نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار دانشگاه کردستان
2 معاون امور عمرانی استانداری کردستان
3 مدیرکل دفتر امور شهری و شوراهای استانداری
4 دانشگاه کردستان
چکیده
یکی از زمینههای ناپایداری توسعه شهری (به ویژه در کشورهای در حال توسعه) گونهای از سکونت با مشکلات حاد موسوم به اسکان غیررسمی است که در حال گسترش فزاینده بوده و نیازمند اتخاذ تدابیر ویژه برای ساماندهی وضعیت کنونی و جلوگیری از گسترش آن در آینده است. با مطرح شدن توسعه پایدار شهری در دهه 1980 و لزوم توجه به همه ابعاد وجودی شهر(اعم از زیست محیطی، اقتصادی و اجتماعی) به عنوان پایههای توسعه پایدار شهری، مشکل سکونتگاههای غیررسمی وارد فاز مطالعاتی جدیدی شد که بیشتر مربوط به ارزیابی سطح پایداری در این گونه سکونتگاهها میشود. تفکر توسعه پایدار باعث پیدایش روشها و شیوههای کاربردی نوینی در راستای ارزیابی اثرات زیست محیطی از دهه 1990 تا به امروز شده است. در این میان تحلیل ردپای اکولوژیک یکی از شاخصهایی است که توجه بیشتری را در سطوح آکادمیک، سیاسی و آموزشی به خود جلب کرده است. ردپای اکولوژیک شاخصی است که با ارزیابی و محاسبه انرژی و مواد مستعمل در یک شهر، منطقه و یا کشور، فشاری را که جمعیت و فرایندهای صنعتی بر اکوسیستم وارد میسازند، برآورد میکند. شهر سنندج به عنوان مرکز استان کردستان در دهههای اخیر شاهد موجهای عظیم مهاجرت از روستاها به داخل شهر بوده و همین امر باعث ایجاد سکونتگاههای خودرو و غیررسمی زیادی مانند عباسآباد، نایسر و ... در این شهر شده است. از این رو در این پژوهش سعی شده است تا با روشی تحلیلی_توصیفی و با تکیه بر مطالعات کتابخانهای و برداشتهای میدانی و با بهرهگیری از شاخص ردپای اکولوژیک، میزان پایداری محله عباسآباد شهر سنندج به عنوان یکی از محلات غیررسمی شهر سنندج مورد سنجش قرار گیرد. نتایج حاصل از پژوهش نشان میدهد که میزان کل ردپای اکولوژیک محله عباسآباد برابر با 74560.551هکتار بوده که این مقدار با توجه به جمعیت 19هزار و 578 نفره این محله مبین سرانه 3.808 هکتار برای هر نفر در سال 90 میباشد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Evaluation the level of sustainability in informal neighborhoods by using ecological footprint model (The case of Abas-abad neighborhood, Sanandaj)
نویسندگان [English]
- Kioumars Habibi 1
- arman rahimi 4
چکیده [English]
One area of unsustainable urban development, especially in developing countries living with acute problems, is the so-called informal settlements which requires adopting special measures to regulate their current situation and prevent their spread in the future. With the introduction of sustainable urban development in the 1980s and attention to all aspects of the city (including environmental, economic and social aspects) as a basis for sustainable urban development, the problem of informal settlements entered a new phase of studies that is most relevant to the assessment of the level of stability in such settlements. The emergence of new practical methods and practices of sustainable development thinking in terms of environmental impact assessment occurred in the 1990s. The ecological footprint analysis is one of the indices that has attracted the attention of academics, politicians and educationalists. Ecological footprint is an indicator that assesses the energy and materials used in a city, region or country, and evaluates the burden on ecosystems induced by the population and industrial processes. In recent decades, Sanandaj, as the main city of Kurdistan province, has witnessed a massive wave of migration from the countryside into the city, leading to the formation of many informal settlements such as Abbas Abad, Naysr, etc. This research tries to evaluate the level of sustainability in Abbas Abad neighborhood using ecological footprint. The present study is an applied research with a descriptive-analytical method. The statistical population includes all the households living in Abbas Abad neighborhood. Given the fact that 4741 households live in Abbas Abad neighborhood, the sample size was estimated using the Cochran formula to be about 355 households. On this basis, 355 questionnaires were randomly distributed among households living in the Abbas Abad neighborhood. The questionnaires collected the information on the annual consumption of food and waste generation as expressed by the respondents. In order to assess the level of stability in Abbas Abad, the ecological footprint of the neighborhood was measured as one of the unofficial neighborhoods of Sanandaj. Eventually, one year’s water, electricity and gas consumption was calculated. It is worth noting that information on food intake, transport and waste production was been obtained through the distributed questionnaires. The results show that the total ecological footprint of Abbas Abad neighborhood is 74560.551 hectares. The calculations show that the ecological footprint of the Abbas Abad neighborhood in 2011 was 74560.551 hectares worldwide, which represents an area of 3.808 hectares per capita for each neighborhood resident. This means that although the area of Abbas Abad neighborhood is 46 hectare, the land consumption of 19578 people living in the neighborhood is 1,621 times more than the area of the neighborhood, and given the 4065 hectares area of Sanandaj in 2011, it is about 18 times more than the area Sanandaj. The highest ecological footprint in the Abbas Abad neighborhood relates to the construction sector (38162 hectares). After construction, food (25819.06 hectares) and gas (5498 hectares) have the highest share in the Abbas Abad neighborhood.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Informal settlement
- Ecological footprint
- Abbas Abad Neighborhood
- Sanandaj
Bagliani,M, Alessandro. Niccolucci,Valentina. Marchettini(2008), Nadia Ecological footprint analysis applied to a sub-national area: the case of the province of siena(Italy),
Barrett, J., Vallack, H., Jones, A., Haq, G., 2002. A Material Flow Analysis and Ecological Footprint of York. Stockholm Environmental Institute, York.
Collins, A., Flynn, A., Wiedmann, T., Barrett, J., 2006. The environmental impacts of consumption at a sub-national level. Journal of Industrial Ecology 10, 9–24.
Cheal ryu,H.2005. Modeling the per Capita Ecological Footprint for Dallas County, Texas: Examining Demographic, Environmental Value, Land-Use, and Spatial. M&S. Dissertation. University of Texas.
Erb, K.H, , 2004,Actual land demand of Austria 1926–2000: avariation on ecological footprint sessments. Land Use Policy 21, pp247–259.
GFN – Global Footprint Network, 2011. http://www. Footprint network. org/en/index.php.
Gottlieb,D, Kissinger,M, Vigoda-Gadot,E, Haim,A.2012. Analyzing the ecological footprint at the institutional scale – The case of an Israeli high-school, jour nal of Ecological Indicators 18 (2012) 91–97.
Gottlieb, D., Vigoda-Gadot, E., Haim, A., Kissinger, M., 2012. The ecological footprint as an educational tool for sustainability: a case study analysis in an Israeli public high school. International Journal of Educational Development 32, 193–200.
Hubacek, K., & Jiljum, S. (2003). Applying physical input–output analysis to estimate land appropriation (ecological footprints) of international trade activities. Ecological Economics, 44(1),137–151.
Kissinger, M., Fix, J., Rees, W.E., 2007. Wood and non-wood pulp production: comparative ecological footprinting on the Canadian prairies. Ecological Economics 62, 552–558.
Kissinger, M., Gottlieb, D., 2010. Place oriented ecological footprint analysis: the case of Israel’s grain supply Ecological Economics 69, 1639–1645.
Kitzes, J., Peller, A., Godfinger, S., Wackernagel, M., 2007. Current methods for calculating national ecological footprint accounts. Science for Environment and Sustainable Society 4, 1–9.
Moran, D., Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J.A., Goldfinger, S.H., Boutaud, A., 2008. Measuring sustainable development – nation by nation. Ecological Economics 64, 470–474.
Jorgenson, K, & Andrew. (2003). Consumption and environmental degradation: a cross-national analysis of the ecological footprint. Social Problems, Vol. 50, No.
Rezvani, M & Salmani, M & Ghanbari, A and Baghiani, H(2010), Ecological footprint: The new approach for environmental effect assessment( concept, application and assessment), Journal of Geography and development, Vol 20, in Persian
Rees, W.E., 1992. Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization 4, 121–130.
Rees, W.E., 2000. Eco-footprint analysis: merits and brickbats. Ecological Economics 32, 371–374
Rosa, E. A, York, R,& Dietz, T (2004). Tracking the anthropogenic drivers of ecological impacts. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 33(8),509- 512.
Sassanpour, F(2008), Ecological footprint method in metropolitan cities, Journal of urban management and research, Vol 1, in Persian
Sarai, M and Farshad, A(2009), Ecological footprint as an community sustainable assessment indicator, Journal of environmental, Vol 50, in Persian
Solis-Guzman.J,Marrero.A and Arellano.A.(2013). Methodology for determining the ecological footprint of the construction of residential buildings in Andalusia (Spain), Ecological Indicators 25 (2013) 239–249
Wackernagel, M., Rees, W.E., 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, first ed. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada.
Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N.B., Dumling, D., Linares, A.C., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., Monfreda, C., Loh, J., Myers, N., Norgaard, R., Randers, J., 2002. Tracing the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 99, 9266–9271
Wada, Y. , “Biophysical productivity data for ecological footprint analysis.” Rep. to the UBC Task Force on Healthy and Sustainable Communities, Vancouver, B.C, 1994.
Wilson,Jeffrey , Ecological Footprints of Canadian Municipalities and Regions. The Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2005.
)