نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

گروه برنامه ریزی و طراحی محیط، پژوهشکده علوم محیطی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

10.52547/envs.2022.1173

چکیده

سابقه و هدف : زیرساخت­ های عملکردی به ­عنوان یک سیستم یکپارچه برای حمایت از توسعه پایدار عمل می ­کنند. بنابراین بکاربستن روش ­های مناسب برای ارزیابی ظرفیت ­های برد زیرساخت ­های عملکردی و همچنین تعادل بین آن­ها ارزشمند است.
 مواد و روش ­ها : در این تحقیق برای ارزیابی تعادل بین ظرفیت برد زیرساخت ­های عملکردی مختلف در استان­ های ایران از مدل FUICC Catastrophe Model (FCM) استفاده شده است. این مدل، روش­های تجزیه و تحلیل میانگین واریانس (MVA) و روش مسیر بحرانی (CPM) را به ­کار می ­گیرد، همچنین در جهت انعکاس سطح پشتیبانی زیرساخت ­های عملکردی محیط زیستی مدل Load-Carrier(بار -حامل) مورد استفاده قرار گرفته است. سنجه ­های مورد مطالعه با مرور منابع علمی معتبر در زمینه زیرساخت­های عملکردی از سال­ های 2015 تا 2020 و داده ­های مورد استفاده از آخرین آمار موجود از داده ­های تجربی جمع آوری شده از استان ایران استخراج شده است.
 نتایج و بحث: نتایج این بررسی نشان داد که استان گیلان در زیر ساخت­های فضای سبز و استان تهران در زیر ساخت های عملکردی مرسوم و محیط زیستی بالاترین ظرفیت برد را دارد و همچنین استان تهران از نظر تعادل بین زیرساخت­ها رتبه اول کشور را به خود اختصاص می­ دهد و در رابطه با آنالیز بار – حامل انعکاس سطح پشتیبانی زیرساخت­ های عملکردی محیط زیستی نشان می­ دهد که استان­هایی از جمله تهران برخلاف ارزیابی خوبی که در سنجش ظرفیت برد نشان دادند، با توجه به حجم بار موجود، سطح پشتیبانی خوبی ارائه نمی­دهند و برعکس استان­ هایی از جمله قم که ظرفیت برد ضعیفی در این زمینه نشان دادند در مورد برخی فاکتورها در آنالیز بار – حامل انعکاس سطح پشتیبانی زیرساخت­ های عملکردی محیط زیستی خوبی را ثبت کردند.
 نتیجه ­گیری: در ظرفیت برد زیرساخت­ های عملکردی بین استان ­ها تفاوت وجود دارد و درمنطقه ­هایی با فاکتورهای ویژه ازجمله سنجه سیاسی، صنعتی، توریستی و... بالاترازسایر استان­ها است و درجه تعادل بین ظرفیت برد زیرساخت­های عملکردی به ­طور کلی در استان­های ایران ضعیف و همچنین انعکاس سطح پشتیبانی زیرساخت­های عملکردی محیط زیستی دارای نوسان­های منفی است. به ­طور کلی در ارزیابی ظرفیت برد زیر ساخت­های عملکردی کشور، نیاز به اقدام ­های مدیریتی احساس می­ شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of carrying capacity of provincial functional-environmental infrastructures in Iran

نویسندگان [English]

  • Romina Sayahnia
  • Maryam Saberian Sani

Department of Environmental Planning and Design, Environmental sciences research center, Shahid Beheshti University

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Functional infrastructures act as an integrated system to support sustainable development. Therefore, it is worthwhile to use appropriate methods to evaluate the range capacities of functional infrastructures and the balance between them.
Material and methods:  In this research, the FUICC Catastrophe Model (FCM1) was used to evaluate the balance between the range capacity of functional infrastructures in the provinces of Iran. This model uses the methods of analysis of mean variance (MVA) and Critical Path Method (CPM), also the Load-Carrier mode was used to reflect the level of support for functional environmental infrastructure. The studied indicators were extracted from experimental data collected from 31 provinces of Iran by reviewing valid scientific sources in the field of functional infrastructure from 2015 to 2020 and the data used using the latest available statistics.
Results and discussion: The results of this study showed that Gilan Province has the highest range capacity in green space infrastructure and Tehran Province has the highest range capacity in conventional functional and environmental infrastructures and also Tehran Province ranks first in the country in terms of balance between infrastructures. Regarding load-bearing analysis, the reflection of the level of support of functional environmental infrastructures shows that provinces such as Tehran, contrary to the good evaluation they showed in measuring range capacity. Due to the existing cargo volume, they do not provide a good level of support, and on the contrary, provinces such as Qom, which showed poor range capacity in this field, recorded good environmental performance for some factors in load-bearing analysis.
Conclusion: There is a difference in the range capacity of functional infrastructure between provinces and in some areas with factors such as political, industrial, tourist, etc., it is higher than other provinces and the degree of balance between the capacity of functional infrastructure is generally weak in the provinces of Iran. Also, the reflection of the level of support of functional infrastructures has negative fluctuations and in general, in assessing the range capacity of functional infrastructures, there is a need for management measures .

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • carrying capacity
  • Functional Infrastructure
  • Sustainable development
  • FCM
Assari, A., Maghreby, S. and Nik, M.M., (2017). Investigation of smart growth in traditional Islamic culture: Case study of Isfahan city in Iran. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning. 10(4),.47-56.
Barboza, E.P., Cirach, M., Khomenko, S., Iungman, T., Mueller, N., Barrera-Gómez, J., Rojas-Rueda, D., Kondo, M. and Nieuwenhuijsen, M., (2021). Green space and mortality in European cities: a health impact assessment study. The Lancet Planetary Health,.5(10),.e718-e730.
Bhu-anantanondh, N., Kanyajit, S., Suwannanon, A. and Sinloyma, P., (2021). Solving Bangkok's traffic problems. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 13(1),.46-61.
Cui, Y. and Sun, Y., (2019). Social benefit of urban infrastructure: An empirical analysis of four Chinese autonomous municipalities. Utilities Policy. 58,.16-26.
Das, R., Laishram, B. and Jawed, M., (2019). Perception of groundwater quality and health effects on willingness to procure: The case of upcoming water supply scheme in Guwahati, India. Journal of Cleaner Production. 226,.615-627.
García-Sánchez, M. and Güereca, L.P., (2019). Environmental and social life cycle assessment of urban water systems: The case of Mexico City. Science of The Total Environment .693.133464.
Geddes, R.R. and Reeves, E., (2017). The favourability of US PPP enabling legislation and private investment in transportation infrastructure. Utilities Policy. 48,.157-165.
Herslund, L., Backhaus, A., Fryd, O., Jørgensen, G., Jensen, M.B., Limbumba, T.M., Liu, L., Mguni, P., Mkupasi, M., Workalemahu, L. and Yeshitela, K., (2018). Conditions and opportunities for green infrastructure–Aiming for green, water-resilient cities in Addis Ababa and Dar es Salaam. Landscape and urban planning .180,.319-327.
Islam, M.U., Ullah, M.W., Khan, S., Shah, N. and Park, J.K., (2017). Strategies for cost-effective and enhanced production of bacterial cellulose. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 102,.1166-1173.
Jia, Z., Cai, Y., Chen, Y. and Zeng, W., (2018). Regionalization of water environmental carrying capacity for supporting the sustainable water resources management and development in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 134,.282-293.
Keshtkar, M. and Sayahnia, R., (2021). Monitoring the Ecological Security of Esfahan with an Ecosystem Service Approach. Geography and Environmental Sustainability. 10(4), pp.91-107.Liao, S., Wu, Y., Wong, S.W. and Shen, L.,(2020). Provincial perspective analysis on the coordination between urbanization growth and resource environment carrying capacity (RECC) in China. Science of the Total Environment. 730,.138964.
Madžarević, A., Ivezić, D., Živković, M., Tanasijević, M. and Ivić, M., (2018). Assessment of vulnerability of natural gas supply in Serbia: State and perspective. Energy Policy, 121,.415-425.
Nahrin, K., (2018). Urban development policies for the provision of utility infrastructure: a case study of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Utilities Policy. 54,.107-114.
Omidpour, M., Sayahnia, R., Rezaei, Y. (2020). The Impact of Urban Growth and Development Trend on Ecological Network Structure with Resilience and Landscape Approach (Case study of Hamedan). Iranian Journal of Remote Sensing & GIS, 12(2), 19-32. doi: 10.52547/gisj.12.2.19
Onasanya, M., (2017). An evaluation and development of the potentials of photovoltaic systems for water pumping and electricity services in rural areas of Nigeria,.1-271.
Patni, S., Landge, V.S. and Gupta, S.,( 2017). Motor vehicle traffic congestion costing in Nagpur City. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(4),. 100–106.
Quesada-Román, A., Villalobos-Portilla, E. and Campos-Durán, D.,( 2021). Hydrometeorological disasters in urban areas of Costa Rica, Central America. Environmental Hazards. 20(3),.264-278.
Rezaei, M.R. and Karimi, B., (2016). Determining the Shiraz city development strategies and prioritizing them by AHP, 43-60.
Sajjadi Ghaemmaghami, S., Sayahnia, R., Mobarghei Dinan, N., Makhdoum Farkhondeh, M. (2021). Evaluating the implications of urban growth on carbon fixation ecosystem services (Case study: Karaj Subcatchments). Journal of RS and GIS for Natural Resources, 12(1), 20-37.
Sayahnia, R., Makhdoum, M., Faryadi, S. (2017). (Ecological indices in evaluation of urban development capability (case study: Tehran metropolitan area. Environmental Sciences, 15(1), 77-88.
Sayahnia, R., Sobhani, P., Mahmoudi, H. and Esmaeilzadeh, H.,( 2019 ). Estimation of the tourism carrying capacity in protect areas (Case study: Alvand No-Hunting Area). Journal of Tourism Planning and Development. 8(30),.51-64.
Shaaban, K. and Abouzaid, A., (2021). Assessment of Traffic Noise Near Schools in a Developing Country. Transportation Research Procedia.55,.1202-1207.
Shahivandi, A.,Mohamadi and quot (2015).;Assessing the housing situation based on basic facilities in the provinces of Iran." Journal of Spatial Planning (Geography) .(in Persian) 4(4): 43-64.
Shen, L., Chen, X., Du, X. and Yang, Z., (2022). An improved method for investigating urban municipal infrastructures carrying capacity. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 29,.299-310.
Statistical Yearbook, 2018, Statistics Center of Iran
Sun, C., Chen, L., and Tian, Y. (2018). Study on the urban state carrying capacity for unbalanced sustainable development regions: Evidence from the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Ecological Indicators, 89, 150-158.
Uddin, N. (2018). Assessing urban sustainability of slum settlements in Bangladesh: Evidence from Chittagong city. Journal of urban management. , 7(1), 32-42.
Wakode, H.B., Baier, K., Jha, R. and Azzam, R., (2018). Impact of urbanization on groundwater recharge and urban water balance for the city of Hyderabad, India. International Soil and Water Conservation Research. 6(1), 51-62.
Wang, J., Ren, Y., Shen, L., Liu, Z., Wu, Y. and Shi, F., (2020). A novel evaluation method for urban infrastructures carrying capacity. Cities, 105, 102846.
Wang, J., Shen, L., Ren, Y., Wei, X., Tan, Y. and Shu, T., (2019) . An alternative model for evaluating the balance of carrying capacity between functional urban infrastructures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 79.106304.
Wang, W., Liu, K., Tang, R. and Wang, S., (2019). Remote sensing image-based analysis of the urban heat island effect in Shenzhen, China. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C. 110,.168-175.
Waste Research, 2017, Management and Planning Organization
Wei, Y., Huang, C., Lam, P.T. and Yuan, Z., (2015) . Sustainable urban development: A review on urban carrying capacity assessment. Habitat International. 46,.64-71.
Wei, Y., Huang, C., Li, J. and Xie, L., (2016). An evaluation model for urban carrying capacity: A case study of China's mega-cities. Habitat International.53,.87-96.
White, J.C., Woods, M., Krahn, T., Papasodoro, C., Bélanger, D., Onafrychuk, C. and Sinclair, I., (2021). Evaluating the capacity of single photon lidar for terrain characterization under a range of forest conditions. Remote Sensing of Environment .252, 112169.
Wu, B., Qiu, W., Huang, W., Meng, G., Nong, Y. and Huang, J., (2022). A Multi-Source Information Fusion Evaluation Method for the Tunneling Collapse Disaster Based on the Artificial Intelligence Deformation Prediction. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering .1-19.
Zhang, M., Liu, Y., Wu, J. and Wang, T., (2018). Index system of urban resource and environment carrying capacity based on ecological civilization. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 68,.90-97.