| تعداد نشریات | 49 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,282 |
| تعداد مقالات | 11,081 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 22,936,163 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 15,485,157 |
تحلیل ژئوفضایی شهرهای دوستدار سالمند: سنجش تطبیقی تجربه فضایی سالمندان در تهران، مشهد، اصفهان و شیراز | ||
| برنامه ریزی توسعه کالبدی | ||
| دوره 12، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 40، اسفند 1404، صفحه 73-92 اصل مقاله (1.91 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/psp.2026.77446.2801 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| رستم صابری فر* | ||
| دانشیار جغرافیا و برنامهریزی شهری، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| کیفیت زندگی سالمندان به شدت با ویژگیهای محیط شهری مرتبط است و طراحی فضاهای شهری فراگیر و حمایتکننده، بهویژه در کلانشهرهای ایران، یکی از چالشهای مهم برنامهریزی شهری محسوب میشود. این پژوهش با هدف ارزیابی شهرهای دوستدار سالمند در چهار کلانشهر تهران، مشهد، اصفهان و شیراز، رویکردی ترکیبی و دادهمحور مبتنی بر تجربه زیسته سالمندان را با تحلیل ژئوفضایی تلفیق کرده است. دادهها از طریق KoBo Toolbox و ثبت GPS جمعآوری و بر اساس شاخص AF_Score بهصورت کمی–ادراکی کدگذاری شدند تا امکان تحلیل مکانی و شناسایی «مکانها»، «ضدمکانها» و نواحی همپوشان فراهم شود. یافتهها نشان داد که کیفیت شهر دوستدار سالمند در این چهار شهر یکنواخت نیست؛ شیراز بیشترین سهم مکانهای مثبت و پیوستگی فضایی را دارد، تهران الگوی نسبتاً منسجمی را نشان میدهد، مشهد با تمرکز ضدمکانها مواجه است و اصفهان در وضعیت گذار قرار دارد. همبستگی بالای 82/0 میان ادراک سالمندان و پهنهبندی مکانی نشان داد که تجربه زیسته سالمندان بازتابدهنده سازمان فضایی واقعی شهر است. تحلیل حوزههای زیرساختی و مشارکت اجتماعی نیز مشخص ساخت که فضاهای عمومی و مسیرهای پیادهمحور، مؤلفههای کلیدی در تقویت حضور فعال سالمندان هستند. نوآوری این پژوهش در سه سطح قابل توجه است: (۱) پیوند نظری شهر دوستدار سالمند با عدالت فضایی و تجربه زیسته، (۲) استفاده از دادههای مشارکتی سالمندان و تحلیل نقاط داغ برای سنجش همزمان شدت، گستره و معناداری فضایی و (۳) ارائه چارچوب عملیاتی–مکانی برای شناسایی و اولویتبندی مداخلات شهری مبتنی بر شواهد. نتایج نشان میدهد که رویکردهای شاخصمحور کلانمقیاس نمیتوانند تفاوتهای خرد مکانی و ناهمگنی تجربه سالمندان را بازتاب دهند و تصمیمگیری شهری باید مبتنی بر تحلیلهای دقیق و مشارکتی باشد. این مطالعه، راهنمایی کاربردی برای سیاستگذاران و برنامهریزان شهری فراهم میکند تا با بهرهگیری از دادههای تجربهمحور و تحلیل ژئوفضایی، کیفیت زندگی سالمندان را ارتقا دهند و شهرهایی واقعی، پویا و دوستدار سالمند ایجاد کنند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| شهرهای دوستدار سالمند؛ کیفیت فضای شهری؛ تحلیل مکانی؛ فضاهای باز شهری؛ دسترسپذیری شهری | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Geospatial Analysis of Age-Friendly Cities: A Comparative Assessment of Older Adults’ Spatial Experience in Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, and Shiraz | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Rostam Saberifar | ||
| Associate Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Older adults’ quality of life is closely associated with the characteristics of the urban environment, and the design of inclusive and supportive urban spaces—particularly in Iranian metropolises—constitutes a major challenge for urban planning. This study conducts a spatial-analytical evaluation of age-friendly cities using a geospatial approach, through a comparative analysis of Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, and Shiraz. Adopting a mixed-method, data-driven framework, the research integrates older adults’ lived experiences with geospatial analysis. Data were collected through KoBo Toolbox and GPS-based location tracking, and subsequently operationalized using the AF_Score as a perceptual-quantitative index to enable spatial analysis and the identification of “places,” “anti-places,” and overlapping zones. The findings reveal that the quality of age-friendliness is spatially uneven across the four cities. Shiraz demonstrates the highest proportion of positive clusters and spatial continuity; Tehran exhibits a relatively coherent pattern; Mashhad is characterized by concentrated anti-place clusters; and Isfahan appears to be in a transitional state. A strong correlation (r = 0.82) between older adults’ perceptions and spatial zoning confirms that lived experience reflects the actual spatial organization of the city. Further analysis of infrastructural and social participation domains indicates that public spaces and pedestrian-oriented pathways are key components in fostering active aging and sustained urban presence. The innovation of this research operates at three levels: (1) theoretically linking the age-friendly city framework with spatial justice and lived experience; (2) employing participatory data from older adults combined with hotspot analysis to simultaneously assess intensity, extent, and spatial significance; and (3) proposing an operational spatial framework for identifying and prioritizing evidence-based urban interventions. The results suggest that large-scale indicator-based approaches fail to capture micro-spatial variations and the heterogeneity of aging experiences. Therefore, urban decision-making should be grounded in fine-grained, participatory geospatial analysis. This study provides a practical guide for policymakers and urban planners to enhance older adults’ quality of life and to foster more inclusive and age-friendly urban environments. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Age-Friendly Cities, Urban Spatial Quality, Spatial Analysis, Urban Open Spaces, Urban Accessibility | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abedini, A., Ramesh, S., & Yousefi, N. (2024). Evaluating the historical fabric of Urmia for the elderly using the 15-minute city approach. Spatial Planning and Geomatics, 28(3), 119–140. [In Persian] https://hsmsp.modares.ac.ir/article_14776.html Amini, E., Shabani, A., & Taghiani, S. (2023). Explaining the components of urban space for the elderly based on environmental psychology approach (Case study: District 8 of Shiraz). Applied Research in Geographical Sciences, 68, 403–426. [In Persian] http://dx.doi.org/10.52547/jgs.23.68.403 Araei, A., Ezzatpanah, B., & Nazmfarr, H. (2021). Evaluating the level of satisfaction with the realization of age-friendly city dimensions from the perspective of the local community (Case study: District 3 of Karaj metropolis). New Attitudes in Human Geography, 52, 81–106. [In Persian] https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.66972251.1400.13.4.3.8 Aslanoğlu, R., Chrobak, G., Dikken, J., van Hoof, J., Ivan, L., Kazak, J. K., & de Wit, L. (2025). Age-friendly cities and communities’ manifesto. In Connected generations, connected cities: The age-friendly vision. https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/wpcontent/uploads/2025/02/Manifesto-EN.pdf Buffel, T. (2019). Older coresearchers exploring age-friendly communities: An “insider” perspective on the benefits and challenges of peer-research. The Gerontologist, 59(3), 538–548. https://doi.org/10.1093/GERONT/GNX216 Buffel, T., Phillipson, C., & Scharf, T. (2012). Ageing in urban environments: Developing ‘age-friendly’ cities. Critical Social Policy, 32(4), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018311430457 Chudyk, A. M., Winters, M., Moniruzzaman, M., Ashe, M. C., Gould, J. S., & McKay, H. (2015). Destinations matter: The association between where older adults live and their travel behavior. Journal of Transport & Health, 2, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2014.09.008 Dikken, J., van den Hoven, R. F. M., van Staalduinen, W. H., HulseboschJanssen, L. M. T., & van Hoof, J. (2020). How older people experience the agefriendliness of their city: Development of the age-friendly cities and communities questionnaire. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186867 Dymnicka, M. (2011). Od miejsca do nie-miejsca [eng, From place to non-place], Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Sociologica, 36, 35–52. https://dspace.uni.lodz.pl/bitstream/handle/11089/320/35_dymnickaFoliaSociologica36.pdf?sequence=1&is Allowed=y. Ebrahimpour, S., Alizadeh, K., & Ahmadian, M. A. (2025). A review of age-friendly city studies using content meta-analysis. Geographical Sciences (Applied Geography), 21(50), 80–105. [In Persian] https://sanad.iau.ir/Journal/geographic/Article/1205733/FullText Esri. (2021). Adding x, y coordinate data as a layer—ArcMap documentation, USA. https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/map/working-with-layers/adding-xy-coordinate-data-as-a-layer.htm. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Washington, DC, Island Press. Gholami, M., Amininejad, G., & Banari, K. (2022). Measuring and evaluating age-friendly city indicators (Case study: Borazjan). Urban Environment Planning and Development, 5, 20–30. [In Persian] https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.27833496.1401.2.5.1.4 Gilroy, R. (2008). Places that support human flourishing: Lessons from later life. Planning Theory & Practice, 9(2), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350802041548 Green, G. (2013). Age-friendly cities of Europe. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 90, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-012-9765-8 Hasanqolizadeh, A., Hajilou, F., Nokhastin Rouhi, M. R., & Jelokhani, M. R. (2020). Spatial analysis and evaluation of urban spaces from the perspective of age-friendly city (Case study: District 6 of Tehran). Urban Planning Geography Research, 8(2), 371–389. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22059/jurbangeo.2020.295771.1215 He, X., & He, S. Y. (2025). Decoding the spatial effects of walkability on walking behavior among older adults by integrating big data and small data. Cities, 156, 32-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105537 Iranshahi, A., & Ghalenoeei, M. (2017). Evaluating the conformity of urban spaces with age-friendly city indicators (Case study: Chaharbagh Abbasi Street, Isfahan). Hoviatshahr (City Identity), 30, 69–76. [In Persian] https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.17359562.1396.11.2.6.0 Jolanta, M., Dikken, J. Hoof a, J., & Jan, K. (2025). Shaping age-friendly cities and communities: A geospatial approach to the assessment of four cities in Europe. Cities, 166, 1-13. Li, X., Li, Y., Xi, B., & Han, Y. (2021). Pathways between neighbourhood walkability and mental wellbeing: A case from Hankow, China. Journal of Transport & Health, 20, Article 101012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101012 Łuczak, K., & Le´sniak, A. (2021). Tozsamo ´s´c miejsca w kontek´scie architektonicznym [eng. Place identity in architectural context]. Przestrzen´ Urbanistyka Architektura, 1, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.37705/PUA/1/2021/006 Menec, V. H., Means, R., Keating, N., Parkhurst, G., & Eales, J. (2011). Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging = La Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 30, 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980811000237 Nasiri Henkhaleh, E., & Rezaei, M. (2018). Investigating the impact of physical and social components on the realization of an age-friendly city: Case study of Rasht. Sustainable City, 1(4), 73–87. [In Persian] https://www.jscity.ir/article_91139.html Plouffe, L., Kalache, A., & Voelcker, I. (2016). A critical review of the WHO age-friendly cities methodology and its implementation. In T. Moulaert, & S. Garon (Eds.), Agefriendly cities and communities in international comparison: Political lessons, scientific avenues, and democratic issues (pp. 19–36). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24031-2_2. Resideh, B., Marsoosi, N., Taleshi, M., & Mousavi Kazemi, S. M. (2023). Applying the age-friendly city approach in urban transport planning (Case study: Mashhad metropolitan area). Spatial Planning and Physical Development, 10(3), 85–100. [In Persian] https://psp.journals.pnu.ac.ir/article_10676.html Saberifar, R. (2023). Evaluating the practical outcomes of policymaking in the field of age-friendly cities in Iranian metropolises. Hoviatshahr (City Identity), 17(54), 93–106. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.30495/hoviatshahr.2023.69115.12255 Schmidt, T., Kerr, J., & Schipperijn, J. (2019). Associations between neighborhood open space features and walking and social interaction in older adults-A mixed methods study. Geriatrics (Switzerland), 4(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics4030041 Steels, S. (2015). Key characteristics of age-friendly cities and communities: A review. Cities, 47, 45-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.02.004 Swiąder, M., & Łukowiak, M. (2016). Społeczna waloryzacja przestrzeni zyciowej naprzykładzie miasta Wołow (Polska, wojewodztwo ´ dolno´sląskie) [eng. The socialvalorization of life space for Wołow ´ city (Lower Silesia, Poland)]. Problemy Rozwoju Miast [Eng. Urban Developemnt Issues], XIII (III), 13–22. van Hoof, J., & Marston, H. R. (2021). Age-friendly cities and communities: State of the art and future perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041644 van Hoof, J., Dikken, J., Buttigie S. C., van den Hoven, R. F. M., Kroon, E., & Marston, H. R. (2020). Age-friendly cities in the Netherlands: An explorative study of facilitators and hindrances in the built environment and ageism in design. Indoor and Built Environment, 29(3), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X19857216 van Hoof, J., Kazak, J. K., Perek-Białas, J. M., & Peek, S. T. M. (2018). The challenges of urban ageing: Making cities age-friendly in Europe. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112473 van Hoof, J., Marston, H. R., & Dikken, J. (2025). Who doesn’t think about financial security when designing urban environments for older people? Advocating for the inclusion of financial factors in the age-friendly agenda. In H. R. Marston (Ed.), Ethics and aging: A cross-disciplinary approach. Cognella (in press). van Hoof, J., van den Hoven, R. F. M., Hess, M., van Staalduinen, W. H., HulseboschJanssen, L. M. T., & Dikken, J. (2022). How older people experience the agefriendliness of The Hague: A quantitative study. Cities, 124, Article 103568. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CITIES.2022.103568 van Hoof, J., van Staalduinen, W. H., & Dikken, J. (2024). A multi-year quantitative study of the experienced age-friendliness in The Hague: A tale of four personas. Social Science & Medicine, 340, Article 116362. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2023.116362 Vanderbeck, R. M. (2007). Intergenerational geographies: Age relations, segregation and re-engagements. Geography Compass, 1(2), 200–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00012.x Wang, Z., Ettema, D., & Helbich, M. (2023). Age as effect modifier of the associations between the physical environment and adults’ neighborhood walking in the Netherlands. Cities, 135(104), 194-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104194 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, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104829 Wood, G. E. R., Pykett, J., Daw, P., Agyapong-Badu, S., Banchoff, A., King, A. C., & Stathi, A. (2022). The role of urban environments in promoting active and healthy aging: A systematic scoping review of citizen science approaches. Journal of Urban Health, 99(3), 427–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-022-00622-w World Health Organisation. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva, World Health Organisation. World Health Organisation. (2017). Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health. Geneva, World Health Organisation, Retrieved from: 17240_Multisectoral action for a life course approach to healthy ageing-draft global strategy and plan of action on ageing and health For Web (who.int) World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: a policy framework. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/67215
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1 |
||