Rapid urbanization and the resulting spatial polarization have become defining features of contemporary metropolitan development, particularly in historic urban cores of developing countries, where the legacy of uneven growth has intensified spatial injustices. In this context, Tehran’s District 12—the city’s historical nucleus and a repository of cultural heritage—presents a critical case of spatial inequality, physical deterioration, and social vulnerability. While this district remains a vital economic and symbolic center of the capital, its neighborhoods exhibit severe disparities in livability, shaped by cumulative deficiencies in infrastructure, public services, and environmental quality. These inequalities challenge the sustainability and equity of urban development and call for analytical frameworks that capture the multidimensional nature of urban livability through the lens of spatial justice. Against this background, the present research seeks to assess and rank neighborhood livability in District 12 of Tehran using a justice-oriented framework that integrates objective and subjective dimensions of urban quality. The central question guiding the study is: to what extent do spatial disparities in livability reflect systemic inequalities in the distribution of opportunities, resources, and social capital across neighborhoods, and how can these disparities inform context-sensitive urban policy?
 
This study adopts a quantitative, positivist, and survey-based approach designed to operationalize the complex construct of livability into empirically measurable dimensions. Quantitative data were collected from 385 residents across 13 neighborhoods using a researcher-designed questionnaire with proven validity and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7), complemented by secondary data from official documents and spatial analyses. The analytical framework consisted of two main stages: first, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were employed to validate the measurement model, derive factor loadings, and determine the relative weights of the five key dimensions of livability—physical quality and infrastructure, economic capability and spatial equity, social and cultural capital, environmental sustainability, and safety and social welfare. Second, a multi-criteria decision-making method (TOPSIS) was applied to integrate the weighted indicators and produce a composite livability score for each neighborhood. The integration of SEM and TOPSIS yielded a robust, data-driven ranking that accounts for both the statistical significance of indicators and their spatial interrelations.
The results reveal a pronounced pattern of spatial heterogeneity and polarization across the district. The neighborhoods of Sangalaj (score: 0.281) and Iran (0.271) achieved the highest overall livability scores, while Shahid Herandi (-0.285) and Ghiyam (-0.202) were identified as critical zones of deprivation. SEM path coefficients indicate that physical quality (β = 0.762) and local social capital (β = 0.751) exert the strongest influence on overall livability, followed by safety and health (β = 0.683), economic capability (β = 0.648), and environmental sustainability (β = 0.617). These findings suggest that livability in Tehran’s historical core is driven less by economic affluence and more by the interplay of physical infrastructure and social cohesion. The spatial distribution pattern, characterized by central and northern neighborhoods outperforming southern and peripheral ones, substantiates the theoretical propositions of spatial justice (Harvey, 1973; Soja, 2010), which hold that the inequitable allocation of urban resources reproduces localized geographies of privilege and exclusion.
Beyond statistical confirmation, the study provides a nuanced spatial interpretation: neighborhoods exhibiting balanced development across all five dimensions (such as Iran and Sangalaj) serve as models of adaptive resilience, whereas those with fragmented profiles—high social cohesion but weak infrastructure (e.g., Ferdowsi), or strong physical assets but social deprivation (e.g., Baharestan)—underscore the multidimensional and context-dependent nature of urban livability. This differentiation underscores the need for localized, cluster-based policy responses rather than uniform citywide interventions. Accordingly, the research proposes a four-tier policy classification—leading, intermediate, deprived, and critical neighborhoods—to prioritize investment and guide integrated urban regeneration strategies. Immediate intervention is deemed essential in critical neighborhoods such as Shahid Herandi and Ghiyam, where cumulative deprivation across all dimensions threatens both social stability and urban identity.
From a theoretical standpoint, the findings advance the integration of spatial justice into empirical livability assessment by demonstrating how unequal spatial distributions of physical and social assets materialize as lived disparities in urban experience. The use of SEM-TOPSIS as a combined analytical framework bridges the gap between statistical rigor and spatial interpretation, offering a replicable model for other historical and socioeconomically diverse urban areas. In practical terms, the results highlight that enhancing neighborhood livability requires concurrent attention to both tangible and intangible assets: investment in public infrastructure and housing quality must be paralleled by efforts to strengthen local networks, civic participation, and trust. This aligns with global discourses emphasizing participatory governance and community-based urban planning as key instruments for equitable urban transformation.
Overall, the study concludes that achieving livability in contexts of entrenched spatial inequality is not merely a technical or infrastructural challenge but a normative and political endeavor grounded in the pursuit of spatial justice. Sustainable improvement in Tehran’s District 12 demands a shift from top-down, growth-oriented planning to neighborhood-centered governance models that acknowledge local identities, empower residents, and redistribute urban opportunities. Such an approach transforms livability from a static index of amenities into a dynamic expression of social equity, resilience, and collective well-being. The conceptual and methodological contributions of this research thus extend beyond the empirical case, offering a framework adaptable to other historic urban cores confronting similar tensions between heritage preservation, social equity, and spatial justice.