Environmental Quality Assessment of Low-Income Housing The Case of Mehr Housing Complex in Takestan City

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

1 Professor, Faculty of Urban Planning, Collage of Fine Arts, University of Tehran

2 Faculty of Urban Planning, Collage of Fine Arts, University of Tehran

Abstract

The environmental quality of housing provided for the low-income population is a challenging problem since the increasing demand versus limited resource allocation leads to an emphasis on quantitative solutions with less emphasis on, or even neglect of, the qualitative aspects of housing as a multidimensional entity. In recent years, the Government has invested significantly in construction of residential complexes for low-income population under the title of Mehr Housing Scheme. This paper reports the results of an environmental quality assessment study conducted in two of these Mehr Housing complexes built on the suburbs of Takestan City.
For the purpose of this study, a survey was undertaken in both of these complexes with a sample size of 360, covering both genders in different age groups and with diverse employment and education levels. The responses were then analyzed to develop a value tree at four levels. At the second level, the quality of residential environment was broken into: (i) the quality of building environment; (ii) the quality of complex environment; and (iii) the quality of the city. These categories were further broken at third and fourth levels to some 47 independent indicators. The results indicate that the residents are not generally satisfied with the quality of their housing environment. It was further noted that contrary to a common belief, social factors such as security, social interaction and place attachment are more important for the low-income population than economic factors or the cost of housing.

References

  1. منابع و مآخذ
  2. . آتشپور، سیدحمید. روا نشناسى مذاکره، تهران: انتشارات قطره، 1387
  3. بحرانى، محمدحسین. طبقة متوسط و تحولات سیاسى در ایران، تهران:
  4. . انتشارات آگاه، 1389
  5. مدل ارزیابى کیفیت محیط زیست » . بحرینى، سیدحسین و منوچهر طبیبیان
  6. در مجلة محی طشناسى، ش 21 و 22 (فروردین و اردیبهشت ،« شهرى
  7. .56 - 1377 )، ص 41
  8. بنتلى، ایان و همکاران. محی طها ى پاس خده: کتابى راهنما برا ى طراحانترجمة مصطفى بهزادفر، تهران: مرکز انتشارات دانشگاه علم و صنعت،
  9. .1382
  10. بررسى متغیرهاى » . حاجى نژاد، على و مجتبى رفیعیان، و حسین زمانى
  11. فردى مؤثر بر رضایتمندى شهروندان از کیفیت محیط زندگى با مطالعة
  12. در مجلة جغرافیا و توسعه، ش 17 (بهار ،« موردى بافت قدیم و جدید شیراز
  13. .82 - 1389 )، ص 63
  14. ربانى، رسول و مجتبى شاهنوشى. مبانى جامع هشناسى، تهران: انتشارات
  15. . آواى نور، 1380
  16. رحمانى، مهرداد. ارتقاى کیفیت محیط در مجموع ههاى مسکونى اقشار
  17. ک مدرآمد: مورد پژوهى مجموع ههاى مسکونى مهرِ شهر تاکستان، پایان نامة
  18. کارشناسى ارشد، دانشکده شهرسازى پردیس هنرهاى زیبا دانشگاه تهران،
  19. .1392
  20. رفیعیان، مجتبى و جمشید مولودى. رویکردها و رو شهاى سنجش کیفیت
  21. . محیط مسکونى شهرى، تهران: انتشارات آذرخش، 1390
  22. سنجش کیفیت » . رفیعیان، مجتبى و فرزین امین صالحى و على اکبر تقوایى
  23. در مجلة برنام هریزى و آمایش فضا، ،« محیط سکونت در شهرک اکباتان
  24. .86 - ش 70 (زمستان 1389 )، ص 63
  25. در نشریه ،« مؤلفه هاى سازندة کیفیت طراحى شهرى » . گلکار، کوروش
  26. .65 - صفه، ش 32 (بهار و تابستان 1380 )، ص 38
  27. لاروک، پیر. طبقات اجتماعى، ترجمة ایرج على آبادى، تهران: انتشارات
  28. . فروردین، 1358
  29. لنگ، جان. آفرینش نظریة معمارى، ترجمة علیرضا عینى فر، انتشارات
  30. . دانشگاه تهران، 1381
  31. لینچ، کوین. تئورى شکل خوب شهر، ترجمة سیدحسین بحرینى، انتشارات
  32. . دانشگاه تهران، 1376
  33. Appleyard, D. and M. Lintell. The Environment Quality of
  34. City Streets: The Resident View Point, Berkley: University of
  35. California Press, 1972.
  36. Appleyard, D. and M. Okamoto. The Built Environment
  37. Quality: The Resident View Point, Berkley: University of
  38. California Press, 1968.
  39. Bentley, Ian and et al. Responsive Environments, a Manual
  40. for Designers, Routledge, 1985.
  41. Carmona, M. The Design Dimension of Planning, E & FN
  42. SPON, an Import of Chapman & Hall, 2003.
  43. Carmona, M. and J. Panter. Housing Design Quality: Through
  44. Policy, Guidance and Review, Taylor and Francis Press, 1991.
  45. Carp, F and A. Carp. “Perceived Environmental Quality
  46. of Neighborhoods: Development of Assessment Scales
  47. and their Relation to Age and Gender”, in Journal of
  48. Environmental Psychology, Vol. 2 (1982), pp. 295-312.
  49. Department of The Environment, Transport and the
  50. Regions (DETR). Urban Design in the Planning System:
  51. Toward Better Practice, Typographical arrangement and
  52. design vests in the Crown, 2000.
  53. Eziyi Offia, Iben & Akunnaya P. Opoka & Albert B. Adeboye
  54. & Dolapo Amole. “Performance Evaluation of Residential
  55. Building in Public Housing: Users Satisfaction Perspective”,
  56. in Frontiers of Architectural Research Journal, (2013), pp.
  57. -191.
  58. Ghazali, Roslinda and Mohamed Yusoff Abbas. “Quality
  59. Physical Environment in Paediatric Wards: Designers
  60. Creation Versus Users Satisfaction”, in Social and
  61. Behaviroral Sciences Journal, Vol. 35 (2012), pp. 221-229.
  62. Ha, M and M. J. Weber. “Residential Quality and
  63. Satisfaction: Toward Developing Residential Quality
  64. Indexes”, in Home Economic Research Journal, Vol 22 (1994),
  65. pp. 296- 308.
  66. Jacobs, A. and D. Appleyard. “Toward an Urban Design
  67. Manifesto”, in American Planning Association, Vol. 53 (1)
  68. (1987), pp. 112- 120.
  69. Jelinkova, Z., and M. Picek. “Physical and Psychological
  70. Factors Determining Population Responses to
  71. Environment”, in Activ.Nerv.Sup, Vol 29(2) (1984), pp. 144-
  72. Jen, T. K and L.T. Lin. “Evaluative Structure of Perceived
  73. Residential Environment Quality in High-density and
  74. Mixed-use Urban Settings: An Exploratory Study on Taipei
  75. City”, in Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 87 (3) (2008),
  76. pp. 151- 157.
  77. Jian, G. and K. Hokao. “Research on Residential Lifestyles
  78. in Japanese Cities from the Viewpoints of Rresidential
  79. Preference, Residential Choice and Residential
  80. Satisfaction”, in Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 78 (3)
  81. (2006), pp. 165-178.Jiboy Adesoji, David. “Post-occupancy Evaluation of
  82. Residential Satisfaction in Lagos: Feedback for Residential
  83. Improvement”, in Frontiers of Architectural Research Journal,
  84. (2012), pp. 236-244.
  85. Jirovec, R.L. and M.M. Jirovec and R. Brosse. “Residental
  86. Satisfacation as a Function of Micro and Macro-
  87. Environmental Conditions among Urban Elderly Men”, in
  88. Research on Aging, 7(4) (1985), pp. 601-616.
  89. Lansing, J.B. and R.W. Marans. “Evaluation of
  90. Neighborhood Quality”, in AIP Journal, May, Vol. 35 (1969),
  91. pp. 195-199.
  92. Lynch, Kevin. Good City Form, Cambridge MA and London:
  93. MIT Press, 1981.
  94. Mohit. Mohammad Abdul and Mohamed Azim.
  95. “Assessment of Residential Satisfaction with Public
  96. Housing in Hulhumale: Maldives”, in Social and Behavioral
  97. Sciences Journal,Vol. 50 (2012), pp. 756-770.
  98. Moughtin, Clif and R. Cuesta and C. Sarris, and P.
  99. Segnoreta. Urban Design Methods and Techniques, Oxford
  100. Auckland Architectural Press, 2008.
  101. Porteous J.D. “Design with people: the quality of the
  102. urban environment”, in J. Environ.Behav, Vol. 3 (1971), pp.
  103. –177.
  104. Sam, N. and N. Bayram and N. Bigel. “The Perception of
  105. Residential Environment Quality and Neighbourhood
  106. Attachment in a Metropolitan City”, in Journal of
  107. Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 1 (2012), pp. 22-39.
  108. Southworth, M. “Environmental Quality Analysis and
  109. Management for Cities and Regions”, in T.P.R, (1989), pp.
  110. -253.
  111. Turkoglu, H.D. “Residential Satisfaction of Housing
  112. Environments: The Case of Istanbul, Turkey”, in Landscape
  113. and Urban Planning, Vol 39 (1997), pp. 55-67.
  114. Van Kamp, I. “Urban Environment Quality and Human Wellbeing
  115. toward a Conceptual Framework and Demarcation
  116. of Concept; A Literature Study”, in Landscape and Urban
  117. Planning, Vol. 66, Issue 1-2, (SEP 15 2003), pp. 5-18.
  118. Van Poll, R. The Perceived Quality of Urban Residential
  119. Environment: A Multi-attribute Evaluation, Groningen:
  120. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1997.
Soffeh
Volume 24, Issue 1 - Serial Number 64
September 2014
Pages 61-74

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 September 2015
  • Revise Date: 01 February 2021
  • Accept Date: 31 December 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics