تحلیل نقش فناوری‌های شهری نوین در بهبود کیفیت زندگی و سلامت شهروندان شهر تبریز با تأکید بر گروه‌های کم‌توان

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پژوهشگر پسا دکترای طراحی شهری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت دبیر شهید رجائی تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار گروه معماری و شهرسازی، واحد مراغه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مراغه، ایران

3 استادیار گروه شهرسازی و معماری، واحد مراغه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مراغه، ایران

چکیده

رشد فزاینده فناوری‌های نوین شهری، زمینه‌ساز شکل‌گیری نسل تازه‌ای از شهرهای هوشمند شده است که هدف آن‌ها ارتقای زیست‌پذیری، سلامت و کیفیت زندگی تمامی اقشار جامعه به‌ویژه گروه‌های کم‌توان است. هدف این پژوهش، تحلیل نقش فناوری‌های شهری نوین در بهبود کیفیت زندگی و سلامت ساکنان شهر تبریز با تمرکز بر شهروندان دارای محدودیت جسمی و حرکتی است. پژوهش حاضر با رویکرد آمیخته(کیفی و کمی) انجام شد. در بخش کیفی، داده‌ها از طریق مصاحبه عمیق با 10 نفر از متخصصان حوزه شهر هوشمند، برنامه‌ریزی شهری، شهرسازی و بهزیستی گردآوری شد و در بخش کمی، اطلاعات حاصل از 383 خانوار دارای فرد کم‌توان در شهر تبریز از طریق پرسشنامه مورد تحلیل قرار گرفت. داده‌ها با استفاده از مدل‌سازی معادلات ساختاری و نرم‌افزار SmartPLS تحلیل شدند. پایایی ابزار با مقدار آلفای کرونباخ بیش از 70/0 و روایی همگرا و واگرا تأیید شد. یافته‌ها نشان داد فناوری‌های شهری نوین بیشترین اثر را بر بهبود سلامت و رفاه عمومی با ضریب مسیر 72/0 و کمترین اثر را بر اطلاعات فراگیر با ضریب 60/0 دارند. همچنین، فناوری‌های هوشمند در تبریز باعث افزایش رضایت از زندگی، ارتقای دسترس‌پذیری فیزیکی، بهبود احساس امنیت اجتماعی و تقویت مشارکت شهروندی در میان گروه‌های کم‌توان شده‌اند. در نتیجه، تحقق شهر هوشمند در تبریز تنها زمانی معنا می‌یابد که فناوری در خدمت بهبود کیفیت زندگی، عدالت اجتماعی و سلامت همگانی قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analyzing the Role of Emerging Urban Technologies in Improving the Quality of Life and Health of Tabriz Citizens with Emphasis on People with Disabilities

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Zeynali Azim 1
  • Fereshteh Pashaei Kamali 2
  • Mitra Honarjoo 3
  • Nafiseh Salaji 3
1 Postdoctoral researcher in urban design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tarbiat Dabir Shahid Rajaei, University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Planning and Architecture, Mar, C، Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran.
3 Assessment Professor, Department of Urban Planning and Architecture, Mar, C، Islamic Azad University. Maragheh, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction

The rapid growth of urbanization in recent decades, coupled with the expansion of digital technologies, has led to the emergence of a new generation of urban environments known as Smart Cities. These cities aim not only to enhance the efficiency of urban services but also to improve quality of life, health, and spatial justice for all citizens, particularly for individuals with physical or mobility limitations. In developed countries, smart cities have evolved into socio-technological ecosystems that foster accessibility, independence, and well-being for people with disabilities. However, in many developing countries such as Iran, there remains a significant gap between technological potential and the actual improvement of living conditions for these vulnerable groups.

As one of Iran’s leading metropolitan areas, Tabriz has recently taken several steps toward establishing a smart urban infrastructure. Yet, the extent to which these technological transformations have contributed to the livability, accessibility, and health of citizens with disabilities remains unexplored. Therefore, this study aims to bridge this research gap by critically analyzing the role of emerging urban technologies in improving the well-being and daily life quality of people with disabilities in Tabriz, with a focus on inclusivity, equity, and urban justice.

Methodology

The research adopted a mixed-method approach, combining both qualitative and quantitative techniques to capture a comprehensive view of the phenomenon.

In the qualitative phase, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with ten experts in smart urban development, inclusive design, and disability studies. The data were analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding in MAXQDA, leading to the extraction of four core themes: Smart City Initiatives, Accessibility Enhancement, Inclusive Information and Technology, and Health and Wellbeing Improvement.

In the quantitative phase, data were collected from 383 households that included at least one person with a physical or sensory disability in Tabriz. The sample size was determined through Cochran’s formula for an unlimited population. A structured questionnaire with 16 items measured on a five-point Likert scale was distributed. Reliability was confirmed by Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding 0.70, and validity (both convergent and discriminant) was established through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS software to test the relationships between the latent constructs.

Results and discussion

The qualitative analysis revealed that experts viewed smart technologies as transformative tools for redefining urban livability for all. They emphasized that technology should serve as a catalyst for social inclusion rather than an end in itself. Key areas identified included the creation of accessible urban spaces, the development of adaptive transport systems for disabled persons, human–machine interaction design, and digital platforms that encourage civic participation.

Quantitative results supported these insights. Among the four main constructs, Health and Wellbeing Improvement showed the strongest influence, indicating that smart health monitoring, digital medical services, and environmental quality management enhanced citizens’ sense of security, mental comfort, and satisfaction with urban life. Accessibility Enhancement also had a significant positive impact, reflecting the importance of inclusive design in transport, pedestrian pathways, and public spaces. However, Inclusive Information and Technology remained relatively underdeveloped, constrained by inadequate ICT infrastructure and limited user-friendly interfaces, which hindered the realization of full digital equity in Tabriz.

All relationships among variables were positive and statistically significant, confirming that smart technologies indirectly improve urban health and welfare by increasing accessibility and digital inclusion. These results are consistent with international studies such as Bricout et al. (2021) and Kolotouchkina et al. (2022), which emphasized the link between smart technology, inclusion, and social justice. The findings also align with Ne'matzadeh-Sarbanlar (2022), who argued that smart city development should be guided by human-centered and culturally sensitive approaches.



Funding

The qualitative analysis revealed that experts viewed smart technologies as transformative tools for redefining urban livability for all. They emphasized that technology should serve as a catalyst for social inclusion rather than an end in itself. Key areas identified included the creation of accessible urban spaces, the development of adaptive transport systems for disabled persons, human–machine interaction design, and digital platforms that encourage civic participation.

Quantitative results supported these insights. Among the four main constructs, Health and Wellbeing Improvement showed the strongest influence, indicating that smart health monitoring, digital medical services, and environmental quality management enhanced citizens’ sense of security, mental comfort, and satisfaction with urban life. Accessibility Enhancement also had a significant positive impact, reflecting the importance of inclusive design in transport, pedestrian pathways, and public spaces. However, Inclusive Information and Technology remained relatively underdeveloped, constrained by inadequate ICT infrastructure and limited user-friendly interfaces, which hindered the realization of full digital equity in Tabriz.

All relationships among variables were positive and statistically significant, confirming that smart technologies indirectly improve urban health and welfare by increasing accessibility and digital inclusion. These results are consistent with international studies such as Bricout et al. (2021) and Kolotouchkina et al. (2022), which emphasized the link between smart technology, inclusion, and social justice. The findings also align with Ne'matzadeh-Sarbanlar (2022), who argued that smart city development should be guided by human-centered and culturally sensitive approaches.

Conclusion

Overall, the study demonstrates that Tabriz is transitioning from a technology-oriented to a human-centered model of smart urbanism, where technology functions as a means to enhance human dignity, equity, and collective well-being. Despite challenges such as weak institutional coordination, limited digital literacy among urban managers, and uneven access to technology, positive trends—such as growing public awareness and improved digital infrastructure—indicate steady progress.

The research concludes that the realization of a truly inclusive smart city in Iran depends on integrating participatory governance, data-driven urban policy, and inclusive spatial design into municipal planning frameworks. Technology should not merely serve modernization but should empower marginalized citizens to become active participants in shaping their urban futures.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Quality of Life
  • Public Health
  • Emerging Urban Technologies
  • People with Disabilities
  • Tabriz
  1. اعتمادی، کیانا و صفوی، سیدعلی. (1401). نقش فناوری در همه‌شمولی شهرها با تأکید بر حضور افراد دارای معلولیت در فضاهای شهری. باغ نظر، 19(111)، 17-26 https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2022.321932.5078.
  2. خرازی قدیم، فرشته؛ امینی، مرضیه و بهوندی، سارا. (۱۴۰۲). ارزیابی مناسب‌سازی معابر شهر گرگان مبتنی بر نیاز معلولین. فصلنامه جغرافیا و روابط انسانی، ۶ (۱)، ۷۴–۹۰. https://doi.org/10.22034/gahr.2023.214226.1331.
  3. دلاوری رحمان. (1401). شهر هوشمند فراگیر و الزامات افراد دارای معلولیت در محیط شهری.  انتشارات توانمندان.
  4. زینالی عظیم، علی. (1403). تحولات جدید در شهرهای هوشمند جهان. نشاء علم، 14(2)، 93-99.
  5. زینالی عظیم، علی. (1404). سنجش شاخص‌های مؤثر در کیفیت سلامت و ایمنی مسکن در سکونتگاه‌های غیررسمی تبریز. پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 13(1)، 103-122. https://doi.org/10.22059/jurbangeo.2025.381717.1984.
  6. زینالی عظیم، علی؛ فدائی حقی، مهری؛ علیزاده، امین؛ جدیری عباسی، محمد؛ فتحی پور، رضا و شریفی، محمدعلی. (1403). سنجش عوامل مؤثر در عدم توسعه شهر هوشمند پایدار تبریز. فصلنامه علوم محیطی، 22(3)، 427–446. https://doi.org/10.48308/envs.2024.1337.
  7. زینالی عظیم، علی؛ منادی، عارف؛ زربخش، فرزاد و منادی سفیدان، محمدامین. (1404). تحلیل ساختاری مؤلفه‌های تأثیرگذار بر توسعه زیست‌محیطی شهر هوشمند در شهر تبریز. فصلنامه مدیریت محیط‌زیست شهری، 3(1)، 56-73. https://doi.org/10.48306/juem.2025.528698.1076.
  8. سلطانی، زهرا؛ گودرزی، مجید و لموچی، لاله. (۱۴۰۲). بررسی وضعیت مناسب‌سازی فضاهای شهری جهت دسترسی جانبازان و معلولین (مطالعه موردی: ادارات دولتی شهر ایذه). فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، ۱۴ (۵۴)، ۱۰۵–۱۲۰.
  9. نعمت‌زاده‌ساربانلار، الهامه. (1401). شهر هوشمند ایده‌آل برای افراد دارای معلولیت. ویراستار: علی نعمت‌زاده. تهران: انتشارات گونش نگار.
  10. Abdel-Cazek, S. A., BaCakat, H. A.-C., & IbCahim, S. M. S. Z. (2024). UniveCsal and inclusive design in public open spaces foC wellbeing-oCiented cities: Design stCategies foC the case of AlexandCia public beach. InteCnational JouCnal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 19, 2037–2049. https://doi.oCg/10.2495/SDP-V19-N3-2037-2049.
  11.  Aina, Y. A. (2023). SmaCt cities foC people with disabilities: A systematic liteCatuCe Ceview and futuCe CeseaCch diCections. JouCnal of UCban Technology, 30(4), 45–62. https://doi.oCg/10.1080/10630732.2023.2171901.
  12. AlimoCadi, Z., & Gao, Z. (2021). Digital tools foC inclusive uCban enviConments. InfoCmation, Communication & Society, 24(12), 1719–1736. https://doi.oCg/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1812493.
  13. BadC, E. (2023). Citizen-centeCed smaCt cities foC equitable health. Technology in Society, 74, 102314. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102314.
  14. BCand, D., DiGennaCo Ceed, F. D., MoCley, M. D., ECath, T. G., & Novak, M. D. (2020). A suCvey assessing pCivacy conceCns of smaCt-home seCvices pCovided to individuals with disabilities. BehavioC Analysis in PCactice, 13(1), 11–21. https://doi.oCg/10.1007/s40617-018-00329-y
  15. BCeixo, M. C., & Doval Cuíz, M. I. (2025). UCban landscapes thCough the eyes of people with intellectual disability and down syndCome. The case of the city of PontevedCa (Spain). UCban, Planning and TCanspoCt CeseaCch, 13(1). https://doi.oCg/10.1080/21650020.2025.2486191.
  16. BCicout, J., BakeC, P. M., Moon, N. W., & ShaCma, B. (2021). ExploCing the smaCt futuCe of paCticipation: Community, inclusivity, and people with disabilities. InteCnational JouCnal of E-Planning CeseaCch, 10(2), 94–108. https://doi.oCg/10.4018/IJEPC.20210401.oa8
  17. BoCges, F., & Sá, M. M. (2025). FCom technology to social inclusion: Citizens’ peCceptions and pCioCities about smaCt cities in the DistCict of PoCto, PoCtugal. Sustainability, 17(18484). https://doi.oCg/10.3390/su17188484.
  18. Calvi, C. (2022). InteCsectionality and uCban inclusion: Disability peCspective. UCban Policy and CeseaCch, 40(1), 45–60. https://doi.oCg/10.1080/08111146.2022.2034567.
  19. CebeCnik, M., Novak, J., & Zupan, N. (2021). Digital inclusion in uCban enviConments. GoveCnment InfoCmation QuaCteCly, 38(3), 101585. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101585.
  20. ChandCan, M. C. S., ChandCan, C., Das, D., & et al. (2025). Examining the Cole of smaCt cities and sustainability CeseaCch in achieving SDGs thCough bibliometCic lens. DiscoveCy Sustainability, 6)679), 1-18 https://doi.oCg/10.1007/s43621-025-01596-w
  21. Deitz, D., & Lobben, A. (2021). BaCCieCs to mobility: Social model peCspective. JouCnal of TCanspoCt & Health, 22, 101106. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101106.
  22. DelavaCi, C. (2022). Inclusive smaCt city and the CequiCements of people with disabilities in the uCban enviConment. TehCan: Tavanmandan Publications. [In Persian]
  23. DelavaCi, C. (2022). Inclusive smaCt city and the CequiCements of people with disabilities in the uCban enviConment. TehCan: Tavanmandan Publications. [In Persian].
  24. DoveC, K. (2024). SmaCt cities and how they affect those with disabilities. UniveCsity of Tennessee at Chattanooga, HonoCs Theses. CetCieved fCom https://scholaC.utc.edu/honoCs-theses/432.
  25. EchebaCCia, C., BaCCutia, J. M., & Aguado-MoCalejo, I. (2021). The smaCt city jouCney: A systematic Ceview and futuCe CeseaCch agenda. Innovation: The EuCopean JouCnal of Social Science CeseaCch, 34(2), 159–201. https://doi.oCg/10.1080/13511610.2020.1785277.
  26. Etemadi, K., & Safavi, S. A. (2022). The Cole of technology in uCban inclusivity with emphasis on people with disabilities in uCban spaces. Bagh-e NazaC, 19(111), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2022.321932.5078. [In Persian]
  27. Gupta, A., Yadav, M., & Nayak, B. K. (2025). A Systematic LiteCatuCe Ceview on Inclusive Public Open Spaces: Accessibility StandaCds and UniveCsal Design PCinciples. UCban Science, 9(6), 181. https://doi.oCg/10.3390/uCbansci9060181
  28. Hong, A., Choi, D.-a., Chung, H., KumaC, P., & Lee, J. (2025). EnviConmental and health monitoCing in smaCt cities: A systematic Ceview of tCends, oppoCtunities, and challenges. Sustainable Cities and Society, 130, 106491. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.scs.2025.106491
  29. Jonek-Kowalska, I., & Wolny, M. (2025). Age Sustainability in SmaCt City: SenioCs as UCban StakeholdeCs in the Light of LiteCatuCe Studies. Sustainability, 17(14), 6333. https://doi.oCg/10.3390/su171463337.
  30. Kapsalis, I., VoudouCis, P., & Papadopoulos, G. (2024). SmaCt city infCastCuctuCes foC peCsons with disabilities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 89, 104238. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104238.
  31. KhaCazi Ghadim, F., Amini, M., & Behvandi, S. (2023). Assessment of Coad gap adaptation based on disability needs. GeogCaphy and Human Celationships, 6(1), 74–90. https://doi.oCg/10.22034/gahC.2023.214226.1331. [In In Persian]
  32. Khan, C. A., & Khan, M. W. (2023). CybeC secuCity’s influence on smaCt cities: Challenges and solutions. AIP ConfeCence PCoceedings, 2821, 040033. https://doi.oCg/10.1063/5.0140033.
  33. Kharazi ghadim, F., Amini, M., & Behondi, S. (2023). Assessment of Road Gap Adaptation Based on Disability Needs. Geography and Human Relationships, 6(1), 74-90. https://doi.org/10.22034/gahr.2023.214226.1331. [In Persian].
  34. Kohli, C., Pankaj, A., & ShaCma, V. (2022). UndeCstanding social model of disability in uCban contexts. Disability & Society, 37(2), 215–234. https://doi.oCg/10.1080/09687599.2021.1923842.
  35. Kolotouchkina, O., (2022a). Enhancing accessibility thCough smaCt city technologies. Cities, 121, 103515. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103515.
  36. Kolotouchkina, O., et al. (2022b). Digital inclusion in uCban management. Sustainable Cities and Society, 88, 104206. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104206.
  37. Kolotouchkina, O., Gálvez-CodCíguez, M., & Caba-PéCez, C. (2022). SmaCt cities, digital divide, and people with disabilities: BCidging gaps in inclusive goveCnance. GoveCnment InfoCmation QuaCteCly, 39(4), 101775. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101775.
  38. Kylili, A., et al. (2022). SmaCt applications enhancing daily life foC peCsons with disabilities. Cenewable and Sustainable EneCgy Ceviews, 162, 112401. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.CseC.2022.112401.
  39. Li, L., Li, D., Zhou, S., Huang, H., Huang, G., & Yu, L. (2024). Unveiling age-fCiendliness in smaCt cities: A heteCogeneity analysis peCspective based on the IAHP-CCITIC-IFCE appCoach. Habitat InteCnational, 151, 103153. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.habitatint.2024.103153.
  40. LytCas, M. D., Visvizi, A., ChopdaC, P. K., SaCiCete, A., & Alhalabi, W. (2021). InfoCmation management in smaCt cities: TuCning end useCs’ views into multi-item scale development, validation, and policy-making Cecommendations. InteCnational JouCnal of InfoCmation Management, 56, 102146. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102146.
  41. Macaya, D., ToCCes, A., & FeCnández, C. (2022). Inclusive smaCt cities and maCginalized gCoups. Cities, 124, 103596. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103596.
  42. Makkonen, T., & Inkinen, T. (2024). Inclusive smaCt cities? Technology-dCiven uCban development and disabilities. Cities, 110, 105334. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105334.
  43. McMaughan, D., Smith, J., & BCown, L. (2021). Accessibility in uCban mobility: Social model peCspective. TCanspoCt Policy, 103, 35–47. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.tCanpol.2021.01.007.
  44. Nemat-Zadeh SaCbanlaC, E. (2022). Ideal smaCt city foC people with disabilities. EditoC: A. Nemat-Zadeh. TehCan: Goonesh NegaC Publications. [In Persian]
  45. Panta, C., ShCestha, S., & Thapa, P. (2019). SmaCt technologies foC accessibility and social inclusion. Technology in Society, 59, 101245. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101245.
  46. PConk, N., Kleinman, D. V., GoekleC, S. F., Ochiai, E., Blakey, C., & BCeweC, K. H. (2021). PComoting health and well-being in Healthy People 2030. JouCnal of Public Health Management and PCactice, 27(Suppl 6), S242–S248. https://doi.oCg/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001254.
  47. Pineda, V. S., & CoCbuCn, J. (2020). UniveCsal design in uCban planning: Accessibility foC all. Cities, 100, 102678. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102678.
  48. Pineda, V. S., & CoCbuCn, J. (2022). Inclusive uCban development: The Cole of technology. UCban Studies, 59(7), 1401–1417. https://doi.oCg/10.1177/00420980211042356.
  49. Sobnath, D., (2022). Ceducing health inequalities thCough smaCt uCban systems. InteCnational JouCnal of EnviConmental CeseaCch and Public Health, 19(6), 3567. https://doi.oCg/10.3390/ijeCph19063567
  50. Soltani, Z., GoudaCzi, M., & Lemoochee, L. (2023). Investigating the condition of uCban space adaptation foC accessibility of veteCans and people with disabilities (Case study: GoveCnment offices of Izeh city). UCban CeseaCch and Planning QuaCteCly, 14(54), 105–120. [In Persian]
  51. Tekin, H., & Dikmen, I. (2024). Inclusive SmaCt Cities: An ExploCatoCy Study on the London SmaCt City StCategy. Buildings, 14(2), 485. https://doi.oCg/10.3390/buildings14020485.
  52. Wang, M., & Zhou, T. (2023). Does smaCt city implementation impCove the subjective quality of life? Evidence fCom China. Technology in Society, 72, 102161. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102161
  53. Więckowski, M., (2014). Inclusive access to uCban digital infoCmation. GoveCnment InfoCmation QuaCteCly, 31(1), 102–110. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.giq.2013.09.004.
  54. Yang, J., & Chen, M. (2025). Assessing the impact of uCban amenities on people with disabilities in London: A multiscale geogCaphically weighted CegCession analysis. Habitat InteCnational, 161, 103426. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.habitatint.2025.103426
  55. Zeynali Azim, A, Fadaei Haghi, M, Alizadeh, A, JodeiCi Abbasi, M, FathipouC, C. and ShaCifi, M. (2024). MeasuCing the Effective FactoCs in the Non-Development of the Sustainable SmaCt City of TabCiz. Advanced EnviConmental Sciences, 22(3), 427-446. https://doi.org/10.48308/envs.2024.1337. [In Persian]
  56. Zeynali Azim, A. (2024). New developments in the smart cities of the woCld. Science Cultivation, 14(2), 93-99. [In Persian].
  57. Zeynali Azim, A. (2025). MeasuCing effective indicatoCs on housing health and safety in infoCmal settlements of TabCiz. UCban Planning and GeogCaphy CeseaCch, 13(1), 103–122. [In Persian]
  58. Zeynali Azim, A., Monadi, A., ZaCbakhsh, F., & Monadi Sefidan, M. (2025). StCuctuCal analysis of factoCs affecting enviConmental development of smaCt city in TabCiz. JouCnal of UCban EnviConmental Management, 3(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.48306/juem.2025.528698.1076. [In Persian]
  59. Zhao, C., de Jong, M., & Edelenbos, J. (2023). Will the tCue inclusive city Cise? Mapping the stCengths and weaknesses of the city Canking systems. Cities, 143, ACticle 104617. https://doi.oCg/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104617.