سامانه پشتیبانی خدمات اطلاعات

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات158
تعداد شماره‌ها6,226
تعداد مقالات67,708
تعداد مشاهده مقاله115,011,700
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله89,695,000
علینقی پور, مریم, پوررمضان, عیسی, مولایی هشجین, نصرلله. (1400). تبیین زیست پذیری محیطی سکونتگاه های روستایی پیرامون کلان شهر رشت. , 53(1), 1-22. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2018.255494.1007676
مریم علینقی پور; عیسی پوررمضان; نصرلله مولایی هشجین. "تبیین زیست پذیری محیطی سکونتگاه های روستایی پیرامون کلان شهر رشت". , 53, 1, 1400, 1-22. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2018.255494.1007676
علینقی پور, مریم, پوررمضان, عیسی, مولایی هشجین, نصرلله. (1400). 'تبیین زیست پذیری محیطی سکونتگاه های روستایی پیرامون کلان شهر رشت', , 53(1), pp. 1-22. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2018.255494.1007676
علینقی پور, مریم, پوررمضان, عیسی, مولایی هشجین, نصرلله. تبیین زیست پذیری محیطی سکونتگاه های روستایی پیرامون کلان شهر رشت. , 1400; 53(1): 1-22. doi: 10.22059/jhgr.2018.255494.1007676

تبیین زیست پذیری محیطی سکونتگاه های روستایی پیرامون کلان شهر رشت

پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی
مقاله 1، دوره 53، شماره 1، فروردین 1400، صفحه 1-22    اصل مقاله (1.21 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jhgr.2018.255494.1007676
نویسندگان
مریم علینقی پور1؛ عیسی پوررمضان* 2؛ نصرلله مولایی هشجین3
1دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه ‏ریزی روستایی، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران
2استادیار گروه جغرافیا، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران
3استاد گروه جغرافیا، واحد رشت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، رشت، ایران
چکیده
از آنجا که زیست‏پذیری مقدمه‏ای لازم برای دست‏یابی به توسعة پایدار است، امروزه، ارزیابی و سنجش آن در حوزة برنامه‏ریزی و سیاست‏گذاری برای سکونتگاه‏های روستایی بسیار مورد توجه قرار گرفته است. زیست‏پذیری شامل ابعاد مختلفی مانند محیطی، اجتماعی- فرهنگی، اقتصادی، نهادی- مدیریتی، و کالبدی است که ارزیابی و بهبود هر بُعد در دست‏یابی به سکونتگاه زیست‏پذیر لازم و ضروری است. هدف از پژوهش حاضر تبیین زیست‏پذیری محیطی روستاهای پیرامون کلان‏شهر رشت است. نوع پژوهش کاربردی، روش مورد استفادةآن توصیفی- تحلیلی،و داده‏ها با استفاده از منابع اسنادی و مطالعات میدانی گردآوری شده است. جامعة آماری این پژوهش روستاهای پیرامون کلان‏شهر رشت است. برای ارزیابی زیست‏پذیری محیطی، پنج مؤلفة فضای سبز، آلودگی‏ها (کیفیت محیط)، کیفیت بصری، چشم‏انداز و منظر روستایی، و تاب‏آوری (28 گویه) شناسایی شد. سپس،با کمک روستاییان، مدیران روستایی، و شناخت محدودة مورد مطالعه اطلاعات مورد نیاز جمع‏آوری شد. در این پژوهش از آزمون T تک‏نمونه برای اثبات معناداری و قابلیت تعمیم نتایج پژوهش استفاده شد. در نهایت، به کمک تحلیل رگرسیون مشخص شد شاخص‏های محیطی بر زیست‏پذیری سکونتگاه‏های روستایی مؤثر بوده که در این میان بیشترین تاثیر مربوط به شاخص تاب‏آوری و کمترین آن مربوط به شاخص فضای سبز بوده است. همچنین، در نهایت، روستاهای مورد مطالعه در پنج سطح خیلی مطلوب، مطلوب، مطلوبیت متوسط، نامطلوب، و خیلی نامطلوب سطح‏بندی شد که در این میان روستای آلمان در بالاترین و روستای کرچوندان در پایین‏ترین سطح از نظر زیست‏پذیری محیطی قرار دارند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
تبیین؛ زیست‏ پذیری؛ زیست ‏پذیری محیطی؛ سکونتگاه ‏های روستایی؛ کلان‏شهر رشت
عنوان مقاله [English]
Explaining Environmental Livability of Rural Settlements around Rasht Metropolis
نویسندگان [English]
Maryam Alinaghipour1؛ Isa Pourramzan2؛ Nasrolah Molaei Hashjin3
1Ph.D. Student in Geography and Rural Planning, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
2Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
3Professor, Department of Geography, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction
Today livability is regarded as an introduction to sustainable development. A great deal of attention is paid to assessment and evaluation in the field of planning and policy for rural settlements. Livability includes various dimensions such as environmental, socio-cultural, economic, institutional-management, and physical ones. Achieving a livable habitat requires each dimension to be evaluated and improved. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to explain environmental livability of villages around Rasht metropolis. The research is an applied one, employing a descriptive-analytical method and collecting its data via documentary resources and field studies. The statistical population of this research contains the villages around the Rasht metropolis. To assess environmental livability, the paper uses five recognized components, namely green space, pollution (environmental quality), visual quality, landscape and rural perspective, and resilience (28 items). For so doing, it gathers the required information by getting help from villagers and rural managers, thus identifying the study scope.
Methodology
In this study Dehyars and living household supervisors were selected through random sampling to respond to the designed questionnaires. It assessed the questionnaire’s validity, by using previous studies as well as the approval of experts in the field of rural studies. As for assessing the questionnaires’ reliability, it employed Cronbach's alpha method. The results (0.731) confirmed the questionnaire’s reliability for conducting the research. Once the questionnaire’s results were ensured, it got designed to collect information and analyze the descriptive statistics and then for inferential statistics, create an index. For this purpose, the items were first rounded and then, due to the fact that a correct comparison of the items required same value indicators, the negative ones became positive in value. For this convertion from negative to positive, the items had to be either reduced to a constant or reversed, which in case of the present study, the latter was true. To complete the indexation process one should fix scale differences and get numeric information. For this purpose, the research employed standardization method, then to weigh the indicators. Weight assessment used judgments’ opinion method, wherein a questionnaire was filled for each village by well-known experts. There, each component was given a value between one and ten. Afterwards, the average weights were obtained and then the numbers were considered within the range of 1-3, where 3 had the highest weight. Finally, the weight was achieved. Applied scaled-up indexes and mean and standard deviation of the indicators got calculated and further research steps utilized these indicators to carry out quantitative operations.
Result and Discussion
Results show the manner and quality of waste collection from the village surface with an average of 3.85, natural beauty eye with an average of 3.78, and air pollution (no air pollution was intended as the score changed from negative to positive) with an average of 3.36 had the highest average, while enjoyment and quality of children's play space with an average of 0.09, presence of a sewage disposal system with an average of 1.77, and the quality of wastewater collection with an average of 2.10 had the lowest average. The high average showed respondents’ satisfaction as well as the possibility of greater impact on rural viability. To determine the effect of the independent variable (environmental dimension) on the dependent one (livability), bivariate regression (simple linear regression) was used with the same method. Test results showed that the amount of determination coefficient statistics (variance explained by the set of variables) was equal to 0.593, meaning that 59.3% of the variation in livability could be explained by the environmental dimension. This reflected the impact of this dimension. F statistic was 50.935, being meaningful up to one thousandth, and representing the dependence of livability on this dimension. In other words, environmental indicators had an impact on livability. In the following, by examining the results of the indexation, it could be found out that among the studied indicators, resilience index, with a score of 9.49, was the highest and green area index, with a score of 3.137, was the lowest. Highest score of livability in the environmental dimension belonged to Alman Village, whereas the lowest was observed in Karchovandan village. Finally, there were the Leveled villages, studied in five levels, namely very desirable, desirable, moderate, undesirable, and very undesirable.
Conclusion
With the help of field surveys and documentation and by identifying environmental components and items in rural settlements around Rasht metropolis, it was found that villagers were satisfied by the type and quality of waste collection from the village surface, beautiful natural eye, and non-contamination more than other components. In contrast, they were not satisfied with enjoyment and quality of children's play space, sewage disposal system, and collection quality of sewage. After identifying the items and collecting the data, indicative steps were taken and with the help of a single sample T test it was identified that indicators could be generalized to the whole society and then with the help of regression analysis the effect of environmental dimension on livability was shown. By using the mean of indexes, resilience had the most and greenhouse had the least effective indices, with Alman village having the highest livability rate and Karchovandan village, the lowest. Afterwards, the studied villages were ranked at five levels of livability, based on their average score. According to these levels, the villages of Talamseshanbe, Alman, and Bijarbane belonged to very desirable livability level (6.60-7.17); Kasar and Pirkolachah to desirable (6.04-6.60); Fashtam, Gilpordesar, Pasikhan, Piledarbon, Garfam, Shekarestalkh, and Pachkenar to moderate (5.47-6.04); Dareposht, Keshalvarzal, Varazgah, Koleshtaleshan, Kheshtmasjed, Balakoyakh, Roknsara, Lachegorab, Shalkoh, Kizhdeh, Bijarpas, Kisarvarzal, Vishkavarzal, Pasvishe, Tazeabad, Siaestalkh, Komakol, and Mangode to undesirable (4.91-5.47); and Rodborde, Tarazkoh, Tochipaybast, Karchovandan, Gorabvarzal, Ravajir, and Vishkamatir to very undesirable (4.91-5.47).
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Explanation, Livability, Rural settlements, Environmental livability, Rasht Metropolis
مراجع
  1. ایران‏دوست، کیومرث؛ عیسی‏لو، علی‏اصغر و شاهمرادی، بهزاد، 1394، شاخص زیست‏پذیری در محیط شهری (مطالعة موردی: بخش مرکزی شهر مقدس قم)، فصل‏نامة علمی- پژوهشی اقتصاد و مدیریت شهری، س ۴، ش۱۳، صص 11۰-11۸.
  2. جمعه‏پور، محمود و طهماسبی تهرانی، شهرزاد، 1392، تبیین میزان زیست‏پذیری و کیفیت زندگی در روستاهای پیرامون شهری (مطالعة موردی بخش مرکزی شهرستان شهریار)، فصل‏نامة برنامه‏ریزی کالبدی- فضایی، س ۱، ش ۳، شمارة استاندارد بین‏المللی 4118-2322، صص ۴۹-60.
  3. خراسانی، محمدامین؛ رضوانی، محمدرضا؛ مطیعی لنگرودی، سیدحسن و رفیعیان، مجتبی، 1391، سنجش و ارزیابی زیست‏پذیری روستاهای پیرامون شهری (مطالعة موردی: شهرستان ورامین)، فصل‏نامة پژوهش‏های روستایی، س ۳، ش ۴، صص ۷۹-104.
  4. خراسانی، محمدامین و رضوانی، محمدرضا، 1392، سنجش و ارزیابی مؤلفه‏های زیست‏پذیری در سکونتگاه‏های روستایی پیرامون شهری (بررسی موردی: شهرستان ورامین)، فصل‏نامة توسعة روستایی، دورة پنجم، ش 1، صص ۸۹-110.
  5. خراسانی، محمدامین، 1395، تأملی در مفهوم زیست‏پذیری؛ شناخت، سنجش، و رویکردها، ماهنامة شباک (شبکة اطلاعات کنفرانس‏های کشور)، س ۲، ش 1 (پیاپی 8)، ج. 4، صص ۱۱-18.
  6. خراسانی، محمدامین و رضوانی، محمدرضا، 1392، تحلیل ارتباط زیست‏پذیری روستاهای پیرامون شهری با برخورداری خدماتی (مطالعة موردی شهرستان ورامین)، مجلة علمی‏- پژوهشی برنامه‏ریزی فضایی (جغرافیا)، س ۳، ش ۳، پیاپی 10، صص ۱-۱۶.
  7. ساسان‏پور، فرزانه؛  تولایی، سیمین و جعفری اسدآبادی، حمزه، 1393، قابلیت زیست‏پذیری شهرها در راستای توسعة پایدار شهری (مورد مطالعه: کلان‏شهر تهران)، جغرافیا (فصل‏نامة علمی- پژوهشی و بین‏المللی جغرافیای ایران)، دورة جدید، س ۱۲، ش 42، صص ۱۲۸-۱۵۷.
  8. سلیمانی مهرنجانی، محمد؛  تولایی، سیمین؛ رفیعیان، مجتبی؛  زنگانه، احمد و خزاعی‏نژاد، فروغ، 1395، زیست‏پذیری شهری: مفهوم، اصول، ابعاد، و شاخص‏ها، فصل‏نامة پژوهش‏های جغرافیای برنامه‏ریزی شهری، دورة 4، ش 1، صص ۲۷-50.
  9. علیزاده، سجاد، 1393، سنجش عوامل زیست‏پذیری با تأکید بر رویکرد مشارکت (مطالعة موردی: محلة بریانک منطقة 10 شهرداری تهران)، پایان‏نامة کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشکدة هنر و معماری.
  10. مژگان، نگاره، 1395، بررسی مؤلفة زیست‏پذیری شهری با تأکید بر شاخص‏های جهانی در شهر پاوه، پایان‏نامة کارشناسی ارشد، وزارت علوم، تحقیقات، و فناوری، دانشگاه زابل، دانشکدة ادبیات و علوم انسانی.

11. A submission commenting on VCEC’s draft report on liveability, 2008, Response to A State of Liveability, Public transport users association, MelbourneVIC 3000.

12. Alexander, Todd, 2014, Economic Value of Walkability, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Vol. 10, No. 1, PP. 1-31.

13. Alizadeh, Sajad, 2014, Evaluating the Livability factors with emphasis on the partnership approach (Case study: Beryanak neighborhood of 10 district of Tehran municipality), Master's Degree in Islamic Azad University, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch,College of Arts and Architecture.

14. Australian Government, 2012, State of Australian Cities 2012, Chapter 5 Liveability, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, PP.  203-277

15. Hankins, Katherine B. and Emily M. Powers, 2009, The Disappearance of the State from “Livable” Urban Spaces, Journal compilation, Editorial Board of Antipode, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00699.x, Vol. 41, No. 5 , PP.  845-866.

16. Badland, Hannah; Carolyn Whitzman; Melanie Lowe; Melanie Davern; Lu Aye; Latin Butterworth; Dominique Hes and Billie Giles-Corti, 2014, Urban Liveability: Emerging Lesson From Australian for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health, Social Science and Medicine, No. 111, PP. 64-73.

17. Cao, Xinyu (Jason), 2016, How does neighborhood design affect life satisfaction? Evidence from Twin Cities, Travel Behaviour and Society journal, No. 5, PP. 68-76.

18. Cedar Hill, Municipality, 2008, City of Cedar Hill comprehensive Plan , livability, chapter 5 ,1-24.

19. Chand Sandhu, Sonia; Ramola Naik Singru; John Bachmann; Vaideeswaran Sankaran and Pierre Arnoux, 2016, Green Solutions For Livable Cities, Asian Development Bank, Printed in the Philippines.

20. Economist intelligence unit, 2015, A summary of the Livabileality Ranking and Overview, city rankings, prepare for opportunity Economist intelligence unit.

21. Fabish, Lisa, 2010, Measuring the Performance of Livability Programs, A Thesis Quality Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Masters of Science in Transportation Management.

22. Faiz, Asif; Faiz, Aysha; Wang, Wei and Bennett, Christopher, 2012, Sustainable rural roads for livelihoods and livability, Journal Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, No. 53, PP. 1-8.

23. Gough, Meghan Z., 2015, Reconciling Livability and Sustainability:Conceptual and Practical Implications for Planning, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 35, No. 2, PP. 145-160.

24. Grant, Michael; Harrison Rue; Stephanie Trainor; Jocelyn Bauer; Jamie Parks; Mary Raulerson; Kathleen Rooney and Sonya Suter, 2012, The Role of Transportation Systems Management and Operations in Supporting Livability and Sustainability, A Primer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

25. Hasan, Lubna, 2007, Cities and Quality of Life-Should We Monitor Pakistani Cities?, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, MPRA, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, PP.1-18.

26. Iaquinta, David L. and Drescher, Axel W., 2000, Defining Peri-urban: Understanding Rural-Urban Linkages and Their Connection to Institutional Context, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, April 2000,1-26.

27. Idrus, Shaharudin and Samad Hadi, Abdul, 2008, Spatial urban metabolism for livable city, Blueprints for Sustainable Infrastructure Conference 9-12 December 2008 Auckland, NZ, PP. 1-12.

28. Irandost, Kiomars, IsaLo, Ali asghar and Shahmoradi, Behzad, 2015, Livability Index in Urban Environment (Case Study: Central Section of Qom Holy City), Scientific-Research quarterly of Urban Economics and Management,Fourth Year, N0. 13, PP. 110-118.

29. Jome Pour, Mahmoud and Tahmasebi Tehrani, Shahrzad, 2013, Explanation of the rate of Livability and quality of life in urban villages(Case study of central part of Shahriar city), Physical-Space Planning Quarterly, First Year, No. 3, International Standard Number 4118-2322, PP. 49-60.

30. Kennedy, Rosemary and Buys, Laurie, 2010, Dimensions of Liveability: A Tool for Sustainable Cities, SB 10 mad, sustainable building conference, PP. 1-11.

31. Khee Giap, Tan; Wing Thye, Woo and Aw, Grace, 2014, A new approach to measuring the liveability of cities:the Global Liveable Cities Index, World Review of Science, Technology and Sust. Development, Vol. 11, No. 2, PP. 176-196.

32. Khorasani, Mohammad Amin and Rezvani, Mohammad Reza, 2013, Analysis of the relationship between urban viability of villages and having service (Case study of Varamin city), Space Planning research scientific journal(Geography), Third Year, No. 3, Successive 10, PP.  1-16.

33. Khorasani, Mohammad Amin and Rezvani, Mohammad Reza, 2013, Measurement and evaluation Livability Components in rural settlements around the city (Case study: Varamin City), Rural Development Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 1, PP. 89-110.

34. Khorasani, Mohammad Amin, 2016, Thinking about Livability concept; Recognition, Measurement and Approaches, Shabak Monthly (Information Network of Conferences of the Country),Year 2, No. 1 (8th series), Vol. 4, PP. 11-18.        

35. Khorasani, Mohammad Amin; Rezvani, Mohammadreza;  Motiee Langroudi, Seyyed Hasan and Rafieyan, Mojtaba, 2012, Measuring and assessing the Livability of villages around the city (case study: Varamin city), Quarterly Rural Researchers, Third Year, No. 4, PP.  79-104.

36. Litman, Todd Alexander, 2011, Well measured: Developing indicators for sustainable and livable transport planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

37. Mahmoudi, Mohadeseh; Ahmad, Faizah and Abbasi, Bushra, 2015, Livable streets: The effects of physical problems on the quality and livability of Kuala Lumpur streets, Journal Cities, No. 43, PP. 104-114.

38. McCormick, Mike; Virginia Gunby; Dennie Houle; Glenn Miles; Maggie Fimia; Richendrfer Richendrfer; Sandra Nourse-Madson; Rebecca Chaffee; Leonard Pittman; Brian Ziegler; Tom Green; Dave McCormick; Chris Rose and Rosemary Nye and Shari Schaftlein, 2017, Livable Communities Policy, The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), PP.1-7.

39. McGregor, Duncan; David Simon and Donald Thompson, 2006, The Peri-urban Interface; Approaches to Sustainable Natural and Human Resource Use. Published by Earthscan in the UK and US .

40. Mercer company, 2017, mercer's quality of living ranking 2017, 14 March 2017 ,United Kingdom, London

41. Negare, Mojgan, 2016, Investigating the component of urban viability with emphasis on global indicators in the city of Paveh, Master's thesis, By the guidance of Akbar Kiani,Consultant Gholam Ali Khamar, Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, University of Zabol, Faculty of Literature and Humanities.

42. Newton, Peter W., 2012, Liveable and Sustainable?Socio-Tecchnical Challenges for Twenty-First-Cntury Cities, Journal of Urban Technology, Vol. 19, PP. 81-102.

43. Nour, Walaa, 2015, Towards Sustainability in the Livable City, International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management and Applied Sciences and Technologies, Vol. 6, No. 4, PP. 145-155.

44. Randhawa, Aman and Kumar, Dr. Ashwani, 2017,  Exploring Livability as a dimension of Smart City Mission (India), International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol. 04, No. 11, PP.  277-285.

45. Resilient Melbourne, 2016, Viable sustainable livable prosperous, Pioneered by the Rockefeller foundation, 100 Resilient cities.

46. Rue, H.; Lisa McNally; Kathleen Rooney; Pepper Santalucia; Mary Ra Jane Lim-Yap; Joel Mann and Dan Burden, 2011, Livability in Transportation Guidebook,Planning Approaches that Promote Livability, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC: FHWA.

47. Rue, Harrison;  Rooney, K.; Dock, S.; Ange, K.; Twaddell, H. and Poncy, A., 2011, The Role of FHWA Programs In Livability: State of the Practice Summary, Requested by U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

48. Sasanpour, Farzane;  Tuliya, Simin and Jafari AsadAbadi, Hamze, 2014, City Livability Ability In line with urban sustainable development(Case Study: Tehran Metropolis), Geography (Scientific-Research Quarterly and International Geography of Iran), New Year, Year 12, No. 42, PP. 129-157.

49. Scheidl, Michael and Kai So and Ryan Edwards, 2015, Village of Galahad Viability Review, Viability Plan, Alberta Municipal Affairs, Government of Alberta,Printed in Canada, Print Version ISBN No.: 978-1-4601-2339-3.

50. Soleimani Mehranjani, Mohammad;  Tullayi, Simin; Rafian, Mojtaba;  Zanganeh, Ahmad and Khazaeinejad, Forogh, 2016, Urban Livability: Concept, Principles, Dimensions and Indicators, Geography research Quarterly of urban Planning, Vol. 4, No. 1, PP. 27-50.

51. Song, Yang, 2011, A livable city study in china: using structural Equation models, thesis submitted in statistics, department of statistics Uppsala university

52. Southworth, Michael, 2011, Measuring the livable city. Built Environment, Vol. 29, No. 4, PP. 343-354.

53. Thorin, Amanda, 2017, Livable Centers Study for the City of Mont Belvieu, RFP Number: TRN17-02, Houston-Galveston Area Council, PP. 1-26.

54. Timmer, Vanessa and Seymoar, Dr. Nola-Kate, 2005, The world urban forum 2006, Vancouver Working Group Discussion Paper, International Centre for Sustainable Cities.

55. Triangle J Council Of Government,2014, TJCOG Livability Self-Assessment for Municipalities Toolkit, PP. 1-38.

56. UPandey, Rama; Yogesh K. Garg and Alka Bharat, 2013, Understanding Qualitative Conceptions of Livability: Indian Perspective, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, eISSN: 2319-1163, pISSN: 2321-7308, PP. 374-380.

57. Van Kampb, Irene; Kess Leidelmeijer; Gooitske Marsmana and Augustinus de Hollander, 2003, Urban environmental quality and human well-being Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study, Landscape and Urban Planning, No. 65, PP.  5-18.

58. Victorian competition and efiiciency commission, 2008, A state of Liveability: An in inguir in to enhancing victoria’s Liveability, final report, Public Transport Users Association Inc, PP. 1-45.

59. Wang, Xiaozhan, 2010, The research on the evaluation index system of livable of rural areas in China - by the case of rural areas in Henan Province, Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, No. 1, PP. 456-461.

60. Wheeler, Stephen, 2001, Livable communities:creating safe and livable Neighborhoods, town and region in california, University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development.

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,193
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 662


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب