Explaining the process of identifying and prioritizing the components of environmental health in rural areas by using ARAS

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD student of Geography and Rural Planning, Tarbiat Modares University

2 assistant professor of Tarbiat modarres

3 Professor of Geography and rural planning, Tarbiat Modares University

Abstract

Today, environmental quality of health has become one of the most important issues in rural settlements. In other words, in the development literature and its related approaches, the issue of environmental health and efforts to promote this indicator is of great importance at the level of rural communities. However, due to the relative importance of the concept of health and environmental quality in different spatial-temporal conditions, the researchers are faced with a lot of complications.But due to the relative importance of the concept of health and environmental quality in different spatial-temporal conditions, there are also significant challenges for researchers. For this reason, the analysis of the health of the quality of the environment requires the availability of specific indicators that are in full compliance with the facts and allow the full recognition of the characteristics of the studied population. This research, while identifying and introducing the environmental quality components, has been designed to provide a new methodological framework using experts' opinion polls. For this purpose, 153 indicators were identified including 21 ecological indicators, 21 economic indicators, 50 socio-cultural indicators and 61 physical-space indicators for assessing and assessing the environmental sustainability of rural areas. Therefore, a more realistic assessment of sustainability the health of the quality of the environment is provided in rural settlements. Environmental-ecological component with 7.38 points, socio-cultural component with 5.74 points and economic component with 5.42 points in the next rank. Also, the results of the technique of the cumulative ratio estimation method (ARAS) indicate that the physical-space component with 0.867 was ranked first, the environmental-ecological component with 0.816 in the second rank, the economic component with 0.580 in the third rank and sociocultural with 0.460 in the fourth rank contract.

Keywords

References

  1. منابع

    1. براتی، ناصر و کاکاوند، الهام. 1392. ارزیابی تطبیقی کیفیت محیط سکونت شهری با تا کید بر تصویر ذهنی شهروندان (مطالعه موردی: شهر قزوین)، نشریه هنرهای زیبا-معماری و شهرسازی، شماره 3، صص 32-25.
    2. پاکزاد، جهانشاه. 1388. مبانی نظری و فرایند طراحی شهری. وزرات مسکن و شهرسازی، معاونت شورای شهرسازی و معماری، دبیرخانه شورای عالی شهرسازی و معماری.
    3. رفیعیان، مجتبی و پورمحمدی، مرضیه. 1390. ارزیابی میزان کیفیت محیطی پیرامون حرم حضرت معصومه (س) با استفاده از رویکرد مخاطب محور. مجله معماری و شهرسازی آرمان شهر، شماره 9. صص 331-323.
    4. رفیعیان، مجتبی، مولودی، جمشید، پورطاهری، مهدی. 1389. سنجش کیفیت محیط شهری در شهرهای جدید(مطالعۀ موردی شهر جدید هشتگرد، مدرس علوم انسانی-برنامه­ریزی و آمایش فضا، دوره پانزده، شمارۀ 3، صص 38-21.
    5. سجادی، حمیرا، صدراسادات، جلال. 1383. شاخص­های سلامت اجتماعی. ماهنامه اطلاعات سیاسی اقتصادی، شماره 208-207، صص253-244.
    6. شهدادی خواجه عسکری، علی. 1393. طراحی الگوی فضایی سلامت روستائیان(نمونه موردی: حوزه جغرافیایی-فرهنگی هلیل رود-جیرفت،ایران)، پایان نامه مقطع دکتری، به راهنمایی دکتر عبدالرضا رکن الدین افتخاری، دانشکده علوم انسانی، گروه جغرافیا و برنامه­ریزی روستایی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
    7. شیخی، داود، رضوانی، محمدرضا، مهدوی، مسعود. 1388. سنجش و تحلیل سطح سلامت در نواحی روستایی بر اساس رویکرد روستای سالم: مطاله موردی شهرستان خنداب، استان مرکزی، فصلنامه روستا و توسعه، سال 15، شمارزه 2، صص، 138-109.
    8. محسنی، منوچهر. 1382. جامعه­شناسی پزشکی. انتشارات طهوری، تهران.
    9. Banzhaf, E., Barrera, F., Kindler, 2008. Reyes-Paecke, Sonia؛ Schlink, Uwe؛ Welz, Juliane.
    10. Barrett, Scott, and Graddy, Kathryn, 2000. Freedom, Growth, and the Environment. Environment and Development Economics 5.
    11. Barrett, Scott, and Graddy, Kathryn. 2000. Freedom, Growth, and the Environment. Environment and Development Economics 5.
    12. Chervinskia, A. 2014. Ecological evaluation of economic evaluation of environmental quality, Procedia Economics and Finance, 8: 150-156.
    13. Chervinskia, Alexander, 2014. Ecological evaluation of economic evaluation of environmental quality, Procedia Economics and Finance, 8: 150-156.
    14. Dvorsky, Y., J., Krejci, P. and Moldrık, P. 2006. “Software MCA8 for computation of MCA Methods”. V´aclav Sn´aˇsel (Ed.): ELNET, pp. 66-77.
    15. VSBTechnical University of Ostrava, FEECS.
    16. Hwang, C.L., and Yoon, K., 1981. "Multiple Attribute Decision Making - Methods and Applications", A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer. New York.
    17. Josef, J. and Fiela, P. 2003. “Models for Productivity Measurement Of Central European Countries”. Bali, Indonesia, August 7-9.
    18. Kahn, M.E. 2002. Demographic change and the demand for environmental regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(1): 45-62.
    19. Kahn, M.E. 2002. Demographic change and the demand for environmental regulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(1): 45-62.
    20. Kahn, M.E., and Matsusaka, J.G. 1997. Demand for environmental goods: Evidence from voting patterns on Californiainitiatives.JournalofLaw&Economics, 40(1): 137-173.
    21. MacCrimon, K.R. 1986. "Decision Making Among Multi-Attribute Alternatives: a survey and consolidated approach", RAND memorandum. RM-4823-ARPA. The Rand Corporation. Santamonica. California.
    22. Mustafa, Tolba, 1987. Sustainable Development, Constraints and Opportunities, London, Butterworth
    23. Pacione, M. 2003. Evaluating the quality of the residential environment in a high rise public housing development. Appl. Geogr. 4 (1): 59-70.
    24. Sarbu, I., and Sebarchievici, C. 2013. Aspects of indoor environmental quality assessment in buildings, journal of Energy and Buildings, 60: 410-419.
    25. Sen, A. 2002. Health Perception Versus Observation-Self reported Morbidity has Server Limitition Can be Extremely Misleding, Brititish Medical, Journal, 324: 860-861.
    26. Simanaviciene, R., and Ustinovicius, L.A. 2011. New Approach to Assessing the Biases of Decisions Based on Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods, Electronics and Electrical Engineering.
    27. Streimikiene, Dalia, 2015. Environmental indicators for the assessment of quality of life, journal of Intellectual Economics, 9: 67-79.
    28. Van Kamp, Irene and et al. 2003. “Urban environmental quality and human well-being toward a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts: a literature study” Landscape and Urban Planning, 65: 5-18.
    29. Yeatts, D.E, Pei, X., Cready, C.M., Shen, Y., Luo, H., and and Tan, J. 2013. Village characteristics and health of rural Chinese older adults: Examining the CHARLS Pilot Study of a rich and poor province, Social Science & Medicine, 98: 71-78.
    30. Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., and Vilutienė, T. 2009a. Multicriteria evaluation of apartment blocks maintenance contractors: Lithuanian case study, International Journal of Strategic Property Management 13(4): 319–338.
    31. Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A., and Sarka, V. 1994. "The new method of multi-criteria complex proportional assessment of projects", Thchnological and economic development of economy. 1(3):131-139.
    32. Zavadskasn, T. V.E.K., Turskis, Z., and Aparauskas, J.S. 2014. "Multi-criteria analysis of Projects' performance in construction," Archives of civil and mechanical engineering, 14: 114-121.

     

     

     

     

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics