Exploring Indicators and Qualities of Urban Forms and Their Spatial Distribution at Neighborhood Level of Tehran Metropolis

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Urban Planning, School of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, School of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Urban form studies have been designed to understand the dynamics and complexity of the urban structure. Urban form has been assessed based on many objectives, approaches, and related indicators. Meanwhile, the explanation of neighborhood forms and the provision of benchmarking indicators has attracted many researchers’ attention. However, in these studies urban form has been analyzed using either limited indicators compared separately, or indicators opted based on the goals or measured qualities (like sprawling, compactness, vitality, etc.) from the beginning. In each case, all the indicators and components do not cover a sufficient range of urban form indicators. Therefore, there is an inquiry to set indicators that illustrate urban form at the level of neighborhoods in order to interpret and explore the qualities from viewpoint of correlation of these definitive and clear characteristics. By providing a set of urban indicators at the neighborhood level, in addition to determining their quality, it is possible to compare the neighborhoods urban form and employ it in various studies related to urban form. To achieve this purpose, in this research, after identifying all the urban variables at the neighborhood level from different approaches and using secondary information in 368 neighborhoods of Tehran, the indicators of neighborhood forms and their quality are derived by explorative factor analysis. After determining the form variables and their quality resulting from the correlation between them, the neighborhoods of Tehran are clustered based on these qualities. The results show that 22 indicators and six denseness, access to open/green space, permeability, and diversity of activities, access to plots and access to public transportation components respectively indicate indicators and qualities of urban form at Tehran neighborhoods. Determining these quantitative and main urban form indicators at the neighborhood level can be the basis for all research related to the neighborhood form in Tehran. Moreover, the clustering of Tehran metropolitan neighborhoods based on urban form qualities shows that in areas with high denseness (central and eastern neighborhoods), access to open/green space is less and vice versa. The city center of Tehran is among the most diverse districts. On the other hand, in the central neighborhoods, the level of permeability is extremely low. In general, there is a huge discrepancy between the central neighborhoods and other neighborhoods in terms of denseness, access to open/green space, permeability and diversity. In sum, this research by identifying the urban form indicators at a specific scale (neighborhood) explores the determining and dominant urban form variables and their qualities at that very scale. Therefore, it can be said that among the approaches or goals of measurement, the scale has a significant impact on opting urban form indicators as well as the qualities of urban form. So, regarding the fact that urban form can trigger different qualities in each scale it is suggested that this concept should be assessed using the method and framework of this research in other scales to explain the qualities it can provoke in each scale.

Keywords

References

حامدی، علیرضا، فرامرزی اصل، مهسا، و درسخوان، رسول (۱۳۹۷). چارچوب عملیاتی تبیین و اندازه‌گیری شاخص‌های پراکنده‌رویی شهری با کاربست تجربیات جهانی، مورد مطالعه شهر ارومیه. صفه،‌ ۸۵، ۱۱۷-۱۴۲.
-  زبردست، اسفندیار، و باقرنژاد، الناز (۱۳۹۷). تحلیل رابطه کاربری زمین و رفتارسفر در سطح محلات شهرتهران؛ نمونه مورد مطالعه محله منیریه، کوی بیمه و کوی گلستان. هنرهای زیبا، ۲۳(۴)، 95-106.
-  زبردست،‌ اسفندیار، و حبیبی، سارا (۱۳۸۸). بررسی پدیده پراکنده‌رویی و علل آن در شهر زنجان. هنرهای زیبا، ۳۸، ۱۱۵-۱۲۴.
-  شکیبائی بیدرونی، فاطمه، و طبیبیان، منوچهر (۱۳۹۷). سنجش تطبیقی اثرات فرم کالبدی محله‌های شهری بر سرمایه اجتماعی میان ساکنین، مورد مطالعاتی: شهر قزوین. معماری و شهرسازی آرمان شهر، ۲۳، 295-306.
-  نیک‌پور، عامر، لطفی، صدیقه، و رضازاده، مرتضی (۱۳۹۶). تحلیل رابطه میان فرم‌شهر و شاخص دسترسی (مورد مطالعه: شهر بابلسر). فصلنامه علمی - پژوهشی برنامه‌ریزی فضایی (جغرافیا)، ۲۶، ۸۵-۱۰۶.
 
-   Banai, R., & Antipova, A. (2016). Retail-center viability and urban form: a micro analysis. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 26(5), 521–540. 
-   Boer, R., Zheng, Y., Overton, A., Ridgeway, G. K., & Cohen, D. A. (2007). Neighborhood Design and Walking Trips in Ten U.S. Metropolitan Areas. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(4), 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.12.012
-   Cervero, R. (2002). Built environments and mode choice: toward a normative framework. Transportation Research Part D, 7, 265–284.
-   Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research D, 2(3), 199–219.
-   Cervero, R., Sarmiento, O. L., Jacoby, E., Gomez, L. F., & Neiman, A. (2009). Influences of Built Environments on Walking and Cycling: Lessons from Bogot a. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 3, 203–226. 
-   Clifton, K., Ewing, R., Knaap, G. J., & Song, Y. (2008). Quantitative analysis of urban form : a multidisciplinary review. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Place making and Urban Sustainability, 1(1), 17–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549170801903496
-   Crane, R., & Crepeau, R. (1998). Does neighborhood design influence travel? A behaviorial analysis of travel dairy and GIS data. Transport-D, 3(4), 225–238.
-   Ewing, R., Pendall, R., & Chen, D. (2002). Measuring sprawl and its impact. Washington DC: Smart Growth America.
-   Frank, L. D., Schmid, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Chapman, J., & Saelens, B. E. (2005). Linking Objectively Measured Physical Activity with Objectively Measured Urban Form Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,28, 117–125. 
-   Frank, L., Bradley, M., Kavage, S., Chapman, J., & Lawton, T. K. (2008). Urban form, travel time, and cost relationships with tour complexity and mode choice. Transportation, 35, 37–54. 
-   Gil, J., Beirão, J. N., Montenegro, N., & Duarte, J. P. (2012). On the discovery of urban typologies: Data mining the many dimensions of urban form. Urban Morphology, 16(1), 27-40.
-   Greenwald, M. J. (2006). The relationship between land use and intrazonal trip making behaviors : Evidence and implications. Transportation Research Part D, 11, 432–446. 
-   Guhathakurta, S., & Williams, E. (2015). Impact of urban form on energy use in central city and suburban neighborhoods: lessons from the Phoenix metropolitan region. Energy Procedia, 75, 2928-2933.
-   Holden, E., & Norland, I. T. (2005). Three Challenges for the Compact City as a Sustainable Urban Form : Household Consumption of Energy and Transport in ... Three Challenges for the Compact City as a Sustainable Urban Form : Household Consumption of Energy and Transport in Eight Residential. Urban Studies, 42(12), 2145–2166. 
-   Kockelman, K. M. (1997). Travel behavior as a function of accessibility, land usemixing and land use balance: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation Research Record, 1607, 116-125.
-   Krizek, K. J. (2003). Residential Relocation and Changes in Urban Travel: Does Neighborhood-Scale Urban Form Matter? Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3), 265-281.
-   Lowry, J. H., & Lowry, M. (2014). Comparing spatial metrics that quantify urban form. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 44(March), 59–67. 
-   Mohajeri, N., & Gudmundsson, A. (2014). The Evolution and Complexity of Urban Street Networks. Geographical Analysis, 46, 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/gean.12061.
-   Næss, P. (2006). Accessibility, Activity Participation and Location of Activities: Exploring the Links between Residential Location and Travel Behaviour. Urban Studies, 43(3), 627–652.
-   Nedovic-budic, Z., Jan, G., Shahumyan, H., Williams, B., & Slaev, A. (2016). Measuring urban form at community scale: Case study of Dublin, Ireland. Cities, 55, 148–164. 
-   Rodriguez, D. A., & Joo, J. (2004). The relationship between non-motorized mode choice and the local physical environment. Transportation Research Part D, 9, 151–173. 
-   Sharifi, A. (2018). Resilient Urban Form: A Conceptual Framework. Chapter 9 in Lecture Notes in Energy.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75798-8
-   Silva, L. T., & Monteiro, J. P. (2016). The Influence of Urban Form on Environmental Quality within a Medium-Sized City. Procedia Engineering, 161, 2046–2052. 
-   Song, Y., Gordon-Larsen, P., & Popkin, B. (2013). A national-level analysis of neighborhood form metrics. Landsc Urban Plan. 116: 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.002
-   Song, Y., & Knaap, G.-J. (2004). Measuring Urban Form, Is Portland Winning the War on Sprawl? American Planning Association, 70(2), 210-225.
-   Song, Y. & Knaap, G.J. (2007). Quantitative classification of neighborhoods: the neighborhoods of new single-family homes in the Portland Metropolitan Area. Journal of Urban Design, 12(1), 1–24. 
-   Tsai, Y. (2005). Quantifying Urban Form : Compactness versus’ Sprawl’. Urban Studies, 43(1), 141-161.
-   Vanderhaegen, S., & Canters, F. (2017). Mapping urban form and function at city block level using spatial metrics.Landscape and Urban Planning, 167, 399–409.
-   Venerandi, A., Zanella, M., Romice, O., Dibble, J., & Porta, S. (2016). Form and urban change – An urban morphometric study of five gentrified neighborhoods in London. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 0(0), 1–21. 
-   Zhang, M. (2004). The Role of Land Use in Travel Mode Choice, Evidence from Boston and Hong Kong. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(3), 344–360.
Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning
Volume 12, Issue 26
April 2020
Pages 5-22

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics