Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی


Tarbiat Modares University


Extended Abstract


One of the most important signs of the intensity of injustice in a city is the emergence of spatial structures of the advantages and prevalence of a place in which this structure becomes a stable and powerful structure over time, making it more difficult to deal with injustice and increasing the intensity of injustice. One of the reasons is to look at injustice regardless of its content, structure, and process, as a result, a product and a concept that describes the present situation in the city. And on the same look has faced it. Therefore, it is necessary to take a dynamic look at injustice and not consider it static and created in a linear process.
Given that identifying and solving urban problems and reducing spatial inequalities has always focused on rural migrations to the city and the unceasing growth and management weaknesses, the circulation and accumulation of capital, the commercialization, and exploitation of certain groups and areas of urban development are still hidden in the shadow (Mousavi, 2012; Yazdani & Firouzi Magdalene, 2017). The focus of planning and decision-making in solving the problems of the first case has led the second case to make the most of these policies and solutions from top to bottom, and the consequence has been the escalation of inequity and injustice in space.

Review of Literature

Studies in spatial justice can be divided into three viewpoints:
2.1. Cartesian view of space and the issue of distribution;
It takes place in three-dimensional space; it follows instrumental and technocratic rationality, and in the form of comprehensive and top-down plans without essentially paying attention to the social, economic, political, and spatial relationships, which has led the city to the present point. Recommended prescriptions only help the domination of these top-down approaches. It ignores why citizens are not sensitive to the construction of public services and the government virtually reduces the availability of these services to the average and low-income urban population by shifting its responsibility to the private sector, and these groups would not share the growth of the city and its public services when the circulation and accumulation of capital is high in the city.
2.2. Distribution justly achieved in a dynamic environment with production-based structural dynamics
This view was proposed by Davies (1968), Harvey (1973), Pirie (1983), Rawls (1971), and (Smith, 1994). Among the keywords of this view is the emphasis on the relationship between the urban space and the social situation of citizens,  distribution justly achieved, the departure from the Cartesian space, the focus on the production problem in structural dynamics, and finally the justly and democratic distribution of social interests and responsibilities in space.
Some of the questions proposed in this view are who decides? Rather than for whom must be decided; control and authority of resources and services are working in what ways and for what? rather than who is the provider (supplier) and the needy (demander); how does the residents' living space has been excluded from facilities? rather than disadvantaged residents deployed in which underprivileged area. But in our study of spatial justice, the focus is still on areas instead of people.
2.3. The third view explains the role of distribution in the spatialization of injustices with emphasis on the structural productives that generate domination.
From this view (see Young, 1990; Harvey, 1992, 1996; Dikec, 2001), the purpose of spatial justice as a critical discourse is to eliminate discrimination and also reduce poverty, social segregation, and domination. Justice is a shared responsibility of engaged actors in the socio-spatial systems in which they inhabit or (re)produce them (Bromberg et al., 2007). From this perspective, it is possible to reduce the priority of the prescriptions of top-down planning and technical standards, address the city's condition, and change the focus from how it should be to how it is and how it can be.
Therefore, we can better understand the working processes and mechanisms from different aspects of the city and avoid the view that is unaware of the political/social/historical context and the trajectory of the city and its inhabitants and that does not hear diverse voices. In measuring the spatial injustice, one can not ignore development policies to improve the conditions and reduce the spatial inequalities or in parallel or opposite to them in urban areas. In this research, the urban development plan and the manner of public services distribution have been simultaneously examined to see to what extent these plans have had an impact on spatial justice or helped stabilize and strengthen injustice. It also looks for the structures that turn the just policies into their own contradictions.
Thus, the study examines the formation of a specific social, economic, and an environmental combination called urban duality, the adaptation of deficiencies to socioeconomic conditions; the concentration of spatial backwardness and uneven spatial development; and the possibility of creating a continuous spatial structure for spatial advantage in the interconnected relationship between the distribution of public services and urban policies. Meanwhile, the city of Kashan is selected as a case study.


The purpose of this paper is to analyze the distribution of urban services and its dependence on urban spatial structures and the creation of spatial advantages in urban development from the perspective of spatial justice. To this end, the study of spatial justice requires a look at three categories of recognition of injustice, its causes, and consequences. The injustices in this case study (Kashan) have been considered and explored.
The research method is quantitative following a descriptive-analytic approach. Using a network access analysis model, the AHP model, and using various software, 15 types of urban services were analyzed. The data were collected from the statistical sources of the Statistics Center of Iran (2006) and the comprehensive Plan of Kashan City (2005).
The variables considered for this research focus on three main categories: (a) how to distribute the social and economic conditions of the inhabitants, the distribution of services and urban utilities; (b) the distribution of the population in the present and future conditions of the city; and (c) the conditions affecting the removal or increase injustice. All the results will indicate whether there is the possibility of creating a continuous spatial structure for the advantage of a place in a typical city.

Results and Discussion

The results of the achievement rankings in Kashan indicate that 27 percent of the city's population is deprived, 20 percent is relatively deprived, and only 19 percent is favorable. The proportion of the population of the city of Kashan in the spatial justice category in the integrated distribution of services in terms of population size also shows that 55% of citizens are in the relative fair condition. Of the other citizens, 29% of their public services is much less than their share of the population and 16% is much larger than their population share.
The results of studying the relationship between the achievement rate and the economic and social conditions indicate an inverse relationship. In this case, with an increase in the level of achievement in the regions, the positive economic and social indicators of the inhabitants of those areas have a downward trend. An increase of 50% in the city's population over the past two decades along with a growth of about 30% to the periphery and a mere 15% of service development indicates that the capital flow generated in these years has played a minor role in the growth of public services. The worst area in Kashan's injustice category has 39% of the city's newly built residential buildings, and land price (residential and commercial) is close to other parts of the city.
The prediction of a comprehensive plan for the future population of the city (based on the implementation of construction density) will reduce the share of low-income areas from 68% to 48%, which will be very effective in the city's balance and justice. But the placement of these areas in the medium density and municipality density sale will virtually turn them into densely populated areas, and the city is more vulnerable to injustice.


The results of the findings show that the trend of displacement and change of attention has caused the separation of the historical and intermediate-range from the growing area of ​​the city and its capture in the spatial trap and the formation of a particular type of development (social, economic and environmental) in the periphery. The spatial duality and the creation of a continuous spatial structure for the advantage and spatial prevalence occur when public services do not actually play a role, and the value of the exchange of land and housing will also serve to reduce spatial inequity policies.
Therefore, it is suggested that the resolution of the spatial injustice be sought in structures that produce and reproduce it, and it becomes more injustice in the gears of these structures without any consideration whatsoever of any action towards justice, Therefore, the elimination of injustice not through redistribution from the top, and proactive planning coming from planning the demand and focusing the right of the city on the part of the people can occur with active participation in decision making.


1. احدنژاد روشتی، م.، موسوی، م.، محمدی حمیدی، س.، و ویسیان، م. (1395). بررسی و تحلیل عدالت اجتماعی در برخورداری از خدمات شهری. جغرافیا و توسعۀ فضای شهری، 3 (1)، 33-51.
2. امیرفخریان، ا.، و رهنما، م.ر. (1397). برنامه‌ریزی دسترسی غیرفضایی به خدمات بهداشتی-درمانی در شهر مشهد. مجلۀ جغرافیا و آمایش شهری، 8 (26)، 1-16.
3. پوراحمد، ا.، و وفایی، ا. (1396). تأثیر مدرنیسم بر ساختار کالبدی - فضایی شهر ایرانی-اسلامی (مطالعة موردی: شهر کاشان). مطالعات شهر ایرانی-اسلامی، 7 (28)، 63-76.
4. تابعی، ن.، موحد، ع.، تولایی، س.، و کمانرودی کجوری، م. (1395). بررسی نقش عدالت فضایی در مدیریت شهری (محدودۀ مطالعه: محلات منطقۀ 6 تهران). برنامه‌ریزی فضایی (جغرافیا)، 6 (2)، 23-36.
5. حیدی، ج. (1395). تحلیل توزیع فضایی کاربری‌های خدمات عمومی شهری در نواحی شهر بوشهر. جغرافیا و توسعۀ ناحیهای، 14 (2)، 129-153.
6. داداش پور، ه.، رستمی، ف.، و علیزاده، ب. (1393). بررسی و تحلیل توزیع عادلانه خدمات شهری و الگوی پراکنش فضایی آنها در شهر همدان، فصلنامه مطالعات شهری کردستان، ۱۲ ، 5-18.
7. داداش‌پور، ه.، علیزاده، ب.، و رستمی، ف. (1394الف). جایگاه عدالت فضایی در نظام برنامه‌ریزی شهری ایران، مجله راهبرد توسعه، 43، 181-206.
8. داداش‌پور، ه.، علیزاده، ب.، و رستمی، ف. (1394ب). گفتمان عدالت فضایی در برنامهریزی شهری، تهران: انتشارات آذرخش.
9. داداش‌پور، ه.، و الوندی‌پور، ن. (1395). عدالت فضایی در مقیاس شهری در ایران. هنرهای زیبا، 21 (3)، 67-80..
10. داداشپور، ه.، و الوندی‌پور، ن. (1396). گونه‌شناسی مفهومی عدالت در نظریه‌های برنامه‌ریزی شهری در چهارچوب رویکردی میانرشته‌ای. فصلنامه مطالعات میانرشته‌ای در علوم انسانی، 9 (2)، 1-27.
11. داداش‌پور، ه.، و رستمی، ف. (۱۳۹۰ الف). بررسی و تحلیل نحوۀ توزیع خدمات عمومی شهری از دیدگاه عدالت فضایی. فصلنامه جغرافیا و توسعه ناحیهای، ۱۶ ، ۱۷۱ – ۱۹۸.
12. داداش‌پور، ه.، و رستمی، ف. (۱۳۹۰ ب). سنجش عدالت فضایی یکپارچه خدمات عمومی شهری بر اساس توزیع جمعیت، قابلیت دسترسی و کارایی در شهر یاسوج، فصلنامه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری و منطقه‌ای، 3 (2)، 1-22.
13. رهنما، م.ر.، احمدیان، م.ع.، و محمدیان، محمد. (1391). مدیریت شهری و ساماندهی سکونتگاه‌های غیررسمی (مطالعه موردی: کوی نه‌دره مشهد). مجلۀ جغرافیا و توسعه ناحیه‌ای، 10 (18)، 43-73.
14. رهنما، م.ر.، رضائیان، ب. (1393). سنجش میزان پراکنش و فشردگی شکل کلانشهرهای ایران با استفاده از مدل‌های کمی. مجلۀ مطالعات جغرافیایی مناطق خشک، 4 (16)، 87-107.
15. شاطریان، م.، و اکبری ارمکی، ز. (1394). رهیافت تجدید حیات شهری در راستای کاهش فرسودگی و فقر شهری (مطالعه موردی: بافت قدیم شهر کاشان). مجلۀ جغرافیا، 13 (44)، 119-142.
16. عزیزی، م.م.، و شکوهی بیدهندی، م.ص. (1394). تحلیل سیر تحول تاریخی مفهوم عدالت اجتماعی در برنامه‌های توسعة شهری ایران (1340-1390). مجلۀ تحقیقات تاریخ اجتماعی، 5 (2)، 125-149.
17. کاظمیان، غ. (1383). تبیین رابطه ساختار حاکمیت و قدرت شهری با سازمان یابی فضا، تلاش برای طراحی مدل (نمونه منطقه کلان شهری تهران). تهران: رساله دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس تهران.
18. کاظمیان، غ.، و جلیلی، م. (1394). تحلیل قدرت ذی‌نفعان کلیدی در فرایند سیاستگذاری طرح جامع تهران (1378-1390). مجلۀ نامه معماری و شهرسازی، 15، 139-158.
19. محبی، م. (1396). تحلیلی بر قضاوت ذهنی شهروندان در مورد عدالت فضایی و توزیع عادلانه کارکردهای شهری. مطالعات محیطی هفت حصار، 6 (22)، 111-123.
20. مهندسان مشاور نقش جهان - پارس، (1389). طرح توسعه و عمران (جامع) شهر کاشان. کاشان: مهندسان مشاور نقش جهان-پارس.
21. موسوی، م. (1391). شکل پایدار شهر و عدالت اجتماعی (مطالعه مورد: شهر میاندوآب). مجلۀ پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، 44 (80)، 192-177.
22. میرغلامی، م.، کی نژاد، م.ع.، و علیزاده، ب. (1397). ارزیابی عدالت فضایی در توسعۀ مجدد فضاهای شهری مورد پژوهی: طرح موضعی عتیق شهر تبریز. مجلۀ باغ نظر، 15 (67)، 43-52.
23. ندایی طوسی، س.، و نوری، ع. (1396). ارزیابی یکپارچه عدالت بالفعل فضایی در دسترسی به تسهیلات پایه شهری به روش ارزیابی چندمعیاره فضایی. صفه، 78، 105-136.
24. وارثی، ح.ر.، زنگی آبادی، ع.، وفایی، ا.، و شاطریان، م. (1392).تحلیلی بر ساختارهای اقتصادی و اجتماعی بافت قدیم شهر کاشان. مجلۀ آمایش محیط، 23، 1- 26.
25. یزدانی، م.ح، و فیروزی مجنده، ا. (1396). بررسی توزیع فضایی کاربری‌های عمومی از منظر عدالت فضایی (مطالعه موردی: شهر اردبیل). مجلۀ جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی، 21 (61)، 363-383.
26. یغفوری، ح.، قاسمی، سجاد.، و قاسمی، نرگس. (1396). بررسی عدالت فضایی در توزیع خدمات، با تأکید بر مدیریت شهری مطالعه موردی: محلات منطقه 91 تهران. تحقیقات جغرافیایی، 32 (3)، 114-128.
27. Bozorg, L. (2010). Spatializing social equity through place-based policies: lessons from the Green Impact Zone of Missouri, in Kansas City, MO (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Manchester, England.
28. Bromberg, A., Morrow, G. D., & Pfeiffer, D. (2007). Editorial note: Why spatial justice? Critical Planning, 14, 1-6.
29. Dadashpoor, H., & Rostami, F. (2017). Measuring spatial proportionality between service availability, accessibility, and mobility: Empirical evidence using spatial equity approach in Iran. Journal of Transport Geography, 65, 44-55.
30. Dadashpoor, H., Rostami, F., & Alizadeh, B. (2016). Is inequality in the distribution of urban facilities inequitable? Exploring a method for identifying spatial inequity in an Iranian city. Cities, 52, 159-172.
31. Davies, B. (1970). Social needs and resources in local services. Public Administration, 48(2), 214-215.
32. Dikec, M. (2001). Justice and the spatial imagination. Environment and Planning A, 33(10), 1785-1805.
33. Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
34. Harvey, D. (1992). Social justice, postmodernism, and the city'. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16(4), 588-601.
35. Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
36. Ibes, D. C. (2015). A multi-dimensional classification and equity analysis of an urban park system: A novel methodology and case study application. Landscape and Urban Planning, 137, 122-137.
37. Macedo, J., & Haddad, M. A. (2015). Equitable distribution of open space: Using spatial analysis to evaluate urban parks in Curitiba, Brazil. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(6), 1096-1117.
38. Oakley, D., & Tsao, H. S. (2007). Socioeconomic gains and spillover effects of geographically targeted initiatives to combat economic distress: An examination of Chicago’s empowerment zone. Cities, 24(1), 43-59.
39. Pirie, G. H. (1983). On spatial justice'. Environment and Planning A, 15(4), 465-473.
40. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41. Routledge, P. (2010). Introduction: Cities, justice and conflict. Urban Studies, 47(6), 1165-1177.
42. Smith, D. M. (1994). Geography and social justice. Oxford, London: Blackwell.
43. Taleai, M., Sliuzas, R., & Flacke, J. (2014). An integrated framework to evaluate the equity of urban public facilities using spatial multi-criteria analysis. Cities, 40, 56-69.
44. Wu, J., He, Q., Chen, Y., Lin, J., & Wang, S. (in press). Dismantling the fence for social justice? Evidence-based on the inequity of urban green space accessibility in the central urban area of Beijing. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science.
45. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.