بررسی و تحلیل مناطق شهری مشهد از منظر مؤلفه‌های شهر یادگیرنده

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

کرامت اله زیاری ¹

ابوالفضل منصوری اطمینان ²

¹ استاد گروه جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی شهری،دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

² گروه جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی شهری،دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

https://doi.org/10.22067/jgusd.2022.77861.1226

چکیده

امروزه یادگیری شهری به‌مثابه نیاز اساسی اجتماعات انسانی در جوامع مدرن توصیف‌شده است. به‌تبع این امر، طی سال­های اخیر، مفهوم شهر یادگیرنده توانسته است در مدت‌زمان کوتاهی در سراسر جهان به یک مفهوم شهری پرطرفدار تبدیل شود. شهر مشهد نیز به پشتوانه ظرفیت­های فرهنگی و آموزشی خود در سال 1397 درخواست عضویت در شبکه جهانی شهر یادگیرنده را داشته و موفقیت این شهر در این عرصه بسته به بسترها، امکانات و ظرفیت‌ مؤلفه‌های شهر یادگیرنده در سطح مناطق آن دارد. هدف این پژوهش بررسی وضعیت مناطق شهری مشهد از منظر مؤلفه‌های شهر یادگیرنده بوده که با روش توصیفی- تحلیلی و مبتنی بر پرسشنامه­ای محقق ساخته و توزیع آن بین 390 نفر از شهروندان شهر مشهد انجام‌یافته است. نتایج این پژوهش بیانگر آن است که شهر مشهد از منظر مؤلفه‌ها شهر یادگیرنده از وضعیت مطلوبی برخوردار نیست و مناطق 13 گانه آن نیز در شرایطی ناهمگن و نامتعادلی به لحاظ مؤلفه‌های شهر یادگیرنده قرار دارند. به‌طوری‌که مناطق 1، 7، 9، 10 و 12 در سطح خیلی مطلوب، مناطق 2، 3 و 4 در سطح مطلوب، مناطق 5، 11 و 13 در سطح نامطلوب و مناطق 6 و 8 در سطح خیلی نامطلوب از حیث مؤلفه‌های شهر یادگیرنده قرار گرفتند. همچنین نتیجه قیاس بین رتبه­بندی صورت گرفته برای مناطق شهری مشهد از منظر مؤلفه‌های شهر یادگیرنده و فضاهای آموزشی و فرهنگی هریک از مناطق آن نشان می­دهد که هرچند ظرفیت­های آموزشی و فرهنگی بالا یکی از شرط­های لازم برای حرکت شهرها در مسیر شهرهای یادگیرنده محسوب می­شود اما شرط کافی محسوب نمی­شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

آموزش

شهر یادگیرنده

مناطق 13 گانه شهر مشهد

یادگیری

یادگیری مادام‌العمر

موضوعات

• برنامه ریزی شهری

---

عنوان مقاله English

Formulating a Framework for Assessing Urban Resilience for Water Insecurities

نویسندگان English

Keramat Alle Zayyari ¹

Abolfazl Mansouri Etminan ²

¹ Department of Geography & Urban Planning, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

² Department of Geography & Urban Planning, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده English

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Many of the current global crises can be considered the impacts of climate change. Amongst the main issues in this regard is severity of water scarcity. Many cities of the world have been grappling with this challenging problem over the past years. At the same time, such factors as population growth, groundwater contamination, shifting consumption patterns, and inadequate water resource management have exacerbated water insecurity in these cities. Consequently, water scarcity has emerged as a significant threat to global well-being and have imposed many challenges on urban environments. Various solutions and perspectives have been proposed over the decades to overcome the challenging problems. Among these, the concept of urban resilience has gained prominence. Achieving water security in urban spaces will require a comprehensive assessment framework to measure and evaluate the resilience of cities (i.e., strengths and weaknesses) for achieving the significant goal. Considering the mentioned issue, this study tried to formulate a good assessment framework for measuring urban resilience in the face of water insecurity.
2. Method
This study was conducted to formulate a comprehensive assessment framework. This was done due to the extensive body of research on urban resilience and the absence of a standardized framework that could evaluate urban resilience regarding water security. Through identifying and categorizing the elements that influence urban resilience in the face of water scarcity, this framework can ensure water security at the cities. Therefore, taking library sources and text mining tolls, this study showed the domains that have water security and identified the underlying principles of each domain. Then, through the indexation and making connections between these domains and urban resilience, and the domains to the measurable elements and indicators, this study proposed an assessment framework.
3. Results
At first the domains that generate water security (including domestic water security, socio-economic water security, urban water security, environmental water security, and resilience to water-related hazards) were identified. Then, the significant theoretical foundations related to each of the domains were explicated. Among the significant foundations of domestic water security are access to sufficient water, good quality water for maintaining the health of families, and the provision of sewage services to all residents. Some of the most significant foundations of socio-economic water security are productive use of water for ensuring economic growth, cost-effectiveness of water supply and the economic value of water. Among the important foundations of urban water security are good water management for supporting water-sensitive cities and water governance. Among the most significant foundations of environmental water security are sustainable use of water sources, the protection of water sources against water-related hazards. And some of the most significant foundations of resilience to water-related hazards are readiness for and mitigation of water-related hazard, and adaptation to the hazard. Finally, through the integration and connecting these foundations with different aspects of urban resilience (including social, economic, environmental, physical, and institutional resilience), the domain of urban resilience in the face of water insecurity were explicated. These domains consist of the provision of drinking water and its filtration for citizens, the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of drinking water sources for citizens, the sustainability of the water environment, resilience to water-related hazards and water governance. At the next step, the elements of each domain were extracted from the theoretical foundations of water security, and finally, applying the indexing method for each of the elements of urban resilience in the face of water insecurity, some traceable, objective and measurable indicators were offered.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
Over the past decades the evaluation of water security with various modern frameworks has increasing gained the attention many faulty members, experts, planners, policymakers, and decision-makers. Looking from an operational perspective, city is a good scale for taking into account the spatial and social diversity of water security assessment. The results of this study was the formulation of a measurement and assessment framework based on the elements and indicators of urban resilience in the face of water insecurity in five domains. According to this framework, we can expect that urban resilience in the face of water insecurity will lead in water security at the level of urban settlements through various actions: providing drinking water and wastewater treatment (giving citizens access to drinking water, improving high quality drinking water, and wastewater treatment); improving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of drinking water sources (considering the economic value of drinking water, productive use of drinking water for economic growth, and cost-effectiveness of drinking water sources); water environment sustainability (the diversification of drinking water sources and the protection of drinking water sources); resilience against water-related hazards (being prepared for water-related hazards, their reduction, and gaining the ability to resist and take adaptation measures against the effects of hazards); and water governance (enhancing the awareness and support of citizens on water security and the participation and cooperation of stakeholders for supplying water).

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Water Insecurity

Water Crisis

Climate Change

Urban Resilience

©2024 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

مراجع

1. اسدی، ا.، احدنژاد روشتی، م.، و زادولی خواجه، ش. (1401). تدوین الگوی توسعه‌ی شهر هوشمند با تأکید بر شاخص‌های شهر آموزش‌دهنده (مطالعه موردی: شهر قائن). مجله جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری، 10(2)، 1-20.
2. اکبری منفرد، ب.، کلانتری، م.، پیری، ع.، و تیموری، ا. (1399). تحلیل فضایی مؤلفه‌های زیرساختی شهر یادگیرنده بر اساس ناهمسانی­های فضایی میان محلات شهری زنجان، دو فصلنامه علمی جغرافیای اجتماعی شهری، 7(2)، 280-261.
3. امیرانتخابی، ش.، قلی­پور، ی.، و میثمی، س. (1397). تحلیلی بر ارتباط شهر یادگیرنده و شهر خلاق در راستای دستیابی به شهر پایدار (مطالعه موردی: شهر رشت). فصلنامه علمی- پژوهشی مطالعات برنامه­ریزی سکونتگاه­های انسانی، 13(2)، پیاپی 43، 482-465.
4. سایت شهرداری مشهد، 1401، https://www.mashhad.ir/.
5. سرائی، م.، و حج فروش، ش. (1400). فرابینی شاخص­های شهر یادگیرنده در نواحی شهر یزد. نشریه علمی کاوش­های جغرافیایی مناطق بیابانی، 9(1)، 104-87.
6. شیعه، ا.، یوسفی، م.، خطیبی، م.، و سعیدی رضوانی، ن. (1399). بررسی ارتباط شهر یادگیرنده و سطح مشارکت شهروندان در شهر قزوین. فصلنامه راهبرد اجتماعی فرهنگی، 9(35)، 140-103.
7. صرافی، م.، ابراهیم­نیا، و.، و همدانچی، ف. (1399). نقش­آفرینی مراکز آموزش عالی در ارتقای فرهنگ­پذیری اجتماع شهری یادگیرنده؛ بررسی موردی: محله­های سناباد و جنت شهر مشهد. فصلنامه نامه معماری و شهرسازی، 13(29)، 50-33.
8. قاسمی، ف.، پارسا، ع.، مهرعلی­زاده، ی.، و شاهی، س. (1399). بررسی نقش تعاملی دانشگاه و شهرداری در ایجاد و توسعه شهر یادگیرنده. فصلنامه برنامه­ریزی توسعه شهری و منطقه­ای، 5(12)، 188-157.
9. مذنبی، و.، پودات، پ.، و جعفری، م. (1400). اولویت­بندی شاخص­های شهر یادگیرنده با استفاده از روش تحلیلی عاملی: مطالعه موردی شهر بندرعباس. فصلنامه پویش در آموزش علوم پایه، 7(22)، 20-10.
10. مرکز آمار ایران. (1395). سرشماری عمومی نفوس و مسکن. تهران: مرکز آمار ایران.
11. یوسفی، م.، شیعه، ا.، خطیبی، م.، و سعیدی رضوانی، ن. (1398). شناسایی و اولویت­بندی مؤلفه‌های شهر یادگیرنده با تأکید بر یادگیری مادام­العمر. فصلنامه نوآوری­های آموزشی، 71، 126-105.
12. Ahmed, S., Baffoe, G., Bhandri, R., Young, G., & Osborne, M. (2021). Sustainable, healthy, learning cities and neighborhoods, in M. Venter & S. Hattingh (eds.), Learning for a better future: Perspectives on higher education, cities, business & civil society, Centre for Local Economic Development: Topics in Local Development, 1, 27–50, Cape Town: AOSIS.
13. Akram, M., Wasim, F., & Alcantud, J.C.R. (2021). Multi-criteria optimization technique with complex Pythagorean Fuzzy N-soft Information. Int J Comput Intell Syst,14, 
14. Ameen, Sh. (2020). Glasgow and Shanghai cities as learning cities for continuous education: What impact on society as a whole? European Scientific Journal, 16(13), ISSN: 1857-7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857-7431.
15. Atchoarena, D., & Howells, A. (2021). Advancing learning cities: Lifelong learning and the creation of a learning society. In: Ra, S., Jagannathan, S., Maclean, R. (Eds), Powering a learning society during an age of disruption. Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, 58. Singapore: Springer.
16. Benke, M., Czimre, K., Forray, K. R., Kozma, T., Márton, S., & Teperics, K. (2018). Learning regions for resilience in Hungary: challenges and opportunities. Resilience, Crisis and Innovation Dynamics New Horizons in Regional Science series (pp. 68-89). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
17. Bhasin, H. (2021). What is a learning organization? Peter Senge’s 5 Disciplines of Learning. https://www.marketing91.com/learning-organization/
18. Biao, I. (2019). Learning cities, town planning, and the creation of livelihoods, New York & Beijing: GI Global Scientific Publishing.
19. Bilgimoz, S., & UYGUR, A. (2022). A conceptual research on learning cities. Journal of Recreation and Tourism Research, 9(1), 47–71.
20. Campbell, C., Osmond-Johnson, P., Faubert, B., Zeichner, K., & Hobbs-Johnson, A. (with Brown, S., DaCosta, P., Hales, A., Kuehn, L., Sohn, J., & Steffensen, K. (2017). The state of educators’ professional learning in Canada: Final research report. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward.
21. Chi-Sen, H., & Yun-Chi, L. (2021). A study on the promotion strategy of the Taichung learning city project as the development process of the cultural identity of a city. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Posters, 72–79.
22. Cristina Momete, D., & Mihail Momete, M. (2021). Map and track the performance in education for sustainable development across the European Union. Sustainability, 13, 13185.
23. Duangduen, Ch., & Chomsupak C. (2021). The learning disciplines for support personnel to build a learning organization of Ramkhamhaeng University. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 7(1), 1-6.
24. English, L.M., & A. Carlsen. (2019). Lifelong learning and the sustainable development goals (SDGs): Probing the implications and the effects. International Review of Education, 65 (2), 205–211.
25. Facer, K., & Buchczyk, M. (2019). Understanding learning cities as discursive, material and affective infrastructures. Oxford Review of Education, 45(2), 168-187.
26. Hyen Kim, J., & Seok Ahn, B. (2020). The hierarchical VIKOR method with incomplete information: supplier selection problem. Sustainability, 12, 9602.
27. Lage Chang, , Sabatini-Marques, J., Moreira da Costa, E., Mauricio Selig, P., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2019). Knowledge-based, smart and sustainable cities: a provocation for a conceptual framework. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity,4(1), 1-17.
28. Lido, , Reid, K., & Osborne, M. (2019). Life wide learning in the city: Novel big data approaches to exploring learning with large scale surveys, GPS and social media. Oxford Review of Education, 45(2), 279–295. 
29. Matovic, M., & San Salvador del valle, R. (2020). On the creative city concept. Journal of Cultural Management and Cultural Policy, 1, 35-52
30. Németh, B. (2019). Learning cities: Participatory-focused community development in adult and lifelong education. Journal of education, 7(2), 9-23.
31. Németh, B., Issa, O., Diba, F., & Tuckett, A. (2020). Learning cities and learning communities: Analyzing contextual factors and their impacts on adult and lifelong learning in urban settings. Andragoške Studije, 1.
32. Park, S. (2021). Where do lifelong learning cities in Korea stand? – From the perspective of a learning society orientation. Studies in Adult Education and Learning, 26(1), 15-31.
33. Pryima, S., Dayong, Y., Anishenko, O., Petrushenko, Y., & Vorontsova, A. (2018). Lifelong learning progress monitoring as a tool for local development management. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(3), 1-13.
34. Raymer, A. (2020). Andragogy of Hope and Learning Cities. New York: Cornell University.
35. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). (2015). UNESCO Global Network of Learning Cities, Guiding Documents. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning
36. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). (2020). embracing a culture of lifelong learning: Contribution to the Futures of Education initiative. http://cradall.org/ content/ embracing-culture-lifelong-learning-contribution-futureseducation-initiative-uil.
37. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). (2021a). ESD implementation in learning cities. http://www.unesco.org/open-access/ terms-use-ccbysa-en.
38. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). (2021b). Inclusive lifelong learning in cities: Policies and practices for vulnerable groups. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning
39. Wang, J., Lu, , Wu, J., Wei, C., Alsaadi, F., & Hayat, T. (2019). VIKOR method for multiple criteria group decision making under 2-tuple linguistic neutrosophic environment. Economic Research-EkonomskIstraživanja, 33(1), 3185-3208.
40. Webb, S., Holford, J., Hodge, S., Milana, M., & Waller, R. (2020). Learning cities and implications for adult education research. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39(5-6), 423-427.
41. Yuan, D., Anishenko, O., Pryima, S., & Petrushenko, Y. (2017). The UNESCO global network of learning cities: tools for the progress monitoring. Science and Education, 4(157), 74-81.
42. Zeman, K., Chénier, Ch., Christ, G., Chew Leung, J., Bell, R., & Cornwall, T. (2022). Education Indicators in Canada: Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/81-582-X