واکاوی و پایش سیاست‌های اجتماعی فضایی در پهنه‌ی جغرافیایی شهر (موردپژوهی: شهر گرگان)

سیاست‏های اجتماعی فضایی زنجیره‏ای از تصمیم‏های اختیارشده توسط مراجع عمومی در هر یک از سطوح ملی، منطقه‏ای، فراشهری، و شهری هستند که بر نحوه زیست انسان‏ها در شهرها، مشکل‏های شهرها، و کیفیت زندگی در آن‏ها اثر می‏گذارند. در سیاست‏گذاری شهری ممکن است لابی‏های سیاسی، رسانه‏ها، و گروه‏های فشار خارج از سازوکار رسمی سیاست‏گذاری نیز قادر شوند ترجیح‏های خود را بدون پیمودن یک فرایند تصمیم‏گیری در سیاست‏ها وارد کنند. بنابراین، تحقیق حاضر به واکاوی و واپایش سیاست‏های اجتماعی و نابرابری فضایی در شهر گرگان می‏پردازد. تحقیق حاضر از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نظر روش توصیفی تحلیلی و شیوه گردآوری داده‏ها اسنادیکتابخانه‏ای است. از تکنیک‏های کمی ریاضی تصمیم‏گیری چندمعیاره وازپاس، دابلیو‏اس‏آ، کوپراس و برای وزندهی از آنتروپی شانون استفاده شد. همچنین،برای نتیجه‏گیری بهتر از تکنیک تلفیقی کاندرست استفاده شده است. یافته‏های پژوهش حاضر نشان می‏دهد شاخص‏های خدمات شهری در نواحی هشتگانه گرگان به صورت متوازن توزیع نشده و تفاوت چشم‏گیری بین نواحی شهر گرگان از نظر برخورداری از شاخص‏های عدالت فضایی ملاحظه می‏شود. یافته‏های تکنیک تلفیقی کاندرست بیانگر آن است که نواحی 4 و 1 به‏ترتیب در بالاترین و پایین‏ترین سطح شاخص‏های رفاه اجتماعی قرار گرفته‏اند. اولویت‏بندی نواحی از لحاظ برخورداری از شاخص‏های خدمات شهری نشان می‏دهد که نواحی 4، 3، و 6 به‏عنوان نواحی برخوردار، نواحی 7 و 8 به‏عنوان نواحی نیمه‏برخوردار، و نواحی 2، 5، و 1 به‏عنوان نواحی محروم از خدمات زیرساخت‏شهری قرار دارند. با توجه به یافته‏های این تحقیق، مدیران و مسئولان شهری،به‏ویژه سیاست‏گذاران و مشاوران توسعه برنامه‏ریزی استراتژیک و راهبردی عملیاتی شهرداری گرگان، می‏توانند با تغییر سیاست و اصلاح بودجه‏بندی فضایی و تدوین برنامه‏‏های اجرایی سالانه، نابرابری‏های فضایی را کاهش دهند و در نتیجه محیط شهری پایدارتری را در محور‏های مختلف برای شهروندان تضمین کنند.

Thorough investigation and monitoring of spatial, social policies pertaining to city zoning ( case : Gorgan )

Thorough investigation and monitoring of spatial, social policies pertaining to city zoning ( case : Gorgan )Spatial social policies comprises of sets of apt decisions taken by public entities at different levels including national, regional ,urban and intera urban ones .These would have an impact upon human livelihood as well as the quality of the life and other corresponding urban problems .With regard to urban policy decisions there exists a likelihood that some political key figure layers as well as medias and pressure groups, away from formal mechanism and decision processes being able to prioritize their political wills .The major objective of this paper is to thoroughly investigate and monitor the spatial social inequality policies detected in some zones in Gorgan as this work’s study area. From objective side, this study has an applied nature. However, methodologically speaking it relies on a descriptive and analytical approach . This study is based on documentations as well as some mathematical and quantitative techniques including WASPAS ,WSA , COPRAS and Entropy Shannon . This is followed by application of some combining technique including kanderast?. This study suggests that Gorgan ’s eight zones show uneven distribution regarding urban services indices. That means that there exists some drastic discrepancies with regard to possession of social justice indices associated with different zones. As such, based on kanderast combination technique, zone 4 possesses the highest value as opposed to zone 1 regarding social welfare. Prioritizing different Gorgan’s zones based on urban social services reveals that zones 4,3, and 6 are ranked as the most privileged ones followed by zones 7 and 8 as semi privileged ones. Zones 2, 5 and 1 are ranked as the deprived ones regarding urban infrastructures.It is argued that Gorgan’s key corresponding urban figures, more specifically urban politicians and strategic urban planning consultants should reduce spatial inequalities. This can be achieved by utilizing modified, improved urban policies and some budget amendment. The changes along this line will ultimately assure more sustainable urban environments.Key words:Social Policies, Spatial Urban Justice, Decision Making Technique, Urban Planning , Gorgan City IntroductionGenerally speaking, political, social approaches as well as the politics and its social implication have great impacts upon the production of geographical space.This means that the politics along with political space economy aim to pave the way and ultimately shape decent urban spaces for the citizens.In fact, the geographic spaces are the setting of different economic, social and political functions in which affects the production of urban space.It is suggested that the government with its apt policies is capable of transforming urban spatial organization as well. The government is responsible for creation of urban geographic spaces and the corresponding functional structural changes as well as geographic balances and imbalances. Generally speaking, accomplishing targeted and well balanced urban development is the major objective of urban regional planning. Furthermore, urban services are being considered as the most fundamental realm of urban planning policies. Therefore, service allocation processes, due to its impact upon urban livability and promotion of comfort level and well being, should receive prime attention regarding advance urban management.MethodologyThis study has descriptive and analytical nature and from objective aspect it is applied as well. Our approach further bases on the existing relevant documentation in order to compile the required information.The statistical population is comprised of Gorgan’s eight zones. Regarding analytical sphere, the study applies WSA, COPRAS, and WASPAS.Results and discussionBased on WASPAS technique those area with value close to 1 are considered to be privileged as opposed to deprived ones with values close to 0 . This study suggests that different zones in Gorgan experience varied value levels regarding welfare indices. As such, zones 4, 8, 6, 7, 3, 5, 2 and 1 with values of 0.4096, 0.4022, 0.3802, 0.2981, 0.2540, 0.1461, 0.1192 and 0.0696 respectively correspond to different hierarchical spectrum level as far as the urban welfare is concerned. This indicates the unfair and unsuitable status of selected Gorgan’s zones as far as urban welfare indices are concerned .Based on COPRAS technique, out of 16 urban service indices, zones 4, 1, 2, 5, 3, 7, 6, and 8 with the development coefficient 1 , 0.8222, 0.7423, 0.5762, 0.5762, 0.5013, 0.4076 and 0.1935 respectively correspond to different hierarchical spectrum level as far as the urban welfare is concerned.With regard to the application of WSA technique, zone 4 with corresponding development coefficient 0.5081 got the highest rank followed by zone 3 (0.3226). Zone 6 with development coefficient of 0.3220 holds the third position followed by zone 7 (0.2590). Zone 8 with development coefficient 0.2047 ranked the fifth followed by zone 2 (0.3226 ) Lastly, zone 5 with development coefficient 0.0804 ranked seventh followed by zone 1 (0.0417).Based on kandrast combination technique out of 8 selected zones, zone 4 ranked the highest as opposed to zone 1 (lowest rank) as far as the urban welfare service indices are concerned . Furthermore, zones 4, 3, and 6 are categorized as privileged and abundant zones . This is followed by zones 7 and 8 known as semi privileged ones. However, zones 2 ,5 and 1 are categorized as deprived ones with respect to receiving urban welfare services.Based on forgoing discussions, Kandrast technique would be well justified to accomplish better allocation of urban services and combating spatial inequalities between Gorgan ’s different zones. Our study reveals the drastic differences and inequalities among Gorgan’s selected zones as far as urban welfare services is concerned. Zone 4, 3 and 6 are categorized as privileged and abundant zones. This is followed by zone 7 and 8 known as semi privileged ones and zones 2, 5 and 1 are categorized as deprived ones with respect to receiving urban welfare services. Regarding fair distribution of urban welfare services, the following recommendations sound appropriate :Urban planning key figures should involve and incentivize citizens in implementation of urban plans. That means more active community participation is highly recommended.