1379). گسترش حومه ای شهرها، فصلنامه تحقیقات جغرافیایی، (59-58)، 212-200.
9. فاضل نیا، غ. حکیم دوست، ی.، و بلیانی، ی. (1393). راهنمای جامع مدل های کاربردی GIS در برنامه ریزی های شهری، روستایی و محیطی، چاپ سوم، جلد اول، تهران: انتشارات آزادپیما.
10. فلامکی، م.م. (1389). باززنده سازی بناها و شهرهای تاریخی، چاپ هشتم، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
11. کلانتری، م. قصری، م. جباری، م. قزلباش، س. (1392). بررسی جغرافیایی جرایم در بخش مرکزی شهرها(مورد مطالعه: بزه قاچاق و سوء مصرف مواد مخدر در بخش مرکزی شهر تهران)، فصلنامه تحقیقات جغرافیایی، (102)، 32-13.
12. کوکبی، ا. پورجعفر، م.ر.، و تقوایی، ع. ا. (1384). برنامه ریزی کیفیت زندگی شهری در مراکز شهری تعاریف و شاخص ها، جستارهای شهرسازی، (12)، 13-6.
13. مرکز آمار ایران. (1395). سرشماری عمومی نفوس و مسکن، تهران: مرکز آمار ایران.
14. مهندسان مشاور باوند الف. (1381). بررسی مسائل توسعه شهری منطقه 12 تهران؛ مطالعات کاربری زمین، معاونت شهرسازی و معماری شهرداری تهران.
15. مهندسان مشاور باوند ب. (1381). بررسی مسائل توسعه شهری منطقه 12 تهران؛ مطالعات جمعیتی، اقتصادی و اجتماعی، معاونت شهرسازی و معماری شهرداری تهران.
16. مهندسان مشاور باوند ج. (1381). بررسی مسائل توسعه شهری منطقه 12 تهران؛ مطالعات مسکن، معاونت شهرسازی و معماری شهرداری تهران.
17. Andrews-Clinton, J. (2001). Analyzing Quality-of-Place. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 28(2), 201-217.
18. Faiz, A., Faiz, A., Wang, W., & Bennet, Ch. (2012). Sustainable rural roads for livelihoods and livability, Journal Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, (53), 1-8.
19. Jacobs, A., & Appleyard, D. (1987). Toward an Urban Design Manifesto.American Planning Jounal, 53(1),112-120.
20. Larice, M. (2005). Great neighborhoods: The Livability and morphology of High density neighborhoods in Urban North America, Doctor of Philosophy in City and Regional Planning, University Of California, Berkeley, Professor Michael Southworth.
21. Lennard, H. L. (1997). Principles for the Livable City, International Making Cities Livable Conferences, California, USA: Gondolier Press.
22. Lynch, K .(1961). image of the city. Cambridge ma, USA: MIT press.
23. Lynch, K .(1981). Good city form. Cambridge ma, USA: MIT press.
24. Myers, D. (1988). Building K now ledge about Quality of Life for Urban Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 54(3), 347-358.
25. Rogerson, R. (1999). Quality of Life and City Competitiveness, Urban Studies, 36(5), 969-985.
26. Salzano, E. (1997). Seven Aims for the Livable City, International Making Cities Livable Conferences. California, USA: Gondolier Press.
27. Throsby, D. (2005), cultural heritage as financial asset in strategies for urban development and poverty alleviation, international conference for integrating urban knowledge & practice, Gothenburg Sweden, 2-14.