تفاوتهای مکانی و نقش آن در آرای تخلفاتِ ساختمانیِ کمیسیون ماده100 در منطقه3 شهر مشهد | ||
| کاوش های جغرافیایی مناطق بیابانی | ||
| دوره 13، شماره 1، شهریور 1404، صفحه 139-154 اصل مقاله (1.15 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/grd.2025.23143.1658 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| فاطمه الماسیان1؛ مصطفی امیرفخریان* 2؛ محمدرحیم رهنما2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد گروه جغرافیا، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران | ||
| 2گروه جغرافیا، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| درمیان عوامل گوناگونی که در تصمیمات مدیران شهری اثرگذاراند، نقش تفاوتهای مکانی، کمتر مورد توجه قرارگرفته است. هدف این مطالعه تحلیل تفاوت در آرای تخلفاتِ ساختمانیِ کمیسیونِ ماده100، با توجه به مولفههای مکانی است. پژوهش ازنوع کمی و محدودة مورد مطالعه، منطقه3 شهرداری مشهد و دوره زمانی تحقیق سال 1401 است. به منظور تحلیل 9 ویژگی از مشخصههای مرتبط با آرای صادره کمیسیون ماده100و مولفههای مکانی مرتبط با هر نوعرای، انتخاب شده است. دادههایِ مربوط به آرای تخلفات ساختمانی، از کمیسیون ماده 100شهرداری مشهد دریافت و پس از آن مبادرت به فضاییسازیِ کلیهآرا(شامل 1437رای) برروی لایه شهرمشهد در پایگاه اطلاعات مکانی گردید. همچنین دراین پایگاه، اطلاعاتی از مولفههای مکانیِ قطعاتِ ساختمانی، جمعآوری شد. سپس با استفاده ازمدلهای تراکمی، مرکزثقل، جهت پراکنش و خودهمبستگی فضایی ومدلهای آماری جداول متعامد و تحلیلتمایزی، دادهها تحلیل شدند..بر اساس یافتههای تحقیق، جریمه، تعطیلی وقلع بنا، مهمترین آرای صادره کمیسیون ماده100را تشکیل میدهد. که الگوهای مکانی متفاوت از آراء را نمایان میسازد. همچنین معیارهای مکانی در انتخاب نوع رای، اثر معناداری داشته است. چنانچه نوع رای برحسب ارزش زمین در مکانهای مختلف، تفاوتهای فضایی را نشان داد. علاوه براین در میان مولفههای مکانی، همجواری با کاربریهای اصلی بهویژه پارک، مهمترین نقش را در نوع آرای صادره ایفا کرده است. در نتیجه باید گفت که آگاهی و شناخت نسبی از مکان تحت مدیریت و درک مولفههای مهم مکانی، از ضروریات ویژه، درفرایند تصمیمگیری مدیران شهری است. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| کمیسیون ماده 100؛ تخلفات ساختمانی؛ تفاوتهای مکانی؛ تحلیل فضایی؛ شهر مشهد | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Spatial differences and their role in the decisions of the Commission on Article 100 of the Municipal Law in District 3 of Mashhad | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Fateme Almasian1؛ Mostafa Amirfakhrian2؛ Mohamad Rahim Rahnama2 | ||
| 1Master's student, Department of Geography, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashahd, Iran | ||
| 2Department of Geography,, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad,, Mashhad, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction: Among the various factors that affect the decisions of urban managers, the role of spatial differences has received less attention. The city of Mashhad is one of the special examples of urbanization growth in Iran. Due to its special location and as the most important urban point in the east of the country, this city has been the destination of many rural migrations and even the destination of non-Iranian immigrants to Bozeh for many years. The northern areas of this city have provided a suitable platform for unauthorized construction and marginal areas due to the possession of vast agricultural lands and the absence of natural restrictions. Area 3 in the north of this city is considered one of the important areas in this regard. This area, with its physical diversity, the presence of worn-out textures, marginal settlements, and spaces of regional importance, is considered a sensitive urban area (Rahimi, 2016). A review of the available data indicates that among the areas of Mashhad, the most construction violations occur in Area 3, and this area ranks first in this regard. According to the latest statistics in 1401, 1437 votes were issued in the Municipality's Article 100 Commission for construction violations in this area, which accounts for 16% of the votes issued by the Article 100 Commission in Mashhad. The votes issued in this area include a variety of demolition and demolition of buildings, fines, sealing, issuing orders, etc. Given the extensive activity of the Article 100 Commission in this area and the issuance of numerous votes, on the one hand, and the diversity of the texture and location, and the existence of various and important physical elements in the area, on the other hand, this study attempts to examine the type of votes issued based on spatial factors. In other words, has the location and conditions of the property been effective in the type of votes issued? In other words, have spatial differences been able to direct the mental image and quality of the votes issued by the Article 100 Commission for construction violations? Research Method: Considering the purpose of the study, the research method was a combination of descriptive and analytical methods. Accordingly, after document studies, a conceptual model of the research was developed. Based on the conceptual model, the causes and quality of the votes issued by the Article 100 Commission were classified according to four factors: economic, social, physical, and the nature of the violation. Next, by referring to the Municipality of Region 3, data on construction violations were obtained based on the location of the property. The total number of violations that led to a vote in the Article 100 Commission included 1,437 properties in 1401. An attempt was made to create a spatial database to identify the location of each vote on the map of Mashhad and store the information on each in this database. This information included the type of violation, the amount of the violation, the date of the violation, the type of vote issued, and the type of use. Also, this database identified the relative location, land price, plot size, and its distance from important surrounding uses. In other words, a matrix of the aforementioned information and data was collected for each of the buildings that led to the issuance of the vote. This matrix, consisting of 1437 rows (buildings with violations that resulted in the issuance of votes) and 14 columns (features related to the type of vote issued and the location of each building), was also collected. In the next step, data analysis was conducted using spatial and statistical models. This study was conducted at two levels: macro and micro. At the macro level, spatial patterns governing the votes issued by the Article 100 Commission were identified by using spatial models such as "center of gravity", "density maps" and "standard distance ellipses" according to the type of vote. At the micro level, an attempt was also made to analyze the votes issued according to the location of the building. At this scale, statistical models such as orthogonal tables and the discriminant analysis model were used. Finally, the results were summarized by combining and analyzing the findings. Result: The initial results showed that fines, closures and demolition of buildings constitute the most important votes issued by the Article 100 Commission. Further use of spatial analyses confirmed the existence of different spatial patterns of votes in the area of Region 3. Supplementary results indicated that spatial criteria had a significant effect on the choice of vote type. For example, the vote type in terms of the rial value of land in different locations showed spatial differences. Also, inferential findings indicated that among the spatial components, proximity to the main land uses, especially parks, played the most important role in the type of votes cast. Conclusion: Therefore, it seems that awareness and relative recognition of the place under management and understanding of important spatial components, including special needs, should be considered in the decision-making process of urban managers. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Article 100 Commission, Construction Violations, Spatial Differences, Spatial Analysis, Mashhad City | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Amin, Ash. (2005). Local community and the economics of place. Geoforum, 36(2), 65–74 Batty, Michael. (2005). Cities and complexity: Understanding cities with cellular automata, agent-based models, and fractals. MIT Press. Beheshti-Rooi, Mohammad. (1993). Analysis of Spatial Inequality in Urban Development. Journal of Geography, 17(1), 31–45. [In Persian] Behmani-Monfared, Hadi et al. (2012). The Effect of Article 100 Commission Decisions on Controlling Building Violations in Khorramdarreh City. Urban Geography Journal, 17(1), 40–55. [In Persian] Behmani-Monfared, Mohammad & Kalantari, Majid. (2012). The Impact of Informal Settlements on Urban Planning. Journal of Urban Research, 17(4), 55–72. [In Persian] Borchard, Martin. (2006). Managing urban growth: A spatial perspective. Geography and Urban Planning Journal, 18(2), 121–135. Fazeli, Zahra. (2015). The Role of Spatial Justice in Urban Development. Journal of Urban Studies, 25(3), 45–67. [In Persian] Ghorbani, Hossein & Fathi, Saeed. (2019). Building Age and Its Effect on the Rate of Building Violations. Iranian Urban Planning Journal, 14(2), 60–78. [In Persian] Gorgiev, Kiril. (2012). Informal settlements and urban governance. Urban Policy Journal, 24(3), 65–78. Harvey, David. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, 23–40. Jamali, Ali. (2016). Analysis of Urban Management’s Inability to Deal with Illegal Construction. Tehran: University of Tehran Press. [In Persian] Johnson, Robert & Smith, Laura. (2019). Spatial equity in urban decision-making. Urban Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 150–169. Kalantari, Majid. (2001). Urban Development and Spatial Justice: A Case Study. Journal of Urban Planning, 30(2), 99–112. [In Persian] Khaloobaghheri, Hossein. (2012). Spatial Analysis of Building Violations in Medium-Sized Cities. Journal of Urban Research, 20(2), 88–103. [In Persian] Kwan, Mei-Po. (2004). GIS methods in spatial justice. Geography and Planning Review, 21(3), 99–115. Lefebvre, Henri. (1991). The Production of Space. Blackwell. Lee, Sung-ho & Park, Hyun-joo. (2018). Income levels and zoning violations in Seoul. Journal of Urban Planning, 29(3), 112–125. Mansouri, Mohammad. (2012). The Role of Zoning Laws in Urban Development. Journal of Urban Development, 19(3), 99–113. [In Persian] Mansouri, Mohammad & Ahmadi, Nasrin. (2022). Land Use Type and Severity of Article 100 Commission Rulings. Quarterly Journal of Urban Policy, 15(1), 25–44. [In Persian] Masoudi, Mehdi. (2018). Investigating Spatial Differences in Building Violations in Mashhad City. Journal of Urban Geography, 23(4), 94–105. [In Persian] Moadanian, Mehdi. (2008). The Growth of Informal Settlements in Developing Countries. Urban Development Studies, 15(1), 42–60. [In Persian] Mottiei Langaroodi, Seyed Hassan. (2013). Conceptual Transformations of Space in Urban Planning. Journal of Spatial Planning, 7(3), 77–93. [In Persian] Pourmohammadi, Mohammadreza & Khalilnejad, Ahmad. (2002). Function and Importance of Land in Urban Development Plans and Methods of Combating Building Violations. Journal of Urban Economics, 10(2), 12–25. [In Persian] Rahnuma, Mohammad Rahim. (2008). Urban Development and Spatial Justice in Iran. Journal of Urban Studies, 25(3), 72–85. [In Persian] Rafieian, Mojtaba, Bamanian, Mohammadreza & Yousefi, Mohammad. (2019). Spatial Investigation of the Impact of Economic and Physical Capacities of the Three Zones of Qazvin City on the Emergence of Building Violations. Journal of Urban Planning, 18(1), 30–42. [In Persian] Rafieian, Mojtaba & Bamanian, Mohammadreza. (2014). The Impact of Economic Inequalities on Informal Settlements. Journal of Geography and Urban Planning, 18(2), 80–95. [In Persian] Safaei, Faranak. (2021). The Effect of Rentier Economy on Urban Space. Journal of Urban Geography, 25(2), 65–80. [In Persian] Safari, Reza. (2015). Spatial Inequality in Urban Construction. Journal of Urban Policy, 10(3), 55–73. [In Persian] Sattarwaite, David. (2010). The role of urban management in sustainable cities. Urban Affairs Review, 39(4), 602–617. Seifeddini, Faranak. (2021). The Effect of Rentier Economy on Urban Space. Journal of Urban Geography, 25(2), 65–80. [In Persian] Soja, Edward W. (2010). Seeking Spatial Justice. University of Minnesota Press. Tahami, Ali et al. (2020). The Impact of Location on Article 100 Commission Rulings. Iran Urban Planning Journal, 32(1), 50–65. [In Persian] Talen, Emily. (2003). GIS and urban planning: Spatial analysis of building code violations. Journal of Urban Geography, 19(1), 9–24. Vesely, Jan. (2017). Spatial planning and the regulation of illegal construction. Urban Planning Review, 28(2), 54–69. Yousefi, Mohammad et al. (2015). The Impact of Urban Planning Policies on Building Violations. Journal of Urban Studies, 20(2), 75–88. [In Persian] Yousefi, Mohammad, Rafieian, Mojtaba & Taghavai, Hamidreza. (2019). The Impact of Illegal Construction on Urban Infrastructure. Journal of Urban Planning and Policy, 11(4), 210–224. [In Persian] Yousefi, Mohammad, Rafieian, Mojtaba & Taghavai, Hamidreza. (2019). Urban Development Challenges in Informal Settlements. Journal of Urban Studies, 22(3), 98–110. [In Persian] Zamani, Zohreh. (2011). Investigating Factors Affecting the Emergence of Building Violations in the Capital. Journal of Urban Planning and Architecture, 15(3), 50–63. [In Persian] Zeyari, Keramatollah, Mehdi, Ali & Mahdian, Parvaneh. (2013). Social Challenges in Urban Development. Journal of Geography of Iran, 10(1), 22–34. [In Persian] Zhao, Qian. (2000). GIS and monitoring of urban building violations. Urban Informatics Journal, 14(3), 31–47.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 117 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 75 |
||