Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Evaluating and Assessing Sustainability of Border Cities (Case study: border city: Baneh)
Reza Mokhtari Malek-Abadi Assistant professor the Geography and Urban planning, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Esmaeel Aliakbari Associate professor the Geography and Urban planning,Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Bakhtiar Khosravi* *. PhD student the Geography and Urban planning, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran ([email protected])
Abstract
Every city, according to its effectiveness of local and global forces, needs to develop local strategies for sustainable urban development to meet its environmental conditions and its economic and social organization. In the meantime, border cities based on its specific position and function is kind of cities that both groups of local and global forces have effects on its sustainability, because on the one hand these cities like other cities affected by natural conditions, social relationships between citizenships, relationships with their surrounding settlements and it also has a function and a role in own international economic and political system, and on the other hand due to its border position, is influenced by international and even economic, political, social, and environmental development and process. Therefore, the issue of sustainability in these cities is much more important and more challenging than many other cities. Accordingly, the main issue of this research is based on sustainability of border cities and it also suggested required strategies to achieve sustainability in these cities. To address this problem, in this paper using descriptive-analytical method and using some methods as model of Prescott Allen’s sustainability barometer in assessing sustainability of border cities, numerical taxonomy method, method of strategic planning and statistical tests based on SPSS software to evaluate sustainability in border cities was dealt.
Keywords: border cities, sustainability, Baneh.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 624
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Introduction
The concept of sustainable development since the 1980s has been the focal point of many development paradigms. Sustainable development that is now the main issue, discussed in development and planning meetings, is the result of different ideas of development. However, there are different perceptions of this concept, like the concept of development. The common points of all these ideas are sustainability and achieving the development process that can be reliable and durable. It is development that meets the needs of present generation without blemishing the ability of future generation to meet their own needs. In the meantime, the border cities, according to their position and function, are kind of the cities that both global and local forces affect their sustainability. Therefore, their sustainability compared to non-border cities during its own special course. Because the political relations and interactions of cities, settlements close to the borders and even cities may decline or flourish, depending on the boundary line make disturbing their natural areas or vice versa, new roles on crossing the borders are given to them. Therefore, with respect to this important issue, in this study planning the evaluation of sustainability in border cities was discussed.
Theories
The transformation of words is very broad to reach the term sustainable development. Sustainable development is not a shaped concepts, it explains the transformational process of the relationship between social, economic and natural systems and its stages (Bahramzadeh, 2003, 82). The term sustainable was debated first formally by Ms Groharlem Brountland in 1987 in the report “Our Common Future”. In the broad sense of the word means “proper and efficient management and utilization of basic, natural, financial and human resources to achieve desired consumption patterns that is possible by using technical facilities and appropriate organization and structures to meet the needs of today’s generation and future generation continuously and satisfactorily. The new concept of sustainable development is holistic and includes all social, economic, cultural aspects and other human needs. In other words, the main attraction in sustainable development is its holism. The term sustainable development in the last years of the twentieth century as one of the central database of world almost affected all aspects of human life such as poverty, inequality, education and health, the environment, the rights of women and children, freedom of nation, as well as industry, policy, economic, and international cooperation. It is also has been discussed as a modern development with a claim of answer to the serious problems that jeopardized the life cycle, nature and mankind in a new era.
As “Wolfgang Zax” has said, from now on, “there will be no development without sustainability and there will be no sustainability without development” and this represent new bonds. Development through this bond is alive again. According to Rio declaration, human is the centre of focus in sustainable development and humans, harmony with nature, deserve a life with a health and building. Development is a right that should cover present and future generation equally; protection of the environment is an integral part of development and cannot be examined separately. According to different contribution to environmental pollution, all countries have common responsibility, but are different in this regard (UNCSD, 1999, p.11).However, new questions still remain in this field; for example, what exactly is a sustainable
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 625
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
society? What kind of development do people argue? How should developmental procedure be sustainable? How much time should development be sustainable? And how can be calculated the needs of future generation calculated? (Jennifer,1996). In this context, J. Coomer believes that sustainable society is not a society where life is with constant environmental restrictions in it and is motionless and without growth, but on the contrary, it is a society that recognizes the limitations of growth and seeks ways and alternatives for growth (Coomer, 1999, P. 48).The fans of sustainable development paradigm believe that the lessons of ecology can be used and should be used in economic processes (Radclift, 1997). In fact, some of the optimal policy (sustainable growth) looking for to keep an acceptable rate of growth of real capitation of income without depleting profit of national capitals or profit of environmental assets (Turner, 1988).
In general, the concept of sustainable development is much border and differs depending on the time, place and various communities ant therefore, there no possibility of extension and generalization a particular perception of sustainability (Badri & Eftekhari, 2003, 10). This difference is to the extent that is said the nature of sustainable development is relative quietly and depends on the time. As in 1997, Radclift said: sustainable development is different thing to different people (Radclift, 1997).
Social justice and equitable distribution of opportunities
Develo Assets pment conflict Growth and conflict
effectiveness Sustainable economic development
Resources conflict Environment protection
Figure 1. The mission of sustainability theory: establishing a balance between conflict aspects and goals of development Reference: Ministry of agriculture, 2007
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 626
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Despite the difficulty of providing a precise definition of many aspects, sustainable development, like justice, is considered as centre of structure of many legal standards and human relationships that here we can come to some efforts to define sustainable development that should be considered as follows:
Sustainable development is the application of four principles integrity, equity, compliance and acceptance of limitations (Ward, 2000, p. 50). Sustainable development involves achieving quality of life in different aspects for all (Bond, 2001, p. 101). It is a development that meets present needs without blemishing the ability of future generation to meet their own needs (WCED, 43:1987). Today, the issue of sustainability is the watchword of all rural development activities and programs (Nouripour & Shahvali, 2011, 64). Sustainable rural development can be considered as process of change with the aim of improving the quality and quantity of life level of rural society. It is a process that leads to establish a balance between urban and rural life and mainly seeks to create power-increasing and enough efficiency for low-income and poor rural population that is able less to rely on their power and stand on its feet (Motiee Langroudi, 2003, P. 79-80). In fact, it can be said that empowering and capacity-building are considered as the central core and focus of new paradigm (Khosro beigi et al., 2011, p. 151).
Evaluating and Assessing Sustainability
Assessing and sustainability development are considered as two integral pillars that have lots of efficiency by their cooperation with each other in solving social, economic problems and important resources that have involved much of world’s rural and urban settlements (department of geography, 1999). The link between assessment and sustainability means changing sustainability to a measurable goal. In this case, sustainability sometimes has been considered as a goal and sometimes as a result. Therefore in this conception, evaluating sustainability is discussed as a criterion for measuring success level.
In general, evaluation is a process that recognizes and records the effects of an activity, project and a program on components in social, economic and biophysical environment. Some researchers like Radclift and Goodman in 199, Singh and Strickland 1993 and desayi in 1998, believe that the activities of assessing in sustainable development can solve a lot of issues and social, economic and environmental problems such as poverty, providing food and drinking water and so on (Redclift and Goodman, 1991; Singh and Strickland, 1993). Sustainability evaluation can be defined through it the implication of an innovative act evaluated based on sustainability, where the innovation can be a proposal or a policy, plan, program, project or a part of legislation or works and activities (Drenser, 2002, p.50). In other words, better and easier, sustainability assessment is a tool that can help decision-makers and policymakers to decide what action should or should not do in an effort to build a more sustainable society (Farahani, 2003, p.101).
The importance of assessment is to the extent that in many international conferences associated with the development are mentioned directly and indirectly and related materials are approved. Such a material can be adopted at the Rio conference in 1992, which states:
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 627
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
“To promote and develop the greater use of environmental assessments, governments and international organizations are required to consider it (social, economic and environmental assessments) as a necessary and integral componentfrom developmental planning and assess the effects of every activity and planning (Bisset, 1995, P. 5)”. Also in fifth world conference of the earth (Agenda 21), assessment is considered as one of the most important tools of sustainable development (UNCSD, 1997). Today, the models and methods of evaluation are provided that in the field of policy making and developing plans are of great use. Notable point is that some of these methods are in relation to projects or different organizations and some are in relation to geographic areas and residential units. Below some of these methods are provided that each is based on a methodology to achieve the desired goals. Some of the most important methods of evaluating include plan centered evaluation, project focused evaluation, organization based evaluation, and process-oriented evaluation. In each of these frameworks, features of plans and evaluating models include efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, integrity, reproducibility and sustainability are considered as main basis and all designed process are structured on this basis. The next issue is sustainability testing. The field of sustainability testing is a field that many research and executive works have been done in it. Different tools and methods were designed to measure progress towards sustainable development. Because of existence of different views on sustainability it is not surprising the absence of acceptable public and usable method in all areas and sections (Bell & Morse, 2007, 30). If we consider sustainability as a continuous welfare condition of society, we can say that in modern era, the measurement process began in the late 1940s. Where the models of GNP and GDP (Gross National Production and Gross Domestic Production) were based as overall indicator of a country’s welfare (IISD, 1999) and of course a large protest against it was formed and has been continued till now that fans of ecological economics and sustainable approach are in the top of them.
Spangenberg (2005) believes that from scientific point, some cases like comprehensive measuring tool or sustainability index there cannot be (R., Singh et al., 2009, p. 160). Varhoit (2002) considers measuring sustainable development as a two-step approach that at first step selects progress made in specific areas and measured by indices of sustainable development and at the second step evaluates the progress achieved in the field of sustainable development by combining them and examining the interaction relationship between them (Ibid, p.15). Perhaps the most acceptable way to measure sustainability and sustainable development is to use reagents and indices (Bell & Morse, 2003, p. 16), but according to Lankrobij Kamp (2000), existence indices are not able completely to answering all about sustainability in alone, unless a value of reference there will be for each index as thresholds and certain sizes.
In general, the goal of measuring and examining sustainability is to provide an overview of sustainability state in the space level which is extended from the range of full sustainability to full non-sustainability and finally provides the background of identification of the factors affecting sustainability. Some of the models that include many usages can be mentioned as multi-criteria mapping (Sigrid, 2007, 34-35), Dashboard of sustainability, Barometer of sustainability and Model of RADAR. In general, many other models are extended in recent years as a model of ecological efficiency by WBCSD (1991), sustainability compass by Atkinson (2005), index of environmental progress by WEF (2002), etc. most of these models are not used because of problems associated with measuring , weighting and selecting index by policymakers
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 628
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
and researchers. However, unlike the above-mentioned models, models of HDI, ecological footprint, ISEW, GPI, EPI are frequently used by researchers based on various hypothesis and because of the difference in quality of used data and accessibility of them.
Methodology
Due to the nature of work, the method used in this study is based on survey and analytical- descriptive method. Information required in this study was collected through field methods (Questionnaire) and documental method (library-based). The population is consistent with the urban areas of Kurdistan (Baneh). In order to select the sample from the border towns of Kurdistan province, Baneh has been selected as sample. In table 1 the selected components and the criteria are shown separately based on difference aspects of sustainability.
Table 1. List of attributes and criteria of urban sustainability measuring and evaluating Baneh Criterion Index Increasing security
security Homeland security Reducing crimes rates Existing crimes
Existing enough security in the region Existing security glances Security in the city External security Existing chaos in neighbor country
Non-sustainability in neighbor country Expanding cultural relations Cultural interactions Recognizing other ethnic groups
Cultural interactions Social capital Social awareness Increasing awareness
Social trust Increasing trust in authorities
Social cohesion Social integration and cohesion
Social equality Existing equality among people Social cooperation Public participation in the development of the city Lack of public participation
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 629
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Life quality High quality of people life
Satisfaction of spending free Facilities for spending free times Life quality times Job satisfaction State of job satisfaction Income satisfaction State of income satisfaction Cost of living satisfaction Satisfaction of living cost state
Satisfaction of purchase ability Quality of market goods Easy purchase Access to training Access to training centers Efficient management Efficient urban management Urban management Organizational interactions Organizations’ cooperation Legal clarifying Clarifying the rules
Using tourism potentials Using tourism attraction Advertizing systems advertizing activities in relation to the potential of the region NGOs Non-governmental organizations
planning Efficient planning Government attention to planning Governmental investment Lack of government’s attention to investment Social gap Widespread poverty The large number of poor people in the city Social gap Reducing social gap
Desire to Increasing students’ dropouts learn Social sustainability Preventing migration The motivation for staying in the city
The method used to measure sustainability in this research is barometer of sustainability.
Sustainability measuring of the model is based on the following formula: SD1=
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 630
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
In this formula Xij is the value of the each indicator, Xmin is the minimum value of each indicator in the whole sample and Xmax is the maximum value of each indicator. The results of this model are a value between zero and one that according to Prescott Allen’s classification will be as follow:
Sustainable Potential Human sustainability welfare (High)
Average sustainability
Potential non- sustainability (poor)
Non-sustainable
Ecosystem welfare
Review of the Literature
The purpose of review of the literature is achieving a total framework of research, knowing theories in relation to research, more importantly, identifying aspects of research subject that were not studied. For this purpose, in this section it is tried to examine the studies on the urban sustainability and in the relation with it associated with border position of cities and to identify the most important and key results of the study. In general, literature review related to urban sustainability and its relation to the borders and border positions showed that these studies can be classified in three main groups. First, studies that generally have been conducted urban sustainability and its measuring methods. Second, the studies that had dealt on the role of boundary position in developing border cities in general. Third, the studies that focused specifically focused on the evaluation of sustainability in border cities that this type of study is very limited.
Table 2: it is presented the most important and key results of this type of studies
Key results and points in Latin references Mega and Peterson (1998) in an article titled urban sustainability indicators, using documentary and field-based research, classified these indicators in three groups of environmental, physical and socio-economic indicators that include indicators of air pollution, water, land and indicators of employment, income, urban costs, housing, crime rate, noise pollution and index of rate of accessibility and having public and open urban spaces.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 631
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Murray and Christodoulou (2011) in an article entitled review of indicators and measures of sustainability: forward to city sustainability index (CSI)1, using documentary methods and analyzing study content and documents related to urban sustainability, divided city sustainability indices into some groups of indices as: 1)Ecological footprint (EF), 2)Environmental sustainability index (ESI), 3)Welfare index (WI), 4) Net progress index (NPI), 5) Sustainable economic welfare (SEW), 6) City development index, 7) Human development index, 8)environmental fracture (Vulnerability) index, 9)environmental policy index, 10) Habitable environment index, 11) Index of domestic production based on environment, 12) Net reserve index. Wang and yang (2003) in an article titled approach to evaluation of sustainability for ecosystem of Guangzhou, using method of fuzzy synthetic evaluation and three general economic, social and natural dimensions and economic quantity index and population quality index, mental welfare, material welfare and environmental conditions, evaluated sustainability in Guangzhou of China and concluded that Guangzhou in spite of fluctuation in sustainability of three natural, social and economic dimensions, are generally sustainable. Feng Li et al. (2009) in an article entitled measuring indicators and evaluation approach for estimating sustainable urban development, using FPPSI and using 52 indicators of sustainable urban development (indicators of growth and economic efficiency, ecological structure and infrastructure, environmental protection and development of social welfare), estimated sustainable development of Jining in China and concluded that on the basis of ecological planning in Jining (2004-2020), the level of sustainability indicators will be improved during the period and from 0.24 reach to 0.45 in 2007 and reached to 0.62 in 2010. Key results and points in Persian references
Mousa Kazemi (1999) in PhD thesis titled evaluating sustainable development in urban development (Case study: The city of Qom) Rahimi (1999) in a PhD thesis titled sustainable urban development with an emphasis on environmental powers (Case study: Kashmar), using library-based and field-based studies with regional sampling methods randomly from Kashmar and completing the questionnaire from all villages with more than 50 families and using interview cards, etc, is measured different social, economic, cultural and environmental issues. Ali Akbari & Faraji Darabkhani (2006) in a study titled administrative-political cities and city non-sustainability (Case study: Sarableh) Gharakhlou & Hosseini (2006) in a study titled indicators of urban sustainable development using descriptive-analytical method Jafari (2008) in an article titled introduction of appropriate indicators to evaluate urban sustainable development and measuring that by using descriptive-analytical method Hosseinzadeh Dalir et al. (2009) in a research titled qualitative analysis and evaluation of urban sustainability measures in Tabriz, using survey method, identified urban sustainability measures and satisfaction rate of citizens of the life vitality. Mofidi Shemirani & Eftekhari Moghadam (2009) in a study titled urban sustainable development, opinions and its implementation principles in developmental countries, using descriptive-analytical methods were analyzed concepts and basis of sustainable urban development. In this article according to pointing out that concept of urban sustainable
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 632
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
development are as an important scientific issue in recent years in all societies, they investigated global views of entities and experts and definitions, ways and social backgrounds of study on sustainability in cities were investigated and framework and operational process have been proposed in this regard. Razdasht et al. (2012) in an article titled comparing sustainability indicators of small city Dehdasht by average urban system of country with an emphasize on urban sustainable development, using descriptive-analytical method and using Wilcoxon’s statistical tests and one- sample t, analyzing and comparing sustainable indicators of Dehdasht by urban region average of country are dealt. Gholami (2015) in PhD in a thesis on evaluating sustainable development analyzed extractive southern cites of Iran (Case Study: Asalouyeh), a research based on survey and descriptive- analytical research and based of environmental, economical, social and cultural and physical indicators.
Studied area
Kurdistan province involves significant portion of western borders in Iran. This province now has 22 urban points that among these numbers of cities, Armardeh, Baneh, kanisour, Buinselfi, Marivan, Chenareh, Sarvabad are border cities that are directly affected by boundary situation and affected by various economic, political and social changes more than other cities of the province.
Population and household
According to the results of the general census of population and housing in 2011, the population of Baneh was 85190 people. Examining the evolution of the city population over a period of 45 years (1966-2011) indicates that the population of the city during this period, despite the relative intensity fluctuation, it has continually been increasing; in general, population of Baneh had increased from 8617 people in 1966 to 85390 people in 2011. The remarkable thing about Baneh population changes during the studying period is that unlike most of the urban points of the country that their population increased because of effects of two phenomenon of rural-urban migration and incentive policies of population growth, population in 1976 to 1986 due to the effects of war and internal unrest of province did not increase much. But in the next decade (1986-1996) by ending the war and establishing peace and security in the region, Bane population suddenly found a huge increase and reached 55443 people in 1996). In the decades of 1996-2006 and 2006- , Baneh with the slow growth rate of population added to its population. The most important cause of population growth during this period can resulted from migration, that are mainly from rural areas and small towns of city, other cities of the province and other cities of country. Simply, in other words, according to rate of population growth during the last census, except decades of 1976-1986, Baneh was always a immigrant-allowed place and this means that the number of migrants entered the city was more than migrants that went out the city. As a result, part of population growth is due to net migration of population (Table 4-3).
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 633
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Table 3: Baneh population changes during 1966-2011
Changes Population growth Year Population Absolute Relative rate 1966 8617 - - -
1976 15552 6935 80.48 6.08 1986 16933 1381 8.81 0.85 1996 55433 24395 78.60 5.97
2006 70428 14995 27.05 2.42
2011 85190 14762 20.96 3.88
Reference: detailed results of the general census of population and housing, the years 1966-2011
Data Analysis
In this study in order to achieve the desired objectives and test hypothesis, various methods and techniques are used. Due to hypothesis testing in this research depends on having information related to evaluating sustainability of border cities of studied areas, therefore, first the process of evaluating sustainability are investigated and discussed. The whole process of evaluating sustainability divided into four general sections according to basic theories of sustainability approach: Evaluating environmental sustainability Evaluating social sustainability Evaluating economical sustainability Evaluating infrastructural-spatial sustainability Each of these dimensions above is analyzed through the use of certain categories of indicators. In the following various dimensions of sustainability are explained and analyzed according to the specified indicators. Primary tables related to the indicators are equal-scale tables in this research and tables related to raw, consistent and equivalent matrices are attached at the end.
a) Environmental sustainability b) Analyzing indicators of environmental of sustainability in the border cities of Kurdistan shows that among border cities, Baneh with a rate of 0.52 has the highest value. Table 5 shows the status of environmental index in border city Baneh.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 634
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Table 5: Environmental sustainability index
Criterion Index Baneh Baneh
Degradation of Environmental environment 0.33 protection Maintaining 0.86 0.73 species of forest tree Overuse of 1.00 natural resources Unplanned 0.96 Preserving expanding of 0.98 agricultural city land Use change 1.00 and destruction of agricultural land Biodiversity Biodiversity 1.00 1.00 Lack of green 0.73 Natural space 0.86 resources Natural 1.00 capacity Optimized Environmental waste disposal degradation 0.05 0.05 (inappropriate location of the landfill) Drinking water Drinking 0.34 0.34 water quality Water and soil Pollution of 0.78 0.78 pollution water and soil resources Expanding Existed green 0.41 0.41 green space space General hygiene Health and 0.00 0.00 hygiene Air Cleaning 0.88 0.88 status of city air
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 635
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Noise pollution Rate of noise 0.57 0.57 pollution Traffic Consent of 0.23 0.23 traffic Sewer network Sewage 0.42 0.42 disposal Landscape Proper space 0.00 quality for walking 0.07 Proper view 0.14 Total average 0.52
Table 6: the environmental sustainability of environmental criteria in Baneh The quantity The quality Criterion value of value of sustainnability sustainability Environmental Relatively 0.73 protection sustainable Protection of agricultural 0.98 Sustainable lands Biodiversity 1.00 Sustainable Natural 0.86 sustainable resources Optimized Non- 0.05 waste disposal sustainable Relatively Drinking 0.34 non- water sustainable Water and soil Relatively 0.78 pollution sustainable Expanding Average 0.41 green space sustainability General Non- 0.00 hygiene sustainable Air 0.88 sustainable Noise Average 0.57 pollution sustainability Relatively Traffic 0.23 non- sustainable Sewer Average 0.42 network sustainability
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 636
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Quality of Non- 0.07 landscape sustainable Average Total average 0.52 sustainability
B) Infrastructural-spatial sustainability:
Analyzing infrastructural-spatial sustainability in border cities of Kurdistan Province shows that among the border cities, Baneh are relatively non-sustainable (Table 7).
Figure: Sustainability level of environmental criteria in Baneh حفظ محیط زیست حفظ 1,00 کیفیت منظر اراضی کشاورزی 0,80
تنوع زیستی 0,60 شبکه فاضالب
0,40
منابع طبیعی 0,20 ترافیک
0,00 دفن بهینه آلودگی صوتی زباله
آب شرب هوا آلودگی آب و بهداشت عمومی خاک گسترش فضای سبز
Table 7: Sustainability level of spatial-physical criteria in Baneh The quantity The quality value of value of Criterion sustainability sustainability Developmental Average 0.44 plans sustainability Relatively non- Public services 0.36 sustainable Functions of Non-sustainable 0.11 public entities Quality of Relatively non- 0.32 infrastructures sustainable Average Road network 0.55 sustainability Relatively non- transportation 0.35 sustainable Land shortage 0.24 Relatively non-
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 637
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
sustainable Relatively Public facilities 0.71 sustainable Residential Relatively non- 0.34 infrastructures sustainable Communication Relatively non- 0.36 infrastructures sustainable Transportation Non-sustainable 0.18 security Health Average 0.85 infrastructures sustanablity Relatively non- Total average 0.37 sustainable
B) Social Sustainability Analyzing social sustainability in the border cities of Kurdistan Province indicates that among the existed criteria, security, social capital, life quality, urban management, planning, social gap, the desire for training, human resources and social stability in Baneh are 0.53 that is in an average state (table 8).
Figure: level of social sustainability Figure: Diagram of sustainability level dimentions of Baneh of spaticial-infrustructural architechture امنیت 1,00 سرمایه … 0,80 ماندگاری اجتماعی برنامه های … 1,00 0,60 0,40 خدمات عمومی 0,80زیرساختهای … 0,20 کیفیت … میل به آموزش عملکرد … 0,60 امنیت حمل و نقل 0,40 0,00 0,20 کیفیت … 0,00 زیرساختهای … آموزش شکاف اجتماعی
مدیریت … برنامه ریزی شبکه معابر زیرساخت … حمل و نقل تاسیسات عمومی کمبود اراضی
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 638
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Table 8: sustainability level of social criteria
Criterion The quantity The quality value of value of sustainability sustainability Security Average 0.56 sustainability Social Capital Average 0.56 sustainability Life quality Average 0.48 sustainability training Relatively 0.10 sustainable Urban Average 0.46 management sustainability Planning Relatively 0.74 sustainable Social gap Average 0.41 sustainability Desire for Relatively 0.75 training sustainable Social stability 1.00 sustainable
Total average Average 0.53 sustainability
D) Economic Sustainability Analyzing economic sustainability in the border cities of Kurdistan province shows that among the criteria, criteria of economic efficiency, employment improving, livelihood boom, poverty elimination, attracting the private sector, economical skill, economical infrastructures, land and housing, international economic interactions, economic relations and economic security in Baneh are 0.50 (table 9).
Table 9: Sustainability level of economic criteria in Baneh Low Criterion sustainability criterion
Economic 0.96 efficiency sustainable Employment Average 0.59 improving sustainability Livelihood boom 0.96 sustainable Poverty Relatively 0.34 elimination non-
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 639
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
sustainable Attracting private Relatively 0.77 sector sustainable Average 0.59 Economical skill sustainability Relatively Economical 0.40 non- infrastructures sustainable Non- 0.00 Land and housing sustainable International Relatively economic 0.25 non- interactions sustainable Economic Average 0.55 relations sustainability Economic Economic 0.13 security security Average 0.50 Total average sustainability
کارآمدی اقتصادی بهبود 1,00متوسط کل اشتعال 0,80 رونق معیشت 0,60 امنیت اقتصادی 0,40 0,20 رفع فقر 0,00 روابط اقتصادی
حذب تعامالت بخش … اقتصادی … مهارت زمین و مسکن اقتصادی زیرساخت های اقتصادی
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 640
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
1,00
0,80
Armardeh 0,60 Sarvabad Marivan Baneh 0,40
welfare Human Kanisour
0,20
0,00 0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 Ecosystem welfare
Figure: Sustainability level in different dimetions in Baneh پایداری اجتماعی 1,00 0,80 0,60
0,40
0,20 پایداری پایداری فضای ی اقتصادی 0,00 -زیرساختی
پایداری زیست محیطی
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 641
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
E) Ranking studied cities based on results of sustainability indices: Analyzing each of dimensions above was done through the use of certain groups of indicators. Different dimensions of sustainability were explained and examined according to defined indicators.
Analyzing sustainability in different dimensions in border cities of Kurdistan Province, among various criteria of studied indices in Baneh, Marivan, Sarvabad, Kanisour, Armardeh indicates that Marivan with a value of 0.55 (The most) and Kanisour with a value of 0.39 (The least) have the sustainability (Table 10).
Table 10: Ranking of studied cities based on sustainability indicators
Environ Infrastructu Ranking Average Total Social Economic Cities mental ral 4 0.48 1.92 0.52 0.37 0.53 0.5 Bane 1 0.55 2.2 0.44 0.63 0.33 0.8 Marivan Sarvaba 3 0.52 2.11 0.64 0.5 0.44 0.53 d 5 0.39 1.57 0.44 0.38 0.46 0.29 Kanisour Armarde 2 0.54 2.17 0.62 0.53 0.69 0.33 h
Conclusion
Analysis of collected data as well as field based visits show that boundary position has a significant impact on the development of border cities in various fields and the results also reflect this fact, so that more items that that have been raised in related to investigating sustainability of border cities, are moderate. According to urban sustainability indicators, it could be concluded that in general, urban sustainability in the border cities located at a higher level than the average of the province and especially in the field of economic sustainability indicators in all indicators of border cities, it is shown better status than average of the province and in this regard, status of economic sustainability are better than other indicators.
The results of one-sample t test for measuring sustainability items indicate that in items that manifest economic urban indicators, average of items are higher than average and have significant statistical differences with intermediate of measuring items (in some items like existing equality among people, consent of job status and consent of income status). According to obtained values of Allen Prescott’s sustainability method, the highest amount calculated for Baneh in general indicates that this city has average sustainability that indicates a relatively proper status of urban sustainability indicators in this city.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 642
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
References
Badri, Seyyed-Ali & Roknoddin Eftekhari, Abdol-Reza (2010). Evaluating Sustainability, Journal of Geographical Research; 32, 2005, P. 14.
Bahramzadeh, Hossein-Ali (2003). Sustainable Development, Scientific-Educational Monthly Journal, Tadbir; 14, No. 134.
Bell, Simon & Morse, Stephens (2006). Sustainability Testing, Translated by Naser Shahnosi & Yadollah Azarinfar, Publications of Ferdosi University, Mashhad.
Bell, S. and Morse S. (2003). Measuring Sustainability: Learning by Doing, Earth scan, London. Bond. R, Integrated Impact Assessment for Sustainable Development, world development, Vol 29, No6, 2001, p101
Bossel, H., (1999). Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications. A Report to the Balaton, Group, IISD, Canada.
Cecilia Wong (2006) Indicator for Urban and Regional Planning, The Interplay of Policy and Turner, R. K. Sustainable Environment Management, London, Belhaven, 1988
Farahani, Hossein (2006). Sustainability Evaluating in Rural Regions with an Emphasis on Social and Economic Factors, Case study: Tafresh city, PhD Thesis in Tehran University, Faculty of Geography, Department of Human Geography, Tehran.
Jennifer A, Elliott, An Introduction To Sustainable Development, The developing world, London and New York, Routledge, 1996
Motiee Langroudi, Seyyed-Hasan (2006). Rural Planning with an Emphasis on Iran, Publications of Mashhad University (Jahad-e-Daneshgahi).
Moldon, Bedrich & Bylharz, Susan (2002). Sustainable Development, Translated by Neshat Haddad Tehrani & Naser Moharramnezhad, Department of Environmental Protection Publications, Tehran.
Mustafa, Tolba, Sustainable Development, Constraints and Opportunities, London, Butterworth, 1987
Nita A (2006) Redefining Environmental Management through Sustainability: ,New Zealand. Unpublished.
Peter Hardi and Andre Martinuzri., (2007), evaluating sustainable Development, MPG books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 643
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND January 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Pour Mousavi, Mousa (2005). Security Considerations of Tehran Metropolis Based on Indicators of Urban Sustainable Development. Tehran University, Faculty of Geography. Statistical Center of Iran, (2006), Statistical Yearbook of Kurdistan.
Prescott-Allen, R, (1995).Assessing rural sustainability, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources - World Conservation Union.
Radclift, Michael, Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions, London: Methuen, 1997
Sigrid, Stagl, (2007). SDRN Rapid Research and Evidence Review on Emerging Methods for Sustainability Valuation and Appraisal, A report to the Sustainable Development Research Network, Final Report. Sustainable development research network.
Stirling, A. (2007). 'Multi-criteria mapping. Mitigating the problems of environmental valuation?' J. Foster (ed) Valuing Nature? Ethics, economics and the environment, London: Routledge.
Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Macro/Micro Policy Adjustments" by Naresh Singh and Richard Strickland (1993). International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).
UNCSD, (1999) Indicator of sustainable development: Framework and Methodologies, UNCSD- DPCSD, Un.
UNCSD., (1999), Indicator of sustainable development: Framework and Methodologies, UN- DPCSD, UN.
UNESCO.(1997), Education for a sustainable future, Thessaloniki: UNESCO, Greece.
Ward, Nail, (2000). The nature of Rural Development toward sustainable Integrated Policy in Europe, IEEP,.
WCED1987 Our Common Future - Report of the World Commission on Environment and Ward, Nail, the nature of Rural Development toward sustainable Integrated Policy in Europe, IEEP, 2000, P50
Wood, P.(1998). 'Prioritizing the Issues in Local Environment Agency Plans through Consensus Building with Stakeholder Groups', London: Environment Agency, R&D Technical Report W114.
Yari, Aristotle (2011). Rural Identity of Tehran Metropolis, Publications of Astan-e-Qods-e- Razavi.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 644