Evaluation and Ranking Citizens’ Satisfaction with the Stability of Affordable Houses (Case Study: Five Regions of Ardabil City)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• mohammad hasan yazdani ¹
• Hadi Soleimani moghadam ²

¹ Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil Iran.

² Assistant Professor of Geography & Urban Planning, Hakim Sabzevari University

https://doi.org/10.22067/jgusd.2021.47457.0

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

Currently house is not considered only a shelter. It embraces physical place, residential environment, and all services and necessity facilities for having a good life. The stability of houses is very important. There are many similarities between housing and its stability and it is clear that most par of planning is done for solving the problems of low-income groups of society including Iran. For solving housing problems of low-income groups in Iran, various policies have been implemented to increase their financial ability. Mehr Housing is one of the new patterns that the Iranian governments have proposed and executed for low-income groups. It seems that this policy means that economical aspects has been more emphasized by the governments than in-separated part or sustainable aspect. Ardabil city is not an exception to this rule. Considering the issue, the current study tried to investigate the low-income groups’ condition and evaluate housing stability and then rank and categorize various regions of the city.

Method

Current study is applied in terms of the aim. It used analytical-descriptive method to achieve the purposes it sought. Statistical population of this study included all of citizens of Ardabil. The sample size was determined to be 385 persons. Sampling was done using classified random method (considering the population of every region) from the mentioned population. Data collection was done using library sources. Moreover, field method was used for studying the background and identifying the variables. It should be mentioned that the study instrument was a researcher-based questionnaire. The reliability was confirmed by experts. The coefficient was 0.896, measured through Cronbach alpha. The number shows that the questionnaire recorded a high confidence level. To analysis the data, different methods were used. To see satisfaction with the houses, single- t-test was used in SPSS Software. KOPRAS model was used for ranking urban regions using Excel software. Moreover, Arc GIS Software was used to produce maps. In order to study variables priority or their weights, entropy model was used in Excel software and for determining the level of urban regions, cluster analysis was applied in SPSS Software.

Results

One of the main aims of the current study was investigating people’s satisfaction with houses that people could effort. For achieving the goal, single t-test was used. Results showed that except for economic, physical, and security criteria, other criteria that were measured for Ardabil city recorded middle or high levels. Generally speaking, Ardabil city ranked middle position (3.08) regarding the satisfaction of citizens with affordable houses.
Another aim of this study was measuring the satisfaction with affordable houses in 5 regions of Ardabil city. The results showed that accessibility to urban services, sense of belonging, neighbor relations, security, and ecological issues are in better situations in Region 1 than in other regions. Regarding the physical and economical dimensions, Regions 3 of Ardabil has a good condition. Since all criteria are not of equal significance, more accurate evaluation was needed to determine relative weights. So, entropy method was used for the seven criteria of this study. Entropy method output showed that the indices of satisfaction with affordable houses had different weights. Accessibility to urban services recorded the highest level (0.184), the value for physical issues recorded to be 0.158, the value for economic index was 0.153, for security was 0.144, for neighbor relations was 0.141, for sense of belonging was 0.114, and for ecological dimension was 0.106.
After measuring the weights, ranking urban regions was started. KOPRAS model was used for satisfaction with affordable houses in different regions of Ardabil. The results showed that the highest amount of satisfaction with affordable houses in Ardabil city regarding seven criteria belonged to region 1 and the lowest amount belonged to region 5. Analytical method was used for ranking different regions of Ardabil city regarding the stability of the houses. It became clear that the five regions of Ardabil were determined to be middle satisfaction cluster (Region 1), low satisfaction (Regions 2 and 3), and very low satisfaction (Regions 4 and 5).

Discussion and Conclusion

Generally, the results showed that residents’ satisfaction with the affordable houses of Ardabil city is at a middle level. The results have to do with the low level of satisfaction with economical dimension and high level of satisfaction with ecological dimension and accessibility to urban services. Another conclusion of this study is that the satisfaction with affordable houses differs from a region to another. Satisfaction is relative as it can be different from one region to another region (due to place differences). It is evident that regions embracing residential places located in the old texture of the city have a better condition rather than other regions in terms of satisfaction due to access to urban and economical services and culture textures. Region 1 of Ardabil (located in the central part of the city) is more satisfying than other regions due to proper access to urban services and as the native people of the city live in the region (security criteria). People of other regions are less satisfied with their places due to weak accessibility to urban services and as many immigrants have moved to their regions.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Keywords

• Keywords: Affordable House
• Satisfaction
• Evaluation
• KOPRAS Model
• Ardabil City

References

1. اسدی، ا. (١٣٨٧). ارزیابی سیاست­های دولتی تأمین مسکن در مورد گروه­هـای کـم درآمـد شـهری(مطالعه موردی شهر زنجان). پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکده علـوم انسانی و اجتماعی دانشگاه تبریز.
2. بهمنی، ح.، و قادرمرزی، ا. (1399). تحلیل و ارزیابی ابعاد و شاخص­های فقر مسکن روستایی با استفاده از روش کوپراس (مورد مطالعه: استان­های غربی کشور). نشریه مجلس و راهبرد، 27(103)، 169- 133.
3. پوردیهیمی، ش. (١٣٩٠). فرهنگ و مسکن، نشریه مسکن و محیط روستا، 30(134). 18- 3.
4. پورمحمدی، م. ر. (1379). برنامه­ریزی مسکن. چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
5. پورمحمدی، م. ر.، و خوب­آیند، س. (١٣٨٠). بررسی و ارزیابی سیاست­های تامین مسکن برای گروه­هـای کم درآمد شهری، مطالعه موردی شهر تبریز. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تبریز.
6. پیمان، ح. (1386). ویژگی مسکن خانوارهای شهری در طبقه­های درآمدی. فصلنامه اقتصـاد مسـکن،11(41). 87- 71.
7. حکمت­نیا، ح.، و موسوی، م. ن. (١٣٨٥). کاربرد مدل در جغرافیا با تأکید بـر علـم برنامـه ریـزی شـهری. یزد: انتشارات علم نوین، یزد.
8. رضایی، م. ر.، و کمائی­زاده، ی. (1391). ارزیابی میزان رضایتمندی ساکنان از مجتمـع هـای مسـکن مهر: سایت مسکن مهر فاطمیه شهر یزد. یزد: فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی مطالعات شهری، 2(5). 26- 13.
9. زیاری، ک.، سجادیان، ن.، و مسعودی­راد، م. (١٣٨٩). تحلیل رابطه برنامه ریزی بخشی(اقتصـادی)و فضایی در نظام برنامه­ریزی ایران، مطالعه موردی: مسکن مهر در شهرهای جدید، مجله آبادی، 3 (34).
10. زیاری، ک.، مهدنژاد، ح.، پرهیز، ف.، و آقاجانی، م. (١٣٨٩). بررسی وضعیت مسکن گـروه­هـای درآمدی و برآورد مسکن گروه­های کم درآمد (نمونه موردی استان هرمزگان)، فصلنامه تحقیقات جغرافیایی، 25(3)، 16495- 16467.
11. زیاری، ک.، پوراحمد، ا.، حاتمی­نژاد، ح.، و محمدی، ا. (١٣٩٥). برنامه­ریزی مسکن گـروه­هـای کم درآمد شهری با تأکید بر توانمنـدی مـالی و خـط فقـر مسـکن (جمعیـت شـهری اسـتان کردسـتان)، مجلـه پژوهش های جغرافیای انسانی، 8(2)، 226- 211.
12. سعیدی­رضوانی، ن.، و کاظمی، د. (١٣٩٠). بازشناسی چارچوب توسعه درونزا در تناسب با نقد سیاست­های جاری توسعه مسکن(مسکن مهر) نمونه موردی: شهر نطنز، پژوهش های جغرافیای انسانی، 43(75)، 132- 113.
13. شمس، م.، و گمار، م. (1394). ارزیابی شاخص­های کمی و کیفی مسکن در استان همدان )با تأکید بر اقشار کم درآمد(، فصلنامه برنامه­ریزی منطقه­ای،5 (20)، 68-55.
14. صارمی، ح.، و ابراهیم­پور، م. (١٣٩١). بررسی شاخص های مسکن ایران و جهان(مطالعه موردی: ایران ،انگلیس و فرانسه)، مجله هویت شهر، 6(10)، 102-91.
15. ضرغامی، الف.، قنبران، ع.، و سعادتی­وقار، پ. (1399). مقایسه تطبیقی مؤلفه های تأثیرگذار بر بهبود رضایت­مندی سکونتی در مجموعه های مسکونی اقشار کم در آمد (مطالعه موردی: مجتمع­های مسکونی مهر غدیر، مهر فرهنگیان و مهر کوی رضا در شهر همدان)، فصلنامه مطالعات شهری، 9(33)، 108- 93.
16. عبدی، م. ع.، و خسروی، م. ج. (1387). ارزیابی میزان تحقق­پذیری اهداف سیاست مسکن استیجاری در ایران (نمونۀ مورد مطالعه: استان تهران)، مرکز تحقیقات ساختمان و مسکن.
17. کلانتری، خ. (1387). پردازش تحلیل داده‌ها در تحقیقات اجتماعی – اقتصادی با استفاده از نرم‌افزار SPSS، تهران: انتشارات فرهنگ صبا.
18. محمدی­دوست، س.، خانیزاده، م.، و نمازیان، ف. (1397). سنجش میزان رضایتمندی از مسکن مهر با تأکید بر ابعاد پایداری اجتماعی (مطالعه موردی: مسکن مهر شهر یاسوج)، فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی مطالعات برنامه­ریزی سکونتگاه­های انسانی، 13(42)، 266- 251.
19. مرکز آمار ایران. (1395). سالنامه آماری شهرستان اردبیل 1335 تا 1395.تهران: مرکز آمار ایران.
20. مسعودی­راد، م. (١٣٨٨). تحلیل جغرافیایی ساخت نسل دوم شهرهای جدید در برنامه ریزی شهری ایران. اهواز: پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشـگاه شهید چمران اهواز.
21. مسعودی­راد، م.، ابراهیم­زاده، ع.، و رفیعیان، م. (1394). سنجش پایداری مسکن در سیاست های مسکن اجتماعی ایران (مطالعۀ موردی: مسکن استیجاری هزار دستگاه شهر خرم­آباد)، پژوهش­های جغرافیای برنامه­ریزی شهری، 3(4)، 465-447.
22. مشکینی، الف.، شاهرخی‌فر، ز.، و طهماسبی مقدم، ح. (1397). تحلیلی بر برنامه­ریزی راهبردی فضایی سیاست­های مسکن با استفاده از مدل متاسوات مطالعه موردی: شهر کرمانشاه. فصلنامه مطالعات شهری، 8(29)، 70- 59.
23. مهندسین مشاور پارس­آریان راود (1392). طرح توانمندسازی سکونتگاه‌های غیررسمی اردبیل. اردبیل: شهرداری اردبیل.

 

24. Abubakr, H., Cheen, Kh., & Waty, R. (2011). Sustainable housing practices in Malaysian housing development: towards establishing sustainability index. International Journal of Technology, 2, 83-92.
25. Baiden, P., Arkug, L. & ASIEDU, A. (2011). An assessment of residents’ housing satisfaction and coping in Accra, Ghana. Journal of Public Health, (19) 29-37.
26. European Commission: Agriculture Directorate- General (2001). A framework for indicators for the economic and social dimensions of sustainable agriculture and rural development. European Commission: Agriculture Directorate- General.
27. Garner, G. (2006). The ecology and inter-relationship between housing and health outcomes Gary Garner. Abuja: The International Conference on Infrastructure Development and the Environment.
28. Golubchikov, O., & Badyina, A. (2012). Sustainable housing for sustainable cities. A policy framework for developing countries. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.
29. Hamzehlou, S., & Hamzehlou, S. (2014). Assessment of the laws and regulations regarding to housing indicators in Iran. Journal of Civil Engineering and Urbanism, 4(3), 328-332.
30. Huang, Z., & Du, X. (2015). Assessment and determinants of residential satisfaction with public housing in Hangzhou, China. Habitat International, 47, 218-230.
31. Kahraman, Z. E. (2013). Dimensions of housing satisfaction: a case study based on perceptions of rural migrants living in Dikmen. Metujfa, 1(30), 1-27.
32. Kurappannans, A., & Sivam, A. (2009). Sustainable development & sustainable housing. European Network for Housing Research Conference, 28.
33. Mirzaei, R. (2013). Analyzing the strategic and fundamental characteristics of architecture and the barriers of social housing design in contemporary Iran. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7(4), 487-499.
34. Mulliner, E., Smallbone, K., & Vida, M. (2013). An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using multiple criteria decision-making method. Omega the International Journal of Management Science, 41(2), 270-279.
35. Mustapha, F, H., Al-ped, A., & Wild, S. (1995). A model for assessing the effectiveness of public housing in Sana’a (Republic of Yemen). Construction. Management and Economics, (13) 457-465.
36. Nadinee, K. (2005). A new measures of housing affordability: estimate & analytical results. Housing Policy Debate, 16(1), Fannie Mae Foundation.
37. Priemus, H. (2005). How to make housing sustainable? The Dutch experience. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(1), 5 –19.
38. Seelig, T., & Phibbs, P. (2006). Beyond the normative: low-income private renters’ perspectives of housing affordability and need for housing assistance. Urban Policy and Research, 24(1), 53–66.
39. Singh, V. S., & Pandey, D. N. (2012). Sustainable housing: balancing environment. With Urban Growth in India, Climate Change and CDM Cell Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jhalana Institutional Area Jaipur 302 004, Rajasthan, India.
40. Stone, M. (2006). What is housing affordability: the case for residual income approach. housing policy debate, 17(31), 151-184.
41. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Habitat (2012). Sustainable Housing for Sustainable Cities: a Policy Framework for Developing Countries. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.