A comparative study of livability in new and old parts of the cities (Case Study: Urmia city)

The increase in the development of urban population and replacement of concern for quantitative standards by consideration of qualitative approaches has led to a rise in the quality of urban life and urban livability, where the role of officials and urban management is important, along with the need for a comprehensive study of various dimensions in the city. Following the rapid population growth as a result of migration and the unplanned expansion of the city of Urmia, Iran, the capital of West Azerbaijan Province, and the consequent problems, the need for a comprehensive effort to save the city and improve the quality of life therein has been highlighted more than ever. In response to these problems, various theories and approaches have been proposed, one of which is the livable city approach. Given that livability is a complex, multidimensional concept, and its patterns are completely different from one region to another, no comprehensive model has been presented so far of the effects of livability indicators in the old and new parts of cities in the current conditions and the relationships between them. Therefore, this comparative study was intended to investigate the extent of livability in the old and new parts of Urmia based on the relevant indicators.

Theoretical Framework

Livability is defined as the quality of life experienced by the inhabitants of a city or region. Kennedy and Bai believe that the concept of livability is defined by terms such as the well-being of the society, and represents the characteristics that turn a place into one where people always want to live.

In this descriptive-analytical applied research, data collection was conducted through library studies, available articles, field studies, and census information released in 2016 by the Statistical Center of Iran. Thus, after the resources relevant to livability were studied, twelve indicators were selected from among various effective factors to obtain the research output, given the availability of data on Urmia. These indicators include access to medical use, access to commercial use, access to sports and recreational use, access to green space use, quality of buildings, area covered by sewage, access to academic and cultural use, number of literate people, population density, average land price, number of employees, and access to the main thoroughfares. Given that each of the indicators effective in specification of livability has a different coefficient of importance (weight), the opinions of the elite were used in this article to determine the weights of the indicators. To weigh the indicators according to the BWM method, thirty questionnaires were developed with contents based on their pairwise comparison in terms of the preference of the best indicator over the others and the preference of the other indicators over the worst. In the next step, the questionnaire data were entered into the GAMS software and calculated and analyzed. A weight of 0.081 was calculated with the value of lε obtained for the thirty questionnaires, which indicates the stability and consistency of the calculated weights due to its proximity to zero. For a spatial analysis, the information layers of the indicators were first digitized and edited in the GIS software, and the significance coefficient calculated by the BWM method was multiplied by each of the indicators through conversion of the information layers into a raster and their classification. Using the weighted sum, the indicators were then combined for measurement of livability in the old and new parts of Urmia. 

The calculations of the weights of the twelve indicators in the Gomez software indicates that the highest weight concerns the average land price indicator, with a significance coefficient of 0.169, and the lowest weight pertains to the area covered by sewage, with 0.015. The average value of λε obtained for the thirty questionnaires was 0.081, which indicates the stability and consistency of the calculated weights due to its proximity to zero. 

The results of combining the twelve livability indicators for  the old part of Urmia show that 2% of this part lies in the zone with very low livability, 13% in low livability, 32% in medium livability, 35% in high livability, and 18% is in very high livability. In the new part of Urmia, 7% lie in the zone with very low livability, 21% in low livability, 39% in medium livability, 29% in high livability, and 4% in very high livability. Furthermore, livability is better in the old part than in the new part based on the indicators of access to the main thoroughfares, average land price, population density, access to sports and recreational use, access to medical use, access to academic and cultural use, access to commercial use, number of literate people, and number of employees. On the other hand, livability in the new part is in good conditions compared to that in the old part based on the indicators of building quality, area covered by sewage, and access to green space use.