طراحی مدل جامع نگر در مطالعه پدیده افتراق شهری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه بوعلی سینا

2 عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه هنر اصفهان

3 دانشجوی دکتری دانشگاه هنر اصفهان

چکیده

جدایی اجتماعی_فضایی در شهرها(یا افتراق شهری)، پدیده‌ای چند بُعدی است که در فضا و زمان حادث می‌شود. این پدیده تنها به واسطه فضاهای تکه‌تکه شده یا تمایزات و اختلافات اجتماعی_اقتصادی مشخص نمی‌شود بلکه در بیشتر مواقع مرزهای تقسیم از برهم کنش جمیع موارد و تمایزات شکل می‌گیرند؛ اما تاکنون نگرش به این پدیده و مواجهه با آن به صورت جامع صورت نگرفته است. افتراق شهری به طور ابتدایی مسئله‌ اجتماعی شناخته شده‌ای است اما به فضا به عنوان عاملی مؤثر در شکل‌گیری و گسترش آن توجه چندانی نشده است. به همین دلیل نیز برای رفع این پدیده، نام و نشانی از شیوه‌های تحلیلی توأمان فضایی و اجتماعی_اقتصادی دیده نمی‌شود. در مقاله حاضر با استفاده از شیوه خط سیر «توسعه نظریه» که مبتنی بر مرور ادبیات موضوع به منظور توسعه و تکامل نظریه‌های موجود است، مفهوم افتراق شهری، به گونه‌ای که شرح‌ دهنده دقیق و همه‌جانبه‌ای از واقعیت بوده و از قابلیت بالای پیش‌بینی در اجرا برخوردار باشد، بسط داده شده است. در فرایند بسط مفهومی، این پدیده به دلیل حمل معانی فضایی نهفته، پدیده‌ای فضایی و اجتماعی_اقتصادی معرفی شده و با توجه به سهم هریک از ابعاد در ظهور افتراق شهری، مدل بررسی و مطالعه جامع‌نگر، مشتمل بر چهار بخش (محدوده‌های دارای ویژگی افتراق فضایی، محدوده‌های دارای ویژگی جداافتادگی (افتراق کامل)، محدوده‌های دارای افتراق اجتماعی_اقتصادی و محدوده‌های فاقد جدایی اجتماعی_فضایی(یا محدوده‌های یکپارچه)) طراحی و پیشنهاد شده است. به منظور آزمون مدل، محلات شهر اصفهان انتخاب و مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند. سنجش وضعیت هر یک از 188 محله شهر و جایگاه آنها در مدل، حکایت از انطباق بالای نتایج با واقعیت و کارایی مدل در توصیف شرایط و جایگاه عرصه‌‌های شهری دارد. قرارگیری محلات محرومی مانند علیقلی‌آقا، زینبه، وحید، همت‌آباد، مارچین، جویباره، کوجان، بابوکان، شهشهان، اطشاران و قائمیه در محدوده افتراق کامل(جداافتادگی) و همچنین واقع شدن محلاتی مانند ملک، محدوده دانشگاه اصفهان، باغ نگار(آئینه‌خانه)، آبشار، سعادت‌آباد، هزار جریب، برازنده و شیخ اشراق (که از شرایط مطلوبی در هر دو بعد برخوردارند) در بخش فاقد افتراق مدل، گویای این واقعیت است. بر این اساس مدل جامع‌نگر پیشنهادی به واسطه ارائه تصویری واقعی از وضعیت افتراق محلات شهری می‌تواند به عنوان ابزاری در تصمیم‌سازی‌ها به کار رفته و با توجه به موقعیت قرارگیری محلات در هر یک از بخش‌های مدل، پایه‌ای برای تعریف اولویت‌ها و نوع اقدامات در برقراری توازن و برابری شهر به شمار آید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Designing a holistic framework in studying urban segregation

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Saeid Izadi 1
  • Mohammad Masoud 2
  • Amir Mohammad Moazezi Mehr-e-Tehran 3
1 Member of the Board-Buali Sina University
2 Member of the Board, Isfahan Art University
3 PhD Candidate-Art University of Isfahan
چکیده [English]

Urban segregation as an undeniable urban reality is a multidimensional and multi-faceted phenomenon, which occurs in space and time. This phenomenon is determined not just by fragmented spaces or socio-economic differentiation but also by interaction of all dimensions (spatial, social and economic) and their differentiations. Despite these varieties, there is no holistic approach to studying and dealing with this phenomenon. Although segregation has been regarded as a social issue, little attention has been paid to space and spatial structure of the city as effective factors in formation and development of urban segregation. Therefore, in anti-segregation practices, there are no hybrid analytical methods of spatial and socio-economic aspects.
In this paper, the research method is “theory development trajectory” which is based on literature review and its aim is to develop and complete the existing theory. Thus, the concept of urban segregation is developed as a precise and comprehensive exponent of reality with a high degree of predictability in implementation. In the process of conceptual development, urban segregation - based on its spatial connotation - is introduced as a spatial and socio-economic phenomenon. The designed conceptual model depending on the contribution of the aspects of urban segregation manifestation includes four parts: “areas with Spatial Segregation (absolute segregation)”, “areas with Involuntary Segregation (absolute segregation)”, “areas with Socio-economic segregation” and “areas without segregation (integrated areas)”.For testing the model, neighborhood areas of Isfahan were studied and analyzed because nowadays, urban segregation is involved at urban quarter levels and becomes visible through the socio-spatial gaps. For clarifying the proposed model at the level of neighbourhood quarters, data gathered from analyzing effective dimensions on urban segregation was synthesized and the state of Isfahan quarters were determined based on the development ranking and average value of integration. Appraisal of 188 quarters and their place at the model presents high conformity of results with reality. Deteriorated urban areas and quarters such as “Aligholi Agha”, “Zeinabieh”, “Vahid”, “Hemmat Abad”, Marchin”, “Juibareh”, “Koujan”, “Baboukan”, “Shahshahan”, Atsharan” and “Ghaemieh” were placed at absolute segregation area (part (3) of the model) and affluent quarters such as “Malek”, “Isfahan University distrct”, “Bagh e Negar (Ayeeneh Khaneh)”, “Abshar”, “Saadat Abad”, “Hezar Jarib”, “Barazandeh” and “Sheikh e Eshragh” which are in a good state in each dimension were placed in part (1) of the model showing areas without segregation (integrated areas). Therefore, in the test, most of the deteriorated urban areas and quarters were placed in absolute segregation area of the model and affluent quarters in the northern parts of the city were placed in areas without segregation (integrated areas).Therefore, the findings reveal the model efficiency in describing the situation and status of urban areas. Due to the placement of the quarters at each four parts of the model, different descriptions for their status were obtained. Thus, proposed priorities and actions for each urban quarter should be planned according to their placement in the model.  It can be argued that this proposed holistic model can be used as an effective tool to support decision making regarding urban quarters and their level of segregation. The real and holistic image represented by this model acts as a base for defining priorities and types of necessary actions to establish balance and equality in the city. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Urban segregation
  • Holistic Framework
  • Gated communities
  • deprived areas
  • Involuntary Segregation

- Alaily-Mattar, N. (2010). Segregation for aggregation?The pattern and logic of spatial segregation practices of young affluent heads of households in the post-war city of Beirut.(Doctoral thesis, University College London, London, UK).Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/192818/.

- Alvarado, A., & Jimenez, G. (2012). Gated communities in Costa Rica: a new object of study. In Social Science Journal(137): http://www.revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/sociales/article/view/8404.

- Bell, W. (1954). A probability model forthe measurement of ecological segregation.Social Forces: 357-364.

- Brenes, M., Masis, K., Paniagua, L., and Sandoval, C. (2008). La Carpio: urban segregation, insecurity and social stigmatization in a binational community in Costa Rica. Iberoamericana(8)32: 119-135.

- Charalambous, Nadia. (2011). Understanding segregation: the relationship between urban form and social exclusion.

- Christopherson, Susan. (1994). The fortress city: privatized spaces, consumer citizenship. Post-fordism: A reader: 409-427.

- Duncan, O. D., & Duncan, B. (1955). A methodological analysis of segregationindices. American Sociological Review(20): 210-217.

- Firman, T. (2004). New town development in Jakarta Metropolitan Region: a perspective of spatial segregation. Habitat International (28), 349–368.

- Feitosa, F. F. Camara, G. Monteiro, A. M. V. Koschitzki, T. and M. P. S. Silva. (2007). Global and local spatial indices of urban segregation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 21(3): 299–323.

- Franzen, M. (2001). The problem of segregation: an unfair comparison. In the divided city, edited by Lena Magnusson, 23-47.

- Franzn, Mats. (2009). Matters of Urban Segregation. In Proceedings to the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, edited by Daniel Koch, Lars Marcus, Jesper Steen, Stockholm: KTH.

- Gregory, D. et al. (2009). The Dictionary of Human Geography. 5th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, Print.

- Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., & Forrest, T. (2014). Segregation matters, measurementmatters. In C. D. Lloyd, I. G. Shuttleworth, & D. W. S. Wong (Eds.), Social-spatialsegregation.Concepts, processes and outcomes. Bristol: Policy Press.

- Jargowsky, P.A (1996). Take the money and run: Economic segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas. American Journal of Sociology(61): 984–999.

- Jargowsky, P. A. (2002). Sprawl, concentration of poverty, and urban inequality. Urban sprawl: Causes, consequences, and policy responses: 39-72.

- Jakubs, J.F. (1981). A distance-based segregation index. Journal of Socio-Economic Planning Sciences(61): 129–136.

- Kovacs, Z. (1999). Cities from state-socialism to global capitalism: an introduction. GeoJournal, 49(1): 1-6.

- Leal, J. (2012). Residential Segregation.International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home.Pp: 94-99.

- Legeby, A.(2010). Urban segregation and urban form: From residential segregation to segregation in public space.Licentiate Thesis, KTH School ofArchitecture. Stockholm: KTH.

- Legeby, A. (2013). Patterns of co-presence, Spatial configuration and social segregation. Sweden: School of Architecture Royal Institute of Technology. PhD Dissertation.

- Legeby, A., and Marcus, L.(2011). Does Urban Structure of Swedish CitiesInhibit the Sharing of Public Space?.Built Environment, (37)2: 155-169.

- Lieberson, S., and Donna K. C.(1982). A Model For Inferring The Voluntary and Involuntary Causes Of Residential Segregation. Demography(19)4: 511-526.

- Lupton, R. (2003). Neighbourhood Effects: Can We Measure Them and Does It Matter?CASE paper 73. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science.

- Morrill, R.L. (1991).On the measure of spatial segregation. Geography Research Forum(11): 25–36.

- Morgan, B.S. (1975). The segregation of socioeconomic groups in urban areas: A comparative analysis. Urban Studies(12): 47–60.

- Morgan, B.S. (1983). A temporal perspective on the properties of the index of dissimilarity. Environment and Planning A(15): 379–389.

- Newman, W. (1974). American Pluralism. New York: Harper and Row.

- Nightingale, C. H. (2012). Segregation, A GLOBAL HISTORY OF DIVIDED CITIES.University of Chicago Press.

- Perez, M. (2006).The perverse impacts on socio-spatial segregation in the city of San Jos e.In A.-M. Seguin (Ed.), The socio-spatial segregation on Urban: A look at Puebla, Puerto Espana, San Jose and San Salvador. San Jose: FLACSO. With collaboration from Editor Paula Negron.

- Pujol, R., Sanchez, L., and Perez, E. (2011). The social segregation as a determinant of urban development.gated communities and self-segregation in the cities of San Jose and Heredia, Costa Rica. economic Sciences(29)1:http://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/economicas/article/view/7052.

- Reardon, S. and O’Sullivan, D. (2004).Measures of spatial segregation. SociologicalMethodology(34): 121–162.

- Reardon, S.F, and Firebaugh, G. (2002). Measures of multigroup segregation. Sociological Methodology(32): 33–67.

- Ruiz-Rivera, N, Suarez, M, and Delgado-Campos, J (2016). Urban segregation and local retail environments.Evidence fromMexico City.Habitat International (54): 58-64.

- Sakoda, J. (1981). A generalized index of dissimilarity.Demography(18): 245–250.

- Saltman, J.(2014). Three Strategies for Reducing Involuntary Segregation .The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare(4): 5: 806-821.

- Smets, P, and Salman, T (2016). The multi-layered-ness of urban segregationOn the simultaneous inclusion and exclusion in Latin American cities. Habitat International (54): 80-87.

-Smith, Ch. L. (2009). Economic deprivation and racial segregation: Comparing Superfund sites in Portland, Oregon and Detroit, Michigan. Social Science Research (38): 681-692.

- SOU . (1997). Three cities: background report from the City Committee. Stockholm: Fritzes.

- UNCHS (United Nations Centre for Human Settlements) (2003). The State of the World Cities Report 2001, Nairobi.vanKempen, R., &Ozuckren, A. S. (1998). Ethnic segregation in cities: New forms and explanations in a dynamic world. Urban Studies(35)10, 1631–1656.

- Vaughan, L. and Arbaci, s. (2011). The challenges of Understanding Urban Segregation.Built Environment 37(2): 128-138.

- Vaughan, L., & Geddes, I. (2009). Urban form and deprivation: A contemporary proxy for Charles Booth's analysis of poverty. Radical Statistics(99).

- Van Kempen, Ronald, and Marcuse, Peter .(1997), A New Spatial Order in Cities?, American Behavioral Scientist, 41 (3): 285-98.

- Wong, D.W.S. (1993).Spatial indices of segregation. Urban Studies(30): 559–572.

- Wong, D.W.S. (1998).Measuring multiethnic spatial segregation. Urban Geography(19): 77–87.

- Wong, D.W.S. (2005).Formulating a general spatial segregation measure. The ProfessionalGeographer(57): 285–294.

- White, M.J. (1983).The measurement of spatial segregation. American Journal of Sociology(88): 1008–1018.

Site:https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/social-inequality/social-class/v/social-exclusion- segregation-and-social-isolation