Analysis of spatial inequalities in Tabriz Metropolis

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research (ACECR), Tabriz, Iran

2 Department of Economic development and Planning, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

A B S T R A C T
In today’s world, spatial duality, growth of poverty-stricken urban districts and urbanization of poverty are considered as key destabilizers of sustainable urban development. And spatial justice is of special importance among planners and geographers. As a result, recognition and discernment of such urban districts is a critical step for de-escalating poverty and inequality. The research methodology of the present study is descriptive-analytical. In the present study, spatial inequalities of districts of Tabriz metropolis is analyzed through utilization of analysis hierarchy process (AHP) with three main criteria of economy, urban physicality and population, which include 11 sub-criteria. According to the level of urban development, Tabriz metropolis is divided into five zones which are developed, relatively developed, medium developed, less developed and undeveloped. The findings of the study indicate the fact that there is a steep physical and class gap between undeveloped, less developed and other zones of the metropolis. Furthermore, quality and quantity of social, economic and physical criteria of undeveloped and less developed zones are lower than other zones. We believe that continuance of the present circumstances will exacerbate inequality and urban poverty, and endanger sustainable urban development. Therefore, it is necessary for urban management to take new steps in order to more desirable and better understand this phenomenon and to apply new and efficient solutions to reduce the effects and various aspects of poverty in the city and urban slums
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Urbanization is one of the biggest challenges facing society, politicians and planners in the 21st century. According to the report of the UN-Habitat, 50.6% of the world’s population lives in cities and one third of this urbanized inhabitants lives in poverty-stricken areas. Therefore, it can be inferred that urbanization of poverty is a key challenge of global development. The metropolis of Tabriz, like other metropolises of Iran, has faced the rapid growth of urbanization in parallel with the political, economic and social developments of the country in recent decades. Its growth has surpassed its development or quantity has surpassed quality, its environmental and social problems have greatly increased, and numerous problems caused by social and spatial differences have threatened the stability of the city, and the spatial heterogeneity and duality of the city is one of the problems. And the problems of Tabriz city are considered. It is recognized that spatial duality and inequality of the city is one of its key challenges and difficulties. Therefore, identification of the extent and intensity of these challenges is considered to be a significant step towards curbing poverty and inequality. Furthermore, the level of development of neighborhoods of Tabriz metropolis needs to be discerned so that an accurate planning can be materialized for accomplishing sustainable urban development. In the present study, development level of spatial features of Tabriz’s neighborhoods as a metropolis will be investigated
 
Methodology
The present study is a descriptive-analytical research. In order to identify deelopment level of neighborhoods of Tabriz metropolis through utilization of statistical data of 2016 census report, 11 indexes are categorized in three main criteria, which pertain to the city’s physicality (which includes indexes such as areas less than 100 square meters, the number of residents in each residential unit and the number of families in each residential unit) population (which includes population density index, the immigrant population percentage, family dimension and 0 to 14
 
 
year report on population) and socio-economic aspects (which includes literacy index, dependency ratio, and unemployment rate). After this categorization, all the aforementioned criteria are compared in pairs through utilization of Delphi Process, AHP and Expert Choice software platform. This comparison will indicate the weight and significance of each criterion in the development level of the city. In the next stage, sub-criteria of each main criterion are evaluated and scored in relation to each other. After calculating incompatibility coefficient, the final weight of each neighborhood is realized. In the last stage, hierarchical clustering is utilized to cluster neighborhoods of Tabriz metropolis on the basis of their development levels. The results of this clustering are represented and mapped in GIS interface.
 
Results and discussion
The development indicators of different sectors and neighborhoods of Tabriz metropolis were grouped in five levels. The neighborhoods of the first group and the second group are mainly located in the center and east of Tabriz city. The localities of the third group are located around the localities of the second group. The neighborhoods of the fourth and fifth groups are mainly located in the north and south of Tabriz city, which are considered to be the informal settlements of the city. According to 2016 census report, Tabriz has a population of 1558693. 5.5% of the population lived in the developed zone; 34.2% lived in relatively developed zone; 34.3% lived in averagely developed zone; 26% of the population lived in less developed zone and 10% lives in undeveloped zone. Analysis of socio-economic indexes indicates a deep gap between less developed and undeveloped zones and other zones of Tabriz metropolis. The residents of these zones have limited access to education, and as a result, acquire insufficient level of skills. That is why they fail to gain eligibility for good jobs. The literacy percentage of undeveloped zone (which is 79.5%) is lower than the average literacy percentage of the city and literacy percentages of the city’s other zones. This fact shows that residents of the undeveloped zone suffer more from illiteracy. The
 
unemployment rates among Tabriz’s zones are dramatically different. In Tabriz, 18.9% is the highest unemployment rate, and unfortunately, it belongs to the undeveloped zone. Furthermore, the average dependency ratio of the undeveloped zone (which is 4.31) is higher than the ratios of other zones of the city. The comparison of 0 to 14 year population reports of the city’s zones indicates the fact that the population rates of the undeveloped and less developed zones are younger in comparison with average age of the city and the age of other zones. This fact shows high birth rates and populated family structures in these zones. The family dimensions of the undeveloped and less developed zones are 3.7 and 3.4, respectively, both of which are higher than the average rate of the city (which is 3.1). The population density in the poor zones of the city is high, and in the developed zones, this density is lower. It is an axiomatic fact that population density and crowdedness results in numerous social and economic difficulties. One of these difficulties pertains to the injustice residents of the deprived areas needs to suffer from in their lack of access to urban facilities.
 
Conclusion
There is a dramatic gap between undeveloped and less developed zones and other zones of the city. The neighborhoods, categorized in the first and second categories, were proven to have larger houses and residential units, less population density, smaller families, higher education status, lower unemployment rate, higher number of professional workforce and higher accessibility to facilities and services. Moreover, the neighborhoods of these two privileged categories were proven to be safer against environmental hazards such as floods and earthquakes. Maintaining the status quo will only result in intensification of inequalities and prevalence of urban poverty and procrastinate accomplishment of sustainable urban development. Therefore, it is necessary for urban management to take new steps in order to more desirable and better understand this phenomenon and to apply new and efficient solutions to reduce the effects and various aspects of poverty in the city and urban slums.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

Keywords

References

  1. افروغ، عماد. (1376). فضا و نابرابری اجتماعی: مطالعه جدایی گزینی فضایی و تمرکز فقر در محله‌های مسکونی تهران. رساله دکتری، جامعه‌شناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس تهران.
  2. پیران، پرویز. (1384). آزادی و عدالت. مجله نامه، شماره 41
  3. رفیعیان، مجتبی و شالی، محمد. (1391). تحلیل فضایی سطح توسعه‌یافتگی تهران به تفکیک مناطق شهری. برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا (مدرس علوم انسانی)، 16(4 (پیاپی 76))، 25-49.
  4. زبردست، اسفندیار. (1380). کاربرد فرآیند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی در برنامه‌ریزی شهری و منطقه‌ای. هنرهای زیبا، 10، 13-21.
  5. زبردست، اسفندیار. (1386). بررسی تحولات نخست شهری در ایران. هنرهای زیبا، 29، 29-38.
  6. صرافی، مظفر. (1379). شهری شدن جهان و جهانی‌شدن شهرها: طرح مسئله‌ای برای جنوب. مجله اطلاعات سیاسی- اقتصادی، شماره 156-155.
  7. عظیمی، ناصر. (1381). پویش شهرنشینی و مبانی نظام شهری. تهران: نشر نیکا.
  8. قدسی‌پور، سید حسن. (1388). فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی AHP. چاپ هفتم، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه امیرکبیر
  9. Afrogh, E. (1997). Space and social inequality: a study of spatial segregation and concentration of poverty in residential neighborhoods of Tehran. PhD Thesis, Sociology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran. [In Persian].
  10. Ashik, F. R., Mim, S. A., & Neema, M. N. (2020). Towards vertical spatial equity of urban facilities: An integration of spatial and aspatial accessibility. Journal of Urban Management, 9(1), 77-92.
  11. Azimi, N. (2002). Urbanization campaign and basics of urban system. Tehran: Nika Publishing. [In Persian].
  12. Ballas, D., Dorling, D., & Hennig, B. (2018). Analysing the regional geography of poverty, austerity and inequality in Europe: A human cartographic perspective. In Transitions in regional economic development (pp. 310-330). Routledge.
  13. Barbieri, G. A., Benassi, F., Mantuano, M., & Prisco, M. R. (2019). In search of spatial justice. Towards a conceptual and operative framework for the analysis of inter‐and intra‐urban inequalities using a geo‐demographic approach. The case of Italy. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 11(1), 109-122.
  14. Bertolini, M., Braglia, M., & Carmignani, G. (2006). Application of the AHP methodology in making a proposal for a public work contract. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 422-430.
  15. Brenner, N. (2000). The urban question: reflections on Henri Lefebvre, urban theory and the politics of scale. International journal of urban and regional research, 24(2), 361-378.
  16. Brenner, N., & Schmid, C. (2014). The ‘urban age’in question. International journal of urban and regional research, 38(3), 731-755.
  17. Cassiers, T., & Kesteloot, C. (2012). Socio-spatial inequalities and social cohesion in European cities. Urban Studies, 49(9), 1909-1924.
  18. Chen, Y., Bouferguene, A., Shen, Y., & Al-Hussein, M. (2019). Difference analysis of regional population ageing from temporal and spatial perspectives: A case study in China. Regional Studies, 53(6), 849-860.
  19. Excellent, E. (2001). Application of hierarchical analysis process in urban and regional planning. Fine Arts, 10, 13-21. [In Persian].
  20. Excellent, E. (2007). Investigating the first urban developments in Iran. Fine Arts, 29, 29-38. [In Persian].
  21. Glasmeier, A. (2014). An atlas of poverty in America: One nation. pulling apart 1960–2003. Routledge.
  22. Hall, P., & Pfeiffer, U. (2000). Urban future 21: a global agenda for twenty-first century cities. Taylor & Francis eBooks DRM Free Collection.
  23. Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  24. Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, USA.
  25. Harvey, D. (2009). Spaces of Global Capitalism:A Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. Verso
  26. Kaplan, D. H., & Woodhouse, K. (2004). Research in ethnic segregation I: Causal factors. Urban geography, 25(6), 579-585.
  27. Lee, G. K., & Chan, E. H. (2008). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for assessment of urban renewal proposals. Social indicators research, 89, 155-168.
  28. Lee, J., & Miller, H. J. (2018). Measuring the impacts of new public transit services on space-time accessibility: An analysis of transit system redesign and new bus rapid transit in Columbus, Ohio, USA. Applied geography, 93, 47-63.
  29. Lees, N. (2010). Inequality as an obstacle to world political community and global social justice. In SGIR 7th Annual Conference OnInternational Relations (pp. 9-11).
  30. Lynam, A., Li, F., Xiao, G., Fei, L., Huang, H., & Utzig, L. (2023). Capturing socio-spatial inequality in planetary urbanisation: A multi-dimensional methodological framework. Cities, 132, 104076.
  31. Marcuse, P., & Van Kempen, R. (Eds.). (2011). Globalizing cities: a new spatial order?. John Wiley & Sons.
  32. Marcuse, P., Connolly, J., Novy, J., Olivo, I., Potter, C., & Steil, J. (Eds.). (2009). Searching for the just city: debates in urban theory and practice. Routledge.
  33. Musterd, S., Marcińczak, S., Van Ham, M., & Tammaru, T. (2017). Socioeconomic segregation in European capital cities. Increasing separation between poor and rich. Urban geography, 38(7), 1062-1083.
  34. Nijman, J., & Wei, Y. D. (2020). Urban inequalities in the 21st century economy. Applied geography, 117, 102188
  35. Panori, A., Psycharis, Y., & Ballas, D. (2019). Spatial segregation and migration in the city of Athens: Investigating the evolution of urban socio‐spatial immigrant structures. Population, space and place, 25(5), e2209.
  36. Piran, P. (2005). Freedom and justice. Journal letter, 41[In Persian].
  37. Pratschke, J., & Morlicchio, E. (2012). Social polarisation, the labour market and economic restructuring in Europe: an urban perspective. Urban Studies, 49(9), 1891-1907.
  38. Qudsipour, S. H. (2009). Analytical Hierarchy Process AHP. 7th edition, Tehran: Amirkabir University Press. [In Persian].
  39. Rafiyan, M., & Shali, M. (2011). Spatial analysis of Tehran's development level by urban areas. Planning and preparation of space (Teacher of Humanities), 16(4 (series 76)), 25-49. [In Persian].
  40. Sarafi, M. (2000). Urbanization of the world and the globalization of cities: a problem plan for the South. Journal of Political-Economic Information, No. 156-155. [In Persian].
  41. Setianto, M. A. S., & Gamal, A. (2021). Spatial justice in the distribution of public services. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 673, No. 1, p. 012024). IOP Publishing.
  42. Shi, Q., & Dorling, D. (2020). Growing socio-spatial inequality in neo-liberal times? Comparing Beijing and London. Applied Geography, 115, 102139.
  43. Skop, E. (2006). Introduction—urban space: The shape of inequality. Urban Geography, 27(5), 393-396.
  44. Smith, D. M. (2000). Social justice revisited. Environment and Planning A, 32(7), 1149-1162.
  45. Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode, 34(3), 427-450.
  46. Smith, N. (2005). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge.
  47. Soederberg, S., & Walks, A. (2018). Producing and governing inequalities under planetary urbanization: From urban age to urban revolution?. Geoforum, 89, 107-113.
  48. Soja, E. W. (2013). Seeking spatial justice (Vol. 16). U of Minnesota Press.
  49. Soja, E. W. (2016). Regional urbanization and the end of the metropolis era. In Cities in the 21st Century (pp. 71-89). Routledge
  50. UN-HABITAT. (2011). State of the World’s cities 2010/2011 Bridging the Urban Divide. United Nations, New York
  51. Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of operational research, 169(1), 1-29.
  52. Van Kempen, R., & Murie, A. (2009). The new divided city: Changing patterns in European cities. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 100(4), 377-398.
  53. Warth, G., Braun, A., Assmann, O., Fleckenstein, K., & Hochschild, V. (2020). Prediction of socio-economic indicators for urban planning using VHR satellite imagery and spatial analysis. Remote Sensing, 12(11), 1730.
  54. Zhu, J., & Guo, Y. (2022). Social justice in spatial change: transition from autonomous rural development to integrated urbanization in China. Cities, 122, 103539.
Journal of Geography and Spatial Development
Volume 1, Issue 1
April 2024
Pages 1-13

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics