ارائۀ چارچوب مفهومی تحقق‌پذیری شهر قابل پیاده‌روی به‌مثابۀ مدل شهر آینده

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشیار گروه جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی شهری، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه سیدجمال الدین اسدآبادی، اسدآباد، ایران

چکیده
پیاده‌روگستری به‌عنوان زیربنای تحقق‌پذیری شهر پایدار و شهر زیست‌پذیر شناخته می‌شود. بر همین اساس، تعداد زیادی از شهرها اقدام به ترویج پیاده‌روگستری کرده‌اند. هدف پژوهش حاضر، ارائۀ چارچوب مفهومی تحقق‌پذیری شهر قابل پیاده‌روی به‌مثابۀ مدل شهر آینده است. پژوهش حاضر از لحاظ هدف، توسعه‌ای و از لحاظ روش، کیفی بر پایۀ فراترکیب مبتنی بر روش هفت مرحله‌ای سندلوسکی و بارسوست. جامعۀ آماری متشکل از 210 منبع مرتبط با شهر قابل پیاده‌روی است که براساس نمونه‌گیری هدفمند، تعداد 42 مورد از آن‌ها، غربال شده است. منابع مذکور از پایگاه‌های علمی معتبر نظیر سیج، ریسرچگیت، الزویر، امدیپیای، امرالد و تیلور و فرانسیس استخراج شده‌اند. ازاین‌رو، واکاوی عوامل و مؤلفه‌های مؤثر بر تحقق‌پذیری چارچوب شهر قابل پیاده‌روی ضرورت دارد. نتایج پژوهش بیانگر آن است که چارچوب شهر قابل پیاده‌روی دارای 6 کد گزینشی و 34 کد محوری متشکل از شرایط زیست‌محیطی، اجتماعی، بهداشتی، مقیاس کلان، متوسط، خرد، مؤلفه‌های آسایش، امنیت، قابلیت اتصال و دسترسی‌پذیری، سادگی، مستقیم بودن، ایمنی ترافیک، جذابیت، زیبایی‌شناختی، یکپارچگی حمل‌ونقل، محیط کالبدی، مشهود بودن، راحتی، دلپذیر بودن، تنوع؛ محدودیت‌های خودرو، فروشگاه‌ها و خدمات، فعالیت اجتماعی، محوطه، لبه‌ها و نماها، آراستگی خیابان، فضای سبز؛ مقیاس برنامه‌ریزی، مقیاس خیابان، مقیاس تفصیلی؛ سلامت و تفریح، انرژی و محیط، توسعۀ اقتصادی، توسعۀ اجتماعی است. ضریب استخراجی شاخص کاپا به میزان 0/86 و با ضریب معناداری 0/000، بر پایایی و کنترل کیفیت نتایج پژوهش حاضر، تأیید می‌گذارد. درنتیجه، چارچوب مفهومی تحقق‌پذیری شهر قابل پیاده‌روی از شرایط زمینه‌ای، مقیاس، مؤلفه‌های کلیدی، طراحی محیط قابل پیاده‌روی، راهبردها و پیامدها تشکیل شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Conceptual Framework Presentation for the Feasibility of a Walkable City as a Model of the Future City

نویسنده English

Hafez Mahdnejad
Associate professor, Department of Geography , Faculty of Humanities, , Said Jamaldin University of Asadabadi, Asadabad, Iran
چکیده English

Introduction
Future cities are based on maximum physical activity and mobility, social interaction, vitality and environmentally friendly modes of transportation. In this regard, it emphasizes safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable modes of transportation. In fact, they encourage a healthier and more active lifestyle that encourages aspects of social communication and reduces environmental issues. At the same time, they impose maximum restrictions on the expansion of cars, fossil fuel consumption and air pollution in cities. Future cities give the main priority to pedestrianization in the field of transportation and, in fact, have introduced pedestrianization as an alternative mode of transportation. In fact, the city of the future encourages walking or is a driver of walking. Hence, the model of walkable cities can respond well to these goals. Because this mode of transport helps to reduce the number of personal vehicles, it helps to reduce traffic congestion and reduces pollutant emissions, and consequently, promotes sustainability by reducing environmental degradation. Walking is the most democratic mode of urban transport, as it ensures access to basic services for pedestrians and a higher quality of use of these services. In addition, pedestrian-friendly public spaces promote physical activity, social interactions, and recreational activities. On this basis, the present study focuses on developing a conceptual framework for the feasibility of a walkable city as a model of the future city.
 
Theoretical framework
The term walkability refers to an urban space that is conducive to walking behavior. By this definition, a walkable place is a place where you can walk safely, comfortably, and pleasantly. Walkability measures the quality of walking conditions, including the presence of walking facilities and the degree of safety, comfort, and convenience of walking. Several factors influence the walkability of a street, neighborhood, or city, from the physical functionality of a place to the perception of the individual walking. In other words, the factors that define a space as walkable are not limited to the physical dimensions of a place, but also include perception. This requires a multidimensional approach to analyzing walkability.
Methodology
The present study is classified as a developmental research in terms of its purpose. In terms of its method, it is classified as a qualitative research based on the meta-synthesis method. The reason for using the meta-synthesis method in the present study is that there is no precise and clear explanation of the conceptual model of the feasibility of the walkable city. The statistical population includes all the resources published in the period from 2015 to 2024 regarding the walkable city. The research resources were selected using purposive sampling. The meta-synthesis method based on the seven-step method of Sandelowski and Barso (2007) was used to extract and analyze the research data. The statistical population consists of 210 sources related to the walkable city, which were screened based on purposive sampling. Initially, 210 sources on the topic of walkable cities were identified from reputable scientific databases, of which 86 were excluded in the initial evaluation and review. Therefore, in the next step, 124 sources were screened. After reviewing and evaluating them, 61 sources were excluded from the research process in terms of the relevance of the title to the research objective, accessibility, relevance of their abstract and content, and also evaluating their methodology. As a result, 63 sources were deemed eligible for the full-text study. Of these, 42 sources were ultimately selected for the final analysis of the research. The aforementioned sources were extracted from reputable scientific databases such as Sage, ResearchGate, Elsevier, MDPA, Emerald, and Taylor & Francis.
Result and discussion
The results of the study indicate that the walkable city has 6 selective codes and 34 core codes consisting of environmental, social, health conditions, macro, medium, micro scale, comfort components, security, connectivity and accessibility, simplicity, directness, traffic safety, attractiveness, aesthetics, transportation integration, physical environment, visibility, comfort, pleasantness, diversity; vehicle restrictions, shops and services, social activity, area, edges and facades, street beauty, green space; planning scale, street scale, detailed scale; health and recreation, energy and environment, economic development, social development. The extracted coefficient of the Kappa index is 0.86 with a significance coefficient of 0.000, confirming the reliability and quality control of the results of the present study. As a result, the conceptual framework for the realization of a walkable city consists of contextual conditions, scale, key components, walkable environment design, strategies, and consequences.
Conclusion
The concept of pedestrianization has developed in three distinct phases, consisting of the pre-industrial era, the era of the advent of automobiles and the subsequent subordination of the urban environment to mechanization and the neglect of pedestrians, and the era of correcting the disadvantages of mechanization in cities. Studies related to the walkable city are divided into two main groups: macroscale and microscale. Pedestrianization at the macroscale focuses on the physical environment at the city or neighborhood scale and its impact on pedestrian behavior. In this regard, concepts such as density, diversity, design, connected environment, pleasant, visible, comfort, convenient, coexistence, and committed are emphasized. Macroscale studies mainly focus on environmental factors, topography, residential density and land use diversity, street connectivity, and how these macroelements affect walking in cities. On the other hand, pedestrian studies at the microlevel have paid more attention to the microelements of the physical environment, such as the continuity and width of sidewalks, the presence of green elements, pedestrian crossings, etc. at the street scale. Micro-level studies include environmental and physical design features that sometimes require qualitative measurements. In addition, urban pedestrian studies have experienced three major developments: the first period focused on the physical conditions of walkable places, which aimed to define a walkable city and its main components. The second period focused on pedestrians’ perceptions and thoughts about their surroundings. The third period focused on the physical and perceptual dimensions of walkable cities.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Accessibility
Pedestrianization
Pedestrian accessibility
Walkable cities
City of the future
  1.  

    1. Andersson, D .(2024). Exploring Perceptions of Route Environments in Relation to Walking. PhD Thesis, Universitetsservice US-AB: Stockholm.
    2. Andersson, D., Wahlgren, L., & Schantz, P. (2023). Pedestrians' perceptions of route environments in relation to deterring or facilitating walking. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1012222. DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1012222.
    3. Aparicio, J. T., Arsenio, E., Santos, F. C., & Henriques, R .(2024). Walkability defined neighborhoods for sustainable cities. Cities, 149 (2024), 104944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104944.
    4. Cambra, P., & Menteiro, J. (2012). Pedestrian Accessibility and Attractiveness Indicators for Walkability Assessment. Lisboa: Instituto Superior Tecnico.
    5. Cervero, R., and K. Kockelman. (1997). Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2 (3),: 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6.
    6. Clevenger, K. A., Berrigan, D., Patel, S., Saint-Maurice, P. F., & Matthews, C. E. (2023). Relationship between Neighborhood Walkability and the Prevalence, Type, Timing, and Temporal Characteristics of Walking. Health & Place, 80(2023), 102983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2023.102983.
    7. Dragovi´c, D., Krklješ, M., Slavkovi´c, B., Aleksi´c, J., Radakovi´c, A., Ze´cirovi´c, L., Alcan, M., & Hasanbegovi´c, E. (2023). A Literature Review of Parameter-Based Models for Walkability Evaluation. Applied Sciences, 13(2023), 4408. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/app13074408.
    8. Erturan, A., & van der Spek, S. C .(2022). Walkability analyses of Delft city centre by Go-Along walksand testing of different design scenarios for a more walkableenvironment. Journal of Urban Design, 27(3), 287-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2021.1988543.
    9. Fancello, G., Congiu, T., & Tsoukiàs, A .(2020). Mapping Walkability. A subjective value theory approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 72(2020), 100923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100923.
    10. Fangxiao, L .(2022). A Walkability Simulator using a BI approach: a Lisbon Case Study. master’s Thesis, Instituto Superior de Estatística e Gestão de Informação: Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
    11. Fonseca, F., Papageorgiou, G., Tondelli, S., Ribeiro, P., Conticelli, E., Jabbari, M., & Ramos, R. (2022). Perceived Walkability and Respective Urban Determinants: Insights from Bologna and Porto. Sustainability, 14(2022), 9089. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su14159089.
    12. Frank, L. D., Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Chapman, J. E., Saelens, B. E., & Bachman, W. (2006). Many pathways from land use to health: associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 75-87. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976725.
    13. Hijriyah, L., Alias, A., & Mohd Sahabuddin, M, F .(2023). Exploring walkability research trends based on systematic literature review (SLR) by applying PRISMA. Open House International, 49(1), 63-121. DOI 10.1108/OHI-02-2023-0031.
    14. Hillnhutter, H .(2022). Stimulating urban walking environments – Can we measure the effect?. EPB: Urban Analytics and City Science, 49(1) 275–289. DOI: 10.1177/23998083211002839.
    15. Hillnhutter, H .(2016). Pedestrian Access to Public Transport. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Science and Technology Department of Industrial Economics, Risk Management, and Planning, Stavanger, Norway: University of Stavanger.
    16. Jamei, E., Ahmadi, K., Chau, H.W., Seyedmahmoudian, M., Horan, B., & Stojcevski, A. (2021). Urban Design and Walkability: Lessons Learnt from Iranian Traditional Cities. Sustainability, 13(2021), 5731. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1310573.
    17. Jardim, B., & de Castro Neto, M. (2022). Walkability Indicators in the Aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 14(2022), 10933. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su141710933.
    18. Jensen, W. A., Stump, T. K., Brown, B. B., Werner, C. M., & Smith, K. R. (2017). Walkability, complete streets, and gender: Who benefits most?. Health & Place, 48(2017), 80-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.09.007.
    19. Jehle, U., Coetzee, C., Büttne, B., Pajares, E., & Wulfhors, G .(2022). Connecting people and places: Analysis of perceived pedestrian accessibility to railway stations by Bavarian case studies. Journal of Urban Mobility, 2(2022), 100025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2022.100025.
    20. Jun, H. J., & Hur, M .(2015). The relationship between walkability and neighborhood social environment: The importance of physical and perceived walkability. Applied Geography, 62 (2015), 115e124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.04.014.
    21. Kang, Y., Kim, J., Park, J., & Lee, J. (2023). Assessment of Perceived and Physical Walkability Using Street View Images and Deep Learning Technology. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 12(2023), 186. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ijgi12050186.
    22. Litman, T .(2024). Economic Value of Walkability. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1828(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.3141/1828-01.
    23. Manzolli, J.A., Oliveira, A., Neto, & M.d.C. (2021). Evaluating Walkability through a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach: A Lisbon Case Study. Sustainability, 13(2021), 1450. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031450.
    24. McAslan, D .(2017). Walking and Transit Use Behavior in Walkable Urban Neighborhoods. Michigan Journal of Sustainability, 5(1), 51-71. DOI:10.3998/mjs.12333712.0005.104.
    25. Neale, C., Hoffman, J., Jefferson, D., Gohlke, J., Boukhechba, M., Mondschein, A., Wang, S., & Roe, J. (2022). The impact of urban walking on psychophysiological wellbeing. Cities & Health, 6(6), 1053-1066. DOI: 10.1080/23748834.2022.2123763.
    26. Pereira, M. F., Vale , D. S., & Santana, P .(2023). Is walkability equitably distributed across socio-economic groups? – A spatial analysis for Lisbon metropolitan area. Journal of Transport Geography, 106(2023), 103491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103491.
    27. Pooley, C.G., Horton, D., Scheldeman, G., Mullen, C., Jones, T., & Tight, M. (2014). You feel unusual walking: The invisible presence of walking in four English cities. Journal of Transport & Health, 1(4): 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2014.07.003.
    28. Pot, J., van Wee, B., & Tillema, T. (2021). Perceived accessibility: What it is and why it differs from calculated accessibility measures based on spatial data. Journal of Transport Geography, 94(2021), 103090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103090.
    29. Rhoads, D., Sol´e-Ribalta, A., & Borge-Holthoefer, J .(2023). The inclusive 15-minute city: Walkability analysis with sidewalk networks. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 100(2023), 101936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2022.101936.
    30. Ribeiro, J.T., Vieira, A.R., Rosado, S., & Serdoura, F. (2024). Innovative Approach to Promoting Walkability in Lisbon. Urban Sci.8(2024), 8 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/ urbansci8020061.
    31. Rišová, K .(2020). Walkability research: concept, methods and a critical review of post-socialist studies. Geographical Journal, 72(3),219-242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31577/geogrcas.2020.72.3.11.
    32. Roper, J., Pettit, C., & Ng, M .(2021). Chapter 15: Understanding the Economic Value of Walkable Cities. In Geertman, S. C. M., Pettit, C., Goodspeed, R., Staffans, A. (eds.). Urban informatics and future cities. Cham, Switzerland : Springer Nature33. Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2003). Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2),80-91. doi: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2502_03.
    33. Shin, H. S., & Woo, A .(2024). Analyzing the effects of walkable environments on nearby commercial property values based on deep learning approaches. Cities, 144(2024), 104628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104628.
    34. Sonta, A., & Jiang, X .(2023). Rethinking walkability: Exploring the relationship between urban form and neighborhood social cohesion. Sustainable Cities and Society, 99(2023), 104903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104903.
    35. Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the Walkable City. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 131(4):246-257. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2005)131:4(246).\
    36. Santos, T., Ramalhete, F., Julião, R. P., & Soares, N. P .(2022). Sustainable living neighbourhoods: Measuring public space quality and walking environment in Lisbon. Geography and Sustainability, 3(4), 289-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2022.09.002.
    37. Shashank, A .(2017). Walkability and connectivity: unpacking measures of the built environment. Master Thesis, Department of Geography Faculty of Environment: Simon Fraser University.
    38. Stafford, L., & Baldwin, C .(2018). Planning walkable neighborhoods: Are we overlooking diversity in abilities and ages?. Journal of Planning Literature, 33(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412217704649.
    39. Sundling, C., & Jakobsson, M. (2023). How Do Urban Walking Environments Impact Pedestrians’ Experience and Psychological Health? A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 15(2023), 10817. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su151410817.
    40. Transport for London. (2005). Improving Walkability. Improving Walkability. London: Mayor of London.
    41. Turoń, K., Czech, P., & Juzek, M. (2017). The concept of a walkable city as an alternative form of urban mobility. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport. 95(2017), 223-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2017.95.20.
    42. Venerandi, A., Mellen, H., Romice, O., & Porta, S. (2024). Walkability Indices—The State of the Art and Future Directions: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 16(2024), 6730. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166730.
    43. Wei, Z., Cao, K., Kwan, M., Jiang, Y., & Feng, Q .(2024). Measuring the age-friendliness of streets' walking environment using multi-source big data: A case study in Shanghai, China. Cities, 148(2024), 104829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104829.
    44. Yassin, H. H .(2019). Livable city: An approach to pedestrianization through tactical urbanism. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 58(1), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.02.005.
    45. Ye, Y., Jia, C., & Winter, S. (2024). Measuring Perceived Walkability at the City Scale Using Open Data. Land, 13(2024), 261. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/land13020261.
    46. Yu, Z., Zhou, Y., & Wang, H. (2024). Walking Environment Satisfaction in an Historic Block Based on POE and Machine Learning: A Case Study of Tianjin Five Avenues. Buildings, 14(2024), 3047. https://doi.org/10.3390/ buildings14103047.
    47. Zakaria, J., & Ujang, N. (2015). Comfort of walking in the city center of Kuala Lumpur. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170(2015), 642–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.066.
    48. Zeng, P., Xu, W., Liu, B., Guo, Y., Shi, L., Xing, M .(2022). Walkability assessment of metro catchment area: A machine learning method based on the fusion of subject-objective perspectives. Frontiers in Public Health, 1(2022), 1-16. DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1086277.
    49. Zhang, J., Tan, P. Y., Zeng, H., & Zhang, Y .(2019). Walkability Assessment in a Rapidly Urbanizing City and Its Relationship with Residential Estate Value. Sustainability, 11(8), 2205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082205.