Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی


Ferdowsi University of Mashhad


Extended Abstract


Today, one of the important issues in urban areas is accessibility. Accessibility is defined as the ability to achieve a variety of activities and services within a reasonable time. This concept is highly dependent on the city's spatial form, access network, type of travel and form of travel, and it is determined by the land use pattern, the nature of the transportation system, and the characteristics of travelers. Of the various transportation options, public transportation is a key component of sustainable transport system. To have a better performance, it should provide access to the core services and activities safely for different classes. In this respect, the present study intends to investigate the role of the light rail transit (LRT) system in Mashhad in accessible hospitals as the main type of health care services. To meet the goals of the study, the questions raised are as follows:

How is the spatial distribution of income groups in urban districts of Mashhad?
How is the shortest distance traveled by the income groups of the districts to the nearest LRT station?
How can access to urban hospitals be made more equitable through LRT for the groups in the all city districts?
Review of Literature

The easiest definition of accessibility is how easy to achieve a specific location. A strong aspect of the concept of accessibility is that it combines land-use and transportation-related features in a simple and unique criterion. Meanwhile, transportation is considered as a tool for having attractive destinations and the location of attractions determines that people use transportation to reach their destinations. If gravity position is close to a place where public transportation is more accessible than private transportation, it is more likely that people will travel through public transportation. In addition, if land use density is higher than public transportation, performance would be more durable in that area. Furthermore, it is usually accepted that encouraging more public transportation than cars and promoting high density land use can help to maintain a more sustainable environment.


The research method is of descriptive-analytic type. The necessary data have been collected using library methods, documents and GIS. The statistical population of the study is the population of all income groups of the Mashhad metropolis distributed in 43 districts of the municipality. The statistical population of the study is the population of all income groups of the Mashhad metropolis dispersed in 43 districts of the municipality. In order to analyze the data, the network analysis was used in the GIS package and the Hansen's Access Model (Formula 1).

Results and Discussion

The income groups of Mashhad are classified under five classes of very low to high income, which are dispersed in 43 urban districts. Nearly 50% of the population of the Mashhad metropolitan is in low to moderate income groups. The largest group is the middle income group with 27.49% of the total population of the city, while the smallest is the very high income group with 11.46% of the total urban population.
In general, 68.97% of the total population of the city, which are located in 32 municipalities, ranges from very low to moderate distances of LRT stations (0-600 meters), mostly including the middle income group (more than 40% of the population of this group in short and very short distances) and very low income group (more than 55% of the population in the middle distance) respectively. Of the total population of city, 31.03% are located at a very large distance (601 - +800 meters) of the nearest LRT stations, which are mostly included in the middle income group.
The measurement of the spatial accessibility of areas to hospitals through LRT shows that of 43 municipal districts, 13 districts (30.23%) have moderate to very high access, whereas the LRT routes and the concentrate of hospitals (mostly with high stretch degrees) are seen as possibly close and there is less distance to reach the hospitals. Access is lower than the average in 30 districts (69.77%). The assessment of access scores based on income groups also shows that generally only 22.25% of the total urban population has moderate to very high access, which mostly includes a moderate and high income groups. While 77.65% of the population is at low and very low levels of access to hospitals, most of them include high and very low income groups.


As for considering fair space accessibility to hospitals as the most important health care services for all income groups of the community, findings of the research indicate that the existing and predicted LRT system is ineffective. Thus, the spatial imbalance of access could be seen among the population of each income group. In order to improve the performance of this system in terms of more equitable access to hospital health services, some suggestions are made in the following:

The distance to LRT system for those districts and income groups that are far from the system should be expanded through the forecasting and launching of new routes (in addition to the current 4 routes) so that communication with the hospitals within the city will be fairer for its inhabitants.
Hospitals with a low degree of stretch should also be added to their capacity if possible, and also be adjacent to the four LRT routes.
If there are plans for the construction of new hospitals in the field of their location, special attention should be paid to the existing infrastructure (Line 1 and Phase I of line 2) and the predicted infrastructure of LRT (Phase II line 2, line 3 and line 4).



1. اداره کل میراث فرهنگی، صنایع دستی و گردشگری استان خراسان رضوی. (1396). گزارش سیمای میراث فرهنگی، صنایع دستی و گردشگری خراسان رضوی. مشهد: اداره کل میراث فرهنگی، صنایع دستی و گردشگری استان خراسان رضوی
2. امیرفخریان، م. (1387). طرح مطالعات دسترسی. مشهد: پژوهشکده جهاد دانشگاهی مشهد.
3. پور احمد، ا.، حاجی شریفی، آ.، و کیانفر، ک. (1391). محله و حمل و نقل عمومی؛ کارآیی سیستم حمل و نقل در محلات مدائن و هفت حوض تهران. مجله منظر، 18(4)، 95-89.
4. جاودانی ایرانی‌نژاد، م. (1394). آمارنامه شهر مشهد 1393، مشهد: معاونت برنامه ریزی و توسعه شهرداری مشهد با نظارت مدیریت آمار، تحلیل و ارزیابی عملکرد.
5. داداش پور، ه.، و رستمی، ف. (1390). سنجش عدالت فضایی یکپارچه خدمات عمومی شهری براساس توزیع جمعیت، قابلیت دسترسی و کارایی در شهر یاسوج. مطالعات و پژوهش های شهری و منطقه ای، 3 (10)، 22-1.
6. دفتر مطالعات و برنامه ریزی حمل و نقل (1392). نهمین آمارنامه حمل و نقل شهر مشهد پاییز1391، مشهد: سازمان حمل و نقل و ترافیک شهر مشهد.
7. رهنما، م. ح.، و صباغی آبکوه، ش. ( اسفند 1393)، سنجش ظرفیت توسعه در امتداد کریدورهای حمل و نقل عمومی، الگویی نو در ساماندهی کلانشهرها (مطالعه موردی، کریدورهای قطار شهری مشهد). تهران: همایش تمرکززدایی و ساماندهی پایتخت.
8. رهنما، م. ر.، و آقاجانی، ح. (1392). تحلیل شاخص دسترسی در کلانشهر مشهد. مجله جغرافیا و توسعه ناحیه ای، 20 (11)، 58-43.
9. رهنما، م. ر.، و ذبیحی، ج. (1390). تحلیل توزیع تسهیلات عمومی شهری در راستای عدالت فضایی با مدل یکپارچه دسترسی در مشهد، فصلنامه جغرافیا و توسعه، 23(9)، 26-5.
10. زیاری، ک.، منوچهری، ا.، محمدپور، ص.، و ابراهیم پور، ا. (1390). ارزیابی سیستم حمل ونقل عمومی (BRT) شهر تبریز با استفاده از رویکردتحلیل عوامل استراتژیک (SWOT). دو فصلنامه مدیریت شهری، 27 (9)، 98-79.
11. سلطانی، ع.، و فلاح‌منشادی، ا. (1391). یکپارچگی سیستم حمل و نقل، راهکاری در جهت دستیابی به حمل و نقل پایدار (مطالعه موردی: کلانشهر شیراز)، مطالعات شهری، 5 (2)، 60-47.
12. شاهنوشی، ن. (اسفند 1385). تعیین سطح توسعه یافتگی نواحی شهر مشهد مقدس، مشهد: کنفرانس برنامه ریزی و مدیریت شهری مشهد، شهرداری مشهد.
13. شرکت قطار شهری مشهد و حومه (1392).
14. صباغی آبکوه، شیرین. (1396). آینده‌پژوهی توسعه کلانشهر مشهد با رویکرد توسعه کریدوری و حمل‌ونقل-محور (مورد مطالعه: کریدورهای ریلی). رساله جهت اخذ مدرک دکتری. مشهد: دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.
15. طالعی، م.، مسگری، م. س.، و شریفی، علی. (1388). توسعه الگوریتم مکانی ریزدانه جهت ارزیابی میزان دسترسی به خدمات شهری. نشریه دانشکده فنی، 43 (4)، 454-441.
16. عمران زاده، ب.، قرخلو، م.، و پوراحمد، احمد. (1389). ارزیابی و تحلیل کارآیی سامانه حمل و نقل BRT و رضایت عمومی از آن در کلانشهر تهران. پژوهش های جغرافیای انسانی، 73، 38-19.
17. فغفوریان، م. (1390). برنامه ریزی راهبردی توسعه حمل و نقل محور (TOD) در بهبود استفاده از اراضی شهری (نمونه موردی ایستگاه مترو صادقیه). تهران: یازدهمین کنفرانس بین المللی مهندسی حمل و نقل و ترافیک.
18. کردنائیچ، ا.، و مختاری موغاری، ع. (1390). استقرار، بهبود و توسعه اتوبوس های تندرو (BRT) راه حلی برای کاهش ترافیک کلانشهرها. فصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت ترافیک، 20 (6)، 82-59.
19. معاونت برنامه‌ریزی و نظارت راهبردی مرکز آمار ایران (1395)، سرشماری عمومی نفوس و مسکن 1395، تهران: مرکز آمار ایران.
20. معاونت مطالعات و برنامه‌ریزی سازمان حمل‌ونقل و ترافیک شهرداری مشهد. (1395). دوازدهمین آمارنامه حمل و نقل شهر مشهد. مشهد: معاونت مطالعات، برنامه‌ریزی و بازرسی سازمان حمل و نقل و ترافیک شهرداری مشهد.
21. نورالهی، ح.، و برکپور، ن. (1393). ارزیابی آثار احداث سیستم ریلی درون شهری بر کیفیت محیط شهری، مطالعه موردی: خط یک قطار شهری مشهد. مهندسی حمل و نقل، 5 (3)، 412-393.
22. یوسفی، ع. (1388). طرح سامانه اجتماعی- فرهنگی شهر مشهد. مشهد: معاونت اجتماعی و فرهنگی شهرداری مشهد.
23. Athas, W. F., Adams-Cameron, M., Hunt, W. C., Amir-Fazli, A., & Key, C. R. (2000). Travel distance to radiation therapy and receipt of radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 92(3), 269-271.
24. Bhat, C., Handy, S., Kockelman, K., Mahmassani, H., Chen, Q., & Weston, L. (2000). Development of an urban accessibility index: Literature review. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
25. Cervero, R. (2005). Accessible cities and regions: A framework for sustainable transport and urbanism in the 21st century. Berkeley: UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport Press.
26. Davidson, K. B. (1977). Accessibility in transport/land-use modelling and assessment. Environment and Planning A, 9(12), 1401-1416.
27. Delmelle, E. C., & Casas, I. (2012). Evaluating the spatial equity of bus rapid transit-based accessibility patterns in a developing country: The case of Cali, Colombia. Journal of Transport Policy, 20, 36-46.
28. Diaz, R., Behr, J., Ng, M. W., Jeng, A., & Giles, B. (2013). The effects of transit corridor developments on the healthcare access of medically fragile vulnerable populations. International Journal of Privacy and Health Information Management, 1(2), 57-75.
29. Fortney, J. C., Booth, B. M., Blow, F. C., & Bunn, J. Y. (1995). The effects of travel barriers and age on the utilization of alcoholism treatment aftercare. American Journal of Drug Alcohol Abuse, 21(3), 391-406
30. Fortney, J. C., Rost, K., Zhang, M., & Warren, J. (1999). The impact of geographic accessibility on the intensity and quality of depression treatment. Medical Care, 37(9), 884-893.
31. Gao, F., Kihal, W., Meur, N. L., Souris, M., & Deguen, S. (2016). Assessment of the spatial accessibility to health professionals at French census block level. International Journal for Equity in Health, 15(1), 1-14.
32. Geurs, K. T., & Ritsema van Eck, J. R. (2001). Accessibility measures: Review and applications. Utrecht, Netherlands: Utrecht University Press.
33. Goodman, D. C., Fisher, E., Stukel, T. A., & Chang, C. (1997). The distance to community medical care and the likelihood of hospitalization: Is closer always better? American Journal of Public Health, 87(7), 1144-1157.
34. Guagliardo, M. F. (2004). Spatial accessibility of primary care: Concepts, methods and challenges. International Journal of Health Geographics, 3(3), 1-13.
35. Hansen, G. W. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73-76.
36. James, P., Ito, K., Buonocore, J. J., Levy, J. I., & Arcaya, M. C. (2014). A health impact assessment of proposed public transit service cuts and fare increases in Boston, Massachusetts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(8), 8010-8024.
37. Khakh, A. K., Fast, V., & Shahid, R. (2019). Spatial accessibility to primary healthcare services by multimodal means of travel: Synthesis and case study in city of Calgary. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(2), 1-19.
38. Kwok, R. C. W., & Yeh, A. G. O. (2000). The use of modal accessibility gap as an indicator for sustainable transport development. Journal of Urban Transport, 49(6), 267-276.
39. Lai, P. C., & Mak, A. S. H. (2007). GIS for health and environment (Development in the Asia-Pacific Region). Berlin: Springer Press.
40. Litman, T. (2003). Measuring transportation: Traffic, mobility and accessibility. ITE Journal, 73(10), 28-32.
41. Litman, T. (2010). Evaluating public transportation health benefits. Victoria: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
42. Litman, T. (2016). Evaluating accessibility for transportation planning measuring people’s ability to reach desired goods and activities. Victoria: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
43. Liu, S., & Zhu, X. (2004). Accessibility analyst: An integrated GIS tool for accessibility analysis in urban transportation planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(1), 105-124.
44. Luo, W., & Wang, F. (2003). Measures of spatial accessibility to health care in a GIS environment: synthesis and a case study in the Chicago region. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 30(6), 865-884.
45. Mamun, M. S. A., & Lownes, E. (2011). A composite index of public transit accessibility. Journal of Public Transportation, 14(2), 69-87.
46. Nattinger, A. B., Kneusel, R. T., Hoffmann, R. G., & Gilligan, M. A. (2001). Relationship of distance from a radiography facility and initial breast cancer treatment. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93(17), 1344-1346.
47. Nobles, M., Serban, N., & Swann, J. (2014). Spatial accessibility of pediatric primary healthcare: measurement and inference. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 8(4), 1922-1946.
48. Wang, F., & Luo, W. (2005). Assessing spatial and non-spatial factors for healthcare access: Towards an integrated approach to defining health professional shortage areas. Health and Place, 11(2), 131-146.