Determination and prioritization of eco-park components for sustainable urban development

Noorzadeh, Z.; Malekian, M.

doi:10.22034/IJHCUM.2023.03.10

Document Type : ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Authors

Department of Natural Resources, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22034/IJHCUM.2023.03.10

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Environmental sustainability is an important program of the United Nations to achieve sustainable urban development. It is important to understand the complicated relationship between the urban ecosystem and the natural environment to solve the environmental problems of cities. Owing to its ecological origin, the establishment of ecological parks plays an essential role in sustainable urban development as it aims to support the spiritual needs of citizens, advocate the life of other species, and minimize the manipulation of nature. This study aims to identify and prioritize important ecological, physical, economic, and social criteria in the eco-park of north-central Iran. Due to its topographic features and specific climate, it provides different habitats for wildlife and has ability to protect biodiversity in the urban ecosystem.
METHODS: There are currently intentions for biodiversity compensation in urban planning due to public opinion and species extinction problems. However, scarce studies are available to reinforce this fundamental concept in urban management. This study aimed to determine and prioritize Alborz eco-park components in north-central Iran. In this research, the indicators were selected by fuzzy Delphi, using multivariate decision-making, entropy technique, and TOPSIS.
FINDINGS: Based on the TOPSIS method, among environmental-ecological criteria, the highest rank belonged to the ex situ conservation of animals in the urban climate and biodiversity enhancement (relative closeness to ideal solution= 0.621). Eco-park establishment along the Chalus road and Hemmat superhighway was the design and physical criterion with the highest score (relative closeness to ideal solution= 0.696). From the socio-economic view, increasing the understanding of human-nature unity was the highly scored criterion (relative closeness to ideal solution= 0.767).
CONCLUSION: The eco-Park is not only about conservation but also about large-scale restoration of nature. The implementation of this new generation of parks in response to local environmental concerns regarding location, physical aspects, design, and wildlife conservation will help transition to sustainable urban development. The north-central eco-park of Iran can be used as a model for the development of sustainable urban ecosystems.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Sustainable urban infrastructure

OPEN ACCESS

©2023 The author(s). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third-party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

PUBLISHER NOTE

Tehran Urban Research and Planning Center Publisher remains neutral concerning jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

CITATION METRICS & CAPTURES

CURRENT PUBLISHER

Tehran Urban Research and Planning Center: Tehran Municipality

References

Balram, S.; Dragićević, S., (2005). Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape and urban plan., 71(2-4): 147-162 (16 pages).

Bell, S., (2012). Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process. Routledge.

Ma, B.; Zhou, T.; Lei, S., Wen, Y.; Htun, T.T. (2019). Effects of urban green spaces on residents’ well-being. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 21: 2793-2809 (17 pages).

Bennett, G.; Wit, P.D., (2001). The development and application of ecological networks: a review of proposals, plans and programmes.

Bhuiyan, H.A.; Darda, A., Hasan, R., (2021). Tourist perception and satisfaction on safari tourism at Sheikh Mujib Safari Park in Bangladesh. Int. J. Geoherit. Parks., 9(4):430-440 (11 pages).

Bilgili, B.C.; Gökyer, E., (2012). Urban green space system planning. Landscape Plan. 360.

Bryant, M., (2004). Urban landscape conservation and the role of ecological greenways at local and metropolitan scales. Landsc. Urban. plan., 76:23-44 (22 pages).

Chang, C.; Leitner, H.; Sheppard, E., (2016). ¿A Green leap forward? eco-state restructuring and the Tianjin–Binhai eco-city model. Reg. Stud., 50(6): 929-943 (15 pages).

Chen, W.Y.; Jim, C.Y., (2008). Assessment and valuation of the ecosystem services provided ecology, planning and management of urban forests: International perspectives. Springer, New York.

Collins, M.K.; Seth, B.; Magle, B.; Gallo, T., (2021). Global trends in urban wildlife ecology and conservation. Biol. Conserv., 261: 109236.

Darwen, P.J.; Green, D., (1996). Viability of populations in a landscape. Ecol. Model., 25: 165-171 (7 pages).

Das, M.; Das, A.; Pereirac, P., (2023). Developing an integrated urban ecological efficiency framework for spatial ecological planning: A case on a tropical mega metropolitan area of the global south. J. Geosc. Front., 14(1): 101489.

Dempseya, S.; Sean Lyonsa, B.; Nolana, A., (2018). Urban green space and obesity in older adults. ESRI Res. Bull.,. 4: 206-215 (10 pages).

Dutoit, J.; Cilliersa, S.; Dallimer, M.; Guenat, M., (2018). Urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services in Sub-Saharan Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan., 180: 249-261 (13 pages).

European Commission, (2015). Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities: Final Report of the Horizon 2020, Expert Group on Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2015 Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials, Luxemburg. 25-29 (5 pages).

Goodman, L.A., (1961). Snowball sampling. Annals Math. Stat. 32(1): 148–170 (23 pages).

Gozaloa, G.R.; González, D.M., (2018). Relationships among satisfaction, noise perception, and use of urban green spaces. Sci. Total Environ., 624: 438–450 (13 pages).

Guo, R.; Miao, C.; Li, X.; Chen, D., (2007). Eco-spatial structure of urban agglomeration. Chinese Geog. Soc. Sci., 17: 28-33 (6 pages).

Habibi, A.; Jahantigh, F.F.; Sarafrazi, A., (2015). Fuzzy delphi technique for forecasting and screening items. Asian J. Res. Bus. Econ. Manage., 2: 130-143 (14 pages).

Hanson, H.I.; Olsson, A.J., (2023). Uptake and use of biodiversity offsetting in urban planning – The case of Sweden. Urban Forest. Urban Green., 80: 127841 (10 pages).

Gunnarsson, B.; Knez, I.; Hedblom, M.; Sang, Å.O., (2017). Effects of biodiversity and environment-related attitude on perception of urban green space. Urban Ecosystem., 20: 37-49 (13 pages).

Leverington, F.; Lemos Costa, K; Courrau, J.; Pavese, H.; Nolte, C.; Marr, M.; Coad, L.;Burgess, N.D.; Bomhard, B.; Hockings, M., (2010). Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas: a global study: -2010.

Johnson, B.R.; Hill, K., (2002). Ecology and Design: A framework for learning USA green walls or green magnets. Interractional relations in neighborhood boundary parks.

Lee, B.; Graefe, A., (2010). Promotion of Family Recreation for a Nature-Based Destination. Pennsylvania State Universit. J. China Tour. Res., 6(1): 50-60 (10 pages).

Masnavi, M.R.; Vamenani, F., (2020). Developing a sustainable landscape design framework for the municipal waste landfills. an ecological approach. International conference on power and energy. Glob. J. Agri. Res. Rev., 8(2): (4 pages).

Mersal, A., (2017). Eco city challenge and opportunities in transferring a city in to green city. Procedia Environ. Sci., 37: 22-33 (12 Pages).

Osmond, P., (2022). Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary area. 2nd edition, Elsevier, USA.

Power, M.A., (2006). Designinig for ecology, the ecological park. (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

Priskin, J., (2013). Assessment of natural resource for nature-based tourism: the case of the central coast region of Western Australia. Tour. Manage., 22: 637-648 (12 pages).

Prakash, k.C., (2013). Ecotourism and sustainable development of mountain communities: A study of Dhanolti ecopark in Uttarakhand State of India. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Sci., 5: 98-103 (6 pages).

Sénécal, G., (2007). Urban environment: Mapping a concept. Environ. Urban, 1:1-3 (4 pages).

Soltanifard, H.; Jafari, E., (2018). A conceptual framework to assess ecological quality of urban green space: a case study in Mashhad city, Iran. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 21: 1781-1808 (28 pages).

Van der Ryn, S.; Cowan, S., (2007). Ecological design. Island Press, Washington, USA.

Vaverkova, M.; Elbl, J.; Radziemska, M.; Adamcova, D., (2018). The use of vegetation as a natural strategy for landfill restoration. Land Deg. Dev., 29: 64-67 (4 pages).

Verrelli, B.C.; Alberti, M.; Des Roches, S.; Harris, N.C., (2022). A global horizon scan for urban evolutionary ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37(11): 1006-1019 (14 pages).

Williams, K.; Jenks, M.; Burton, E., (2015).Achieving sustainable urban form. Taylor and Francis. England.

Yang, Z., (2013). Eco-cities: a planning guide. CRC Press, Boca Roton, Florida, USA.

Yang, L.; Marmolejo, C.; Duarte, M.P., (2022). Quantifying the relationship between public sentiment and urban environment in Barcelona. Cities, 130: 3-26 (24 pages).

LETTERS TO EDITOR

International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management (IJHCUM) welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in IJHCUM should be sent to the editorial office of IJHCUM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.

[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.

[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.

[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.

[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.

[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.

[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.

Name *

Email Address *

Affiliation *

Comments *

Security Code *

International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management

Determination and prioritization of eco-park components for sustainable urban development

References

References

Send comment about this article

Volume 8, Issue 3 - Serial Number 31
July 2023
Pages 431-442

Determination and prioritization of eco-park components for sustainable urban development

References

References

Send comment about this article

Volume 8, Issue 3 - Serial Number 31July 2023Pages 431-442

Volume 8, Issue 3 - Serial Number 31
July 2023
Pages 431-442