بررسی تطبیقی نتایج روش‌های مختلف در سنجش اختلاط کاربری اراضی در شهر مشهد

نویسنده

دانشگاه حکیم سبزواری

چکیده

طی سال‌های اخیر، اختلاط کاربری اراضی و توسعه‌ی ترکیبی به یکی از حوزه‌های مهم پژوهش در مطالعات شهری تبدیل شده است. یکی از مباحث مهم در ارتباط با اختلاط کاربری، چگونگی سنجش آن در مناطق شهری است. با توجه به اینکه در بسیاری از پژوهش‌ها، اختلاط کاربری به‌عنوان یک متغیر مستقل فرض گردیده که بر سایر ابعاد زیست شهری تأثیر می‌گذارد، لذا چگونگی سنجش آن برای دست‌یابی به نتایج قابل‌اعتماد بسیار مهم است، لذا هدف این پژوهش، ارزیابی نتایج روش‌های مختلف در سنجش اختلاط کاربری اراضی در شهر مشهد است. نوع پژوهش، کاربردی و به لحاظ روش‌شناختی دارای رویکردی تحلیلی-تطبیقی است. داده‌ها از طریق بررسی اسنادی کاربری اراضی شهر مشهد گردآوری شده است. از چهار روش فرانک و همکاران، هرفیندال-هریشمن، سیمپسون و آنتروپی شانون برای سنجش اختلاط کاربری اراضی استفاده گردید. نتایج پژوهش نشان داد که چهار روش مورداستفاده در این پژوهش را می‌توان بر اساس نسبت مشابهت در نتایج، در دو دسته طبقه‌بندی نمود؛ روش‌های آنتروپی شانون و فرانک در یک طبقه و روش‌های تنوع سمپسون و هرفیندال– هریشمن نیز در طبقه‌ا‌ی قرار می‌گیرند. بررسی‌ها نشان داد که نوع روش مورداستفاده برای سنجش اختلاط کاربری اراضی می‌تواند بر نتیجه‌ی به‌دست‌آمده تأثیرگذار باشد و بر این اساس، ضروری است که در بررسی اختلاط کاربری اراضی و مخصوصاَ زمانی که قرار است این موضوع به‌عنوان یک متغیر مستقل مهم در پژوهش مورداستفاده قرار گیرد، نوع روش انتخابی باید با دقت و اهتمام بیش‌تری انتخاب گردد و به‌ویژه اینکه در صورت لزوم ضروری است از دو یا چند روش مختلف نسبت به بررسی وضعیت اختلاط کاربری اراضی اقدام نمود. در خصوص این‌که کدام‌یک از روش‌های چهارگانه مورداستفاده در این پژوهش از قابلیت اعتماد بیش‌تری برخوردار هستند، نمی‌توان پاسخی مطمئن ارائه نمود و بر این اساس پیشنهاد می‌شود که در سنجش اختلاط کاربری، بر اساس ماهیت موضوعی که در حال بررسی است، نسبت به وزن‌دهی به کاربری‌های مختلف بر اساس اهمیت آن اقدام نمود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A comparative analysis on the results of different methods in assessment land use mix in Mashhad

نویسنده [English]

  • Seyyed Hadi Hosseini
چکیده [English]

In recent years, land use mix has become an important issue of ​​research in urban studies. One of the important issues related to land use mix is how to measure it in urban areas. Given that many studies have assumed land use mix as an independent variable affecting other urban life dimensions, Therefore, how it is measured is crucial for achieving reliable results. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the results of different methods in assessment land use mix of Mashhad. The research method is an analytical-comparative approach and the data has been collected through land use documentation of Mashhad and we use Frank, Herfindahl-Hirschman, and Simpson and Shannon entropy methods for measure land use mix. The results showed that the four methods used in this study can be classified into two categories based on similarity in results. The entropy Shannon and Frank methods are in the same class and the Simpson and Herfindahl-Hirschman methods are in the same class. Surveys showed that the type of method used to measure land use mix can influence the results obtained and therefore, it is necessary to consider land use mix, especially when it is to be used as an important independent variable in research, the type of method must be carefully and obsessively selected or two or more different methods were used to assess land use mix. We cannot provide a reliable answer as to which of the four methods used in this study is more reliable and
Accordingly, it is suggested that weighting of different land uses based on its importance in measuring land use mix, based on the nature of the subject under consideration.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • comparative analysis
  • land use mix
  • Shannon Entropy
  • Herfindahl-Hirschman
  • Simpson
  • Frank
  • Mashhad
Aytur, S. A., Rodriguez, D. A., Evenson, K. R., Catellier, D. J., & Rosamond, W. D. (2008). The sociodemographics of land use planning: relationships to physical activity, accessibility, and equity. Health & place, 14(3), 367-385. Beyer, P., New, L., Robbins, L. R., & Vargas, A. (2012). Zoning and Planning for a Sustainable Region: Certifying Sustainable Communities. Brown, B. B., Yamada, I., Smith, K. R., Zick, C. D., Kowaleski-Jones, L., & Fan, J. X. (2009). Mixed land use and walkability: Variations in land use measures and relationships with BMI, overweight, and obesity. Health & place, 15(4), 1130-1141. Christian, H. E., Bull, F. C., Middleton, N. J., Knuiman, M. W., Divitini, M. L., Hooper, P. ... & Giles-Corti, B. (2011). How important is the land use mix measure in understanding walking behaviour? Results from the RESIDE study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8(1), 55. Croucher, K., Wallace, A., & Duffy, S. (2012). The influence of land use mix, density and urban design on health: a critical literature review. York: University of York. DeLisle, J., & Grissom, T. (2013). An empirical study of the efficacy of mixed-use development: the Seattle experience. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 21(1), 25-57. Duncan, M. J., Winkler, E., Sugiyama, T., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., & Owen, N. (2010). Relationships of land use mix with walking for transport: do land uses and geographical scale matter?. Journal of urban health, 87(5), 782-795. Elkin, T., McLaren, D., & Hillman, M. (1991). Reviving the City: Towards Sustainable Urban Development Friends of the Earth, 16^ 24 Underwood Street. London N1 7JQ. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American planning association, 76(3), 265-294. Feng, J., Glass, T. A., Curriero, F. C., Stewart, W. F., & Schwartz, B. S. (2010). The built environment and obesity: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. Health & Place, 16(2), 175-190. Foster, S. R. (2006). The city as an ecological space: social capital and urban land use. Notre Dame L. Rev., 82, 527. 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. Gehrke, S. R., & Clifton, K. J. (2016). Toward a spatial-temporal measure of land-use mix. The Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9(1). 171-186. Grasser, G., Van Dyck, D., Titze, S., & Stronegger, W. (2013). Objectively measured walkability and active transport and weight-related outcomes in adults: a systematic review. International journal of public health, 58(4), 615-625. Hajna, S., Dasgupta, K., Joseph, L., & Ross, N. A. (2014). A call for caution and transparency in the calculation of land use mix: measurement bias in the estimation of associations between land use mix and physical activity. Health & place, 29, 79-83. Handy, S. L., Boarnet, M. G., Ewing, R., & Killingsworth, R. E. (2002). How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. American journal of preventive medicine, 23(2), 64-73. Hirt, S. A. (2016). Rooting out mixed use: Revisiting the original rationales. Land Use Policy, 50, 134-147. Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. Journal of planning education and research, 26(1), 38-52. Jenks, M., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2010). Dimensions of the sustainable city. London: Springer. Jones, R. K. (2012). Zoning Barriers to the Implementation of New Urbanist Land Use Principles in Lincoln, Nebraska. Kajtazi, B. (2007, May). Measuring multi functionality of urban area. ITC. Khattak, A. J., & Rodriguez, D. (2005). Travel behavior in neo-traditional neighborhood developments: A case study in USA. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(6), 481-500. Kitamura, R., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Laidet, L. (1997). A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation, 24(2), 125-158. Koster, H. R., & Rouwendal, J. (2012). The impact of mixed land use on residential property values. Journal of Regional Science, 52(5), 733-761. Kotharkar, R., & Bahadure, S. (2012). Mixed Land use and Sustainable Urban Development. PLEA2012 - 28th Conference, Opportunities, Limits & Needs Towards an environmentally responsible architecture Lima, Perú 7-9 November. Krizek, K. J. (2003). Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land use-travel behavior research and regional modeling. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(3), 270-287. Lathey, V., Guhathakurta, S., & Aggarwal, R. M. (2009). The impact of sub-regional variations in urban sprawl on the prevalence of obesity and related morbidity. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(2), 127-141. Manaugh, K., & Kreider, T. (2013). What is mixed use? Presenting an interaction method for measuring land use mix. Journal of Transport and Land use, 6(1), 63-72. McCormack, G. R., & Shiell, A. (2011). In search of causality: a systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. International journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 8(1), 125. Nabil, N. A., & Abd Eldayem, G. E. (2015). Influence of mixed land-use on realizing the social capital. HBRC Journal, 11(2), 285-298. Pont, K., Ziviani, J., Wadley, D., Bennett, S., & Abbott, R. (2009). Environmental correlates of children's active transportation: a systematic literature review. Health & place, 15(3), 849-862. Rabianski, J. S., & Clements, J. S. (2007). Mixed-use development: A review of professional literature. The National Association of Industrial and Office Properties Research Foundation. Saatavissa, 4, 2017. Rodriguez, D. A., Khattak, A. J., & Evenson, K. R. (2006). Can new urbanism encourage physical activity? Comparing a new urbanist neighborhood with conventional suburbs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 43-54. Rowley, A. (1996). Mixed-use development: ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking?. Planning Practice & Research, 11(1), 85-98. 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. Shi, B., & Yang, J. (2015). Scale, distribution, and pattern of mixed land use in central districts: A case study of Nanjing, China. Habitat International, 46, 166-177. Shin, S. W. (2010). Sustainable compact cities and high-rise buildings. In E. Ng (Ed.), Designing high-density cities for social and environmental sustainability. London: Earthscan. Song, Y., & Knaap, G. J. (2004). Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(6), 663-680. Song, Y., Merlin, L., & Rodriguez, D. (2013). Comparing measures of urban land use mix. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 42, 1-13. Van Den Hoek, J. W. (2008). The MXI (Mixed-use Index) as tool for urban planning and analysis. Corporations and Cities: Envsioning Corporate Real Estate in the Urban Future, Brussels, Belgium. Wu, Y. T., Prina, A. M., Jones, A., Barnes, L. E., Matthews, F. E., Brayne, C., & CFAS, M. (2016). Land use mix and five-year mortality in later life: Results from the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study. Health & place, 38, 54-60. Yamada, I., Brown, B. B., Smith, K. R., Zick, C. D., Kowaleski-Jones, L., & Fan, J. X. (2012). Mixed land use and obesity: an empirical comparison of alternative land use measures and geographic scales. The Professional Geographer, 64(2), 157-177.