Assessing Walkability of Residential Neighborhoods via Ranking and Zoning; a Case Study of Andisheh Town

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

Nowadays one of the indicators of urban sustainability is reducing the use of fossil fuels and reducing air pollution, to increase public transport, improve the physical activity of residents and the health of citizens, and encourage more walkability. Therefore, the position of pedestrian has been on the agenda of urban planners and managers in the last few decades to increase the quality of urban space and to encourage the increase of walkability. Given that cities do not have a distinct physical fabric; it is obvious that different urban spaces do not have the same walkability. Therefore, identifying the physical characteristics of the human environment is very important in terms of more walkability. These environments in the city include residential areas. In this research, by selecting the town of Andisheh as the study area, first the indicators related to the walkability of residential areas have been identified and then each of them has been made as layers of the map and using the two-way comparison method (AHP). ), The weight of each has been determined. Furthermore, for zoning and ranking of the walkability of residential neighborhoods have been used the international indicators, including residential density, mixed land use, street status, attractiveness and beauty of the environment and safety and security.  According to calculations using the AHP, it has been determined that the safety and residential density indicators are of the highest (0.502) and lowest (0.032), respectively. Pair comparisons between walkability indicators have shown that Phase 2 residential areas are more favorable than other neighborhoods in Andisheh. On the other hand, the output of the zoning of ​​ walkability in residential areas indicates that residential areas that have high walkability, have located adjacent to the central district of the town or next to commercial centers of some neighborhoods. According to the findings, neighborhood 29 of phase three of Andisheh with 86 points was the most walkable neighborhood.

Keywords

References

  1. منابع

    1. اپلیارد، دونالد. 1382. خیابان­ها می­توانند باعث مرگ شهرها شوند (رهنمودهایی برای طراحی خیابان در شهرهای جهان سوم). ترجمه نوین تولایی، آبادی، شماره سی و نهم، تهران. 
    2. پوراحمد، احمد. آرزو حاجی­شریفی و مهدی رمضان­زاده لسبویی. 1391. سنجش و مقایسه کیفیت پیاده­راه در محله­های هفت­حوض و مقدم شهر تهران. آمایش جغرافیایی فضا، شماره ششم، گلستان.
    3. پورمحمدی، محمدرضا. 1385. برنامه‌ریزی کاربری اراضی شهری. چاپ دوم، تهران، سمت.
    4. تقی­زاده دیوا، سید علی. عبدالرسول سلمان ماهینی و میرمسعود خیرخواه زرکش. 1392. مکان­یابی چندمعیاری محل دفن مواد زاید ساختمانی با استفاده از رویکرد ترکیبی تحلیل سلسله­مراتبی فازی مطالعۀ موردی شهر گرگان. آمایش جغرافیایی فضا، شماره دهم، گلستان.
    5. حبیبی، کیومرث. محمدرضا حقی و سعید صداقت­نیا. 1393. مقایسۀ تطبیقی قابلیت پیاده­مداری در محلات مسکونی طراحی شده از دیدگاه ساکنین. معماری و شهرسازی ایران، شماره هشتم، تهران.
    6. شهرداری اندیشه. 1399. موقعیت جغرافیایی شهر اندیشه، موجود در: www.andishehcity.ir.
    7. عزیزی، محمد مهدی. 1388. تراکم در شهرسازی، اصول و معیارهای تعیین تراکم شهری. تهران، دانشگاه تهران.
    8. قریب، فریدون. 1383. امکان­سنجی ایجاد مسیرهای پیاده و دوچرخه در محدوده تهران قدیم. هنرهای زیبا، شماره نوزدهم، تهران.
    9. کاشانی­جو، خشایار. 1385. اهمیت فضاهای پیاده در شهرهای هزاره سوم. جستارهای شهرسازی، شماره هفدهم  و هیجدهم، تهران. 
    10. کنف­لاخر، هرمان. 1387. اصول برنامه­ریزی تردد پیاده و دوچرخه. ترجمۀ فریدون قریب، تهران، دانشگاه تهران.
    11. لینچ، کوین. 1393. تئوری شکل شهر. ترجمۀ سید حسین بحرینی، تهران، دانشگاه تهران.
    12. معینی، سید محمد مهدی. 1385. افزایش قابلیت پیاده­مداری، گامی به سوی شهری انسانی­تر. هنرهای زیبا، شماره بیست و هفتم، تهران.
    13. مهندسین مشاور پژوهش و عمران. 1376. مطالعات طرح جامع شهر جدید اندیشه، وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی.

    14.Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2013. Healthy Spaces and Places; A national guide to designing places for healthy living.

    15.Azmi, Diyanah Inani, Abdul Karim, Hafazah, Ahmad, Puziah, 2013. Comparative Study of Neighborhood Walkability to Community Facilities between Two Precincts in Putrajaya, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 105.

    16.Crane, Randall, Crepeau, Richard. 1998. Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 3(4).

    17.Frank, Lawrence, Andresen, Martin A, Schmid, Thomas, 2004. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(2).

    18.Frank, Lawrence, Pivo, Gary, 1994. Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Board, 1466.

    19.Frank, Lawrence, Sallis, James, Conway, Terry, Chapman, James, Saelens, Brian and Bachman, William, 2006. Many pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality, Journal of American Planning Association, 72(1). 

    20.Gebel, Klaus, Bauman, Adrian, Owen, Neville, Foster, Sarah, Giles-Corti, Billie, 2009, the built environment and walking, The Heart Foundation’s National Physical Activity Advisory Committee.

    21.Gilderbloom, John, Riggs, William, Meares, Wesley, 2014. Does walkability matter? An examination of walkability’s impact on housing values, foreclosures and crime, Cities, Vol. 42.

    22.Humpel, Nancy, Owen, Neville, Leslie, Eva, 2002.  Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: a review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 22, Issue 3.

    23.Kashani Jou, Khashayar, 2011. Evaluating integration between public transportation and pedestrian-oriented urban spaces in two main metro stations of Tehran, Scientific Research and Essays, 6(13).

    24.Leslie, Eva, Saelens, Brian, Frank, Lawrence, Owen, Neville, Bauman, Adrian, Coffee, Neil, Hugo, Graeme, 2005. Residents’ perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different neighborhoods: a pilot study, Health Place, 11(3).

    1. O’Campo, Patricia, 2003. Invited commentary: advancing theory and methods for multilevel models of residential neighborhoods and health. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 157.
    2. Pentella, Ricky, 2009. Walkability and the Built Environment: A Neighborhood - and Street-Scale Assessment of Diverse San Francisco Neighborhoods, Berkeley Rausser, College of Natural Resources.
    3. Saelens, Brian, Sallis, James, Black, Jennifer, Chen, Diana. 2003. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9).
    4. Wang, Yu, Chau, Chi Kuwan, Ng, Jackie, Leung, Tzeming, 2015. A review on the effects of physical built environment attributes on enhancing walking and cycling activity levels within residential neighborhoods, Cities, Vol. 50.

     

     


     

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics