Priorities of Endogenous Development in Gorgan City through the Principles of Smart Growth

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Jamileh Tavakkoli Nia 1
Mojtaba Barghamadi 2
Mazaher Tayyebi 3
Mahmoud Setayeshmehr 4
1 Associate Professor, Department of Human Geography & Spatial Planning, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
2 PhD Student, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Human Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technology and Engineering of Gorgan, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran.
4 PhD, Department of Conservation of Historical Object, Faculty of Conservation and Restoration, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
Abstract
Pattern of urban expansion in relation to growth of urbanization has led to an excessive horizontal growth of cities. To deal with this phenomenon, theories and movements towards sustainable urban development were developed, such as smart growth. In this theory, physical growth and development of the city serves the community, economy and environment to enhance the quality of life. Gorgan is one of the fertile cities in north of Iran, which, besides being a political center, also is the economic center of the region. Today, the urban sprawl phenomenon in this city is clearly visible, including destruction of fertile and forest lands around the city. In this research, it is tried to use the movement to determine the priorities of endogenous development in Gorgan in order to control the urban sprawl phenomenon of this city. To this end, various urban factors were matched to the ten principles of smart growth; these factors were transformed into a maps and information layers in the GIS environment. These factors were compared and weighed by Analytic Hierarchy Process Analysis (AHP) based on their importance. Finally, areas which are susceptible to development are identified by the principles of smart growth in the city. Research method in this paper is descriptive-analytical and the resources and data of 2007have been used. The research findings indicate that the most suitable place for development in Gorgan city based on the principles of smart growth is the north and east to the north-east of this city and other places have less priority.

Keywords

  • پوراحمد، احمد، مهدی حسام، حدیثه آشور، و صابر محمد پور.1389. تحلیلی بر الگوی گسترش کالبدی- فضایی شهر گرگان با استفاده از مدل‌های آنتروپی شانون و هلدرن، مجله پژوهش و برنامه­ریزی شهری1(3): 18- 1.
  • رهنما، محمد رحیم، و غلامرضا عباس زاده .1387 اصول، مبانی و مدل‌های سنجش فرم کالبدی شهر، مشهد: انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی.
  • عبداللهی، مجید .1389. ساختار محله پایدار شهرهای ایران (گذشته، اکنون و الگوی آتی) با تأکید بر شیراز، رساله برای دریافت درجه دکتری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
  • همدم، راضیه .1391. پیامدهای فضایی احداث مترو بر تحولات عملکردی نواحی پیرامونی (مورد مطالعه: ایستگاه دروازه دولت)، پایان‌نامه جهت اخذ درجه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
  • American Planning Association. 2012. Policy Guide on Smart Growth.
  • Anna Pehoushek. 2002. fact sheet: Mixed-Use Developmen; Santa Fe Depot Specifi c Plan Update.
  • Arigoni Danielle. 2001. AFFORDABLE HOUSING and SMART GROWTH Making the Connection, Washington, D.C. www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/epa_ah_sg.pdf.
  • Daniels Thomas. L, and Mark Lapping. 2005. Land Preservation: An Essential Ingredient in Smart Growth, Journal of Planning Literature  19(3): 316-329.
  • Danielsen, Karen. Robert E. Lang, William Fulton. 1999. Retracting Suburbia: Smart Growth and the Future of Housing. Housing Policy Debate 10(3): 513- 540.
  • Danse Lewis, Sarah. 2007. An Assessment of Smart Growth Policies in Austin, Texas,  An Applied Research Project (Political Science 5397) Submitted to the Department of Political Science Texas State University In Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Public Administration.
  • Mayer, Henry, Christine M. Danis, and Michael R. Greenberg. 2002. Smart Growth In A Small Urban Setting: The Challenges Of Building An Acceptable Solution, Local Environment 7(4): 349–362.
  • Knaap, Gerrit And Emily Talen. 2005. New Urbanism And Smart Growth: A Few Words From The Academy, International Regional Science Review 28(2): 107–118.
  • Knaap, Gerrit-Jan. 2004. A Requiem for Smart Growth?, National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education University of Maryland, Presented at Planning Reform in the New Century, Washington University Law School, St. Louis, www.smartgrowth.umd.edu 1-36.
  • Krueger, Rob. 2007. Making ‘Smart’ Use of a Sewer in Worcester, Massachusetts: A Cautionary Note on Smart Growth as an Economic Development Policy, Local Environment 12(2): 93–110.
  • Litman Todd 2011. Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, www.vtpi.org.
  • Edwards, Mary and Anna Haines. 2007. Evaluating Smart GrowthImplications for Small Communities, Journal of Planning Education and Research 27:49-64.
  • Mitsova, Diana, William Shuster, and Xinhao Wang. 2011. A cellular automata model of land cover change to integrate urban growth with open space conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning 99: 141–153.
  • O’Connell, Lenahan. 2012. Exploring the Contribution of State and Local-level Conditions to the Adoption of Different Types of Smart Growth Policies and Impact Fees in the United States, International Journal of Public Administration 35: 194–203.
  • Otoole, Randal. 2004. A Portlander’s View of Smart Growth, The Review of Austrian Economics, 17:2/3, 203–212:1-10.
  • Smart Growth Network. 2007. Getting to Smart
  • Growth II: 100 more policies for implementation. Washington, DC: Development, Community, and Environment Division, the Environmental Protection Agency.
  • Song, Yan, and Gerrit-Jan Knaap. 2004. Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Regional Science and Urban Economics 34: 663-680.
  • Tregoning Harriet, Julian Agyeman, and Christine Shenot. 2002. Sprawl, Smart Growth and Sustainability, Local Environment 7(4): 341–347.
Journal of Urban Sustainable Development
Volume 2, Issue 4
Autumn 2021
Pages 83-92