Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Urban Renewal Mega Projects and Residents’ Quality of Life: Evidence from Historical Religious Center of Mashhad Metropolis

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Urban decay is the process by which a historical city center, or an old part of a city, falls into decrepitude and faces serious problems. Urban management, therefore, implements renewal mega projects with the goal of physical and functional revitalization, retrieval of socioeconomic capacities, and improving of quality of life of residents. Ignoring the complexities of these large-scale interventions in the old and historical urban fabrics may lead to undesirable consequences, including an additional decline of quality of life. Thus, the present paper aims to assess the impact of renewal mega projects on residents’ subjective quality of life, in the historical religious district of the holy city of Mashhad (Samen District). A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of impact assessment, including questionnaires, semi-structured personal interviews, and direct observation, is used in this paper. The results yield that the Samen Renewal Project has significantly reduced the resident’s subjective quality of life, due to its undesirable impacts on physical, socio-cultural, and economic environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dale OJ. Urban Planning in Singapore: The Transformation of a City. Oxford: Oxford university press; 1999.

  2. Hoffman V. The lost history of urban renewal. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Place-making and Urban Sustainability. 2008;1(3):281–301.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Forouhar A, Kheyroddin R. The impact of commercialization on the spatial quality of residential neighbourhoods: evidence from Nasr neighbourhood of Tehran. Geographical Planning of Space Quarterly Journal. 2016;6(20):63–84.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lee YJ. Subjective quality of life measurement in Taipei. Build Environ. 2008;43(7):1205–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tesfazghi ES, Martinez JA, Verplanke JJ. Variability of quality of life at small scales: Addis Ababa Kirkos Sub-City. Soc Indic Res. 2010;98(1):73–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rogerson RJ. Quality of life and city competitiveness. Urban Stud. 1999;36(5):969–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Seik FT. Quality of life in cities. Cities. 2001;18(1):1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kamp Iv, Leidelmeijer K, Marsman G, Hollander A. Urban environmental quality and human well-being towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts: a literature study. Landsc Urban Plan. 2003;65(1):5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Türksever AN, Atalik G. Possibilities and limitations for the measurement of the quality of life in urban areas. Soc Indic Res. 2001;53(2):163–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Costanza R, Fisher B, Ali S, et al. Quality of life: an approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecol Econ. 2007;61(2):267–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Das D. Urban quality of life: a case study of Guwahati. Soc Indic Res. 2008;88(2):297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Soleimani M, Tavallaei S, Mansuorian H, Barati Z. The assessment of quality of life in transitional neighborhoods. Soc Indic Res. 2013;119(3):1589–1602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Marans RW, Stimson RJ. Social Indicators Research Series: Investigating Quality of Urban Life: Theory, Methods, and Empirical Research. Vol 45: Springer Netherlands; 2011.

  14. Szalai A, Andrews F. The quality of life: comparative studies, vol. 20. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1980.

  15. Marsella AJ, Levi L, Ekblad S. The importance of including quality-of-life indices in international social and economic development activities. Appl Prev Psychol. 1997;6(2):55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Musschenga AW. The relation between concepts of quality of life, health and happiness. J Med Philos. 1997;22(1):11–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mulligan G, Carruthers J, Cahill M. Urban quality of life and public policy: a survey. In: Capello R, Nijkamp P, editors. Contributions to economic analysis, vol. 266. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McCrea STK, Stimson R. What is the strength of the link between objective and subjective indicators of urban quality of life? Applied Research in Quality of Life. 2006;1(1):79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Carr D. Encyclopedia of the life course and human development. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA; 2009.

  20. Cummins RA. The domains of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos. Soc Indic Res. 1996;38(1):303–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mitchell G. Indicators as tools to guide progress on the sustainable development pathway. London: Urban International Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hazel H, Lickerman J, Flynn P. Calvert–Henderson quality of life indicators: a new tool for assessing national trends. Bethseda, MD: Calvert Group; 2000.

  23. Mitchell G, Namdeo A, Kay D. A new disease-burden method for estimating the impact of outdoor air quality on human health. Sci Total Environ. 2000;246(2):153–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Johansson S. Conceptualizing and measuring quality of life for national policy. Social Indicators Research Series: Assessing Quality of Life and Living Conditions to Guide National Policy. Vol 11. Dordrecht: Springer; 2002.

  25. Rojas M. Experienced poverty and income poverty in Mexico: a subjective well-being approach. World Dev. 2008;36(6):1078–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2013.

  27. Forouhar A. Estimating the impact of metro rail stations on residential property values: evidence from Tehran. Journal of Public Transport: Planning and Operations. 2016;8(3):427–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Roche CJ. Impact Assessment for Development Agencies: Learning to Value Change: Oxford: Oxfam; 1999.

  29. Statistical Year Book of Mashhad. Mashhad: Department of Planning and Development of Mashhad Municipality; 2016. SYBM.

  30. Report on the Samen Renewal Project. Mashhad: Department of Urban Planning and Architecture of Mashhad Municipality; 2002.

  31. Sirgy J, Cornwell T. How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Soc Indic Res. 2002;59(1):79–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hillier B, Greene M, Desyllas J. Self-generated neighbourhoods: the role of urban form in the consolidation of informal settlements. Urban Design International. 2000;5(2):61–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Report on the Residents’ Problems of the Central Fabric of Mashhad. Mashhad: City Council of Mashhad; 2016. RPCFM.

  34. Hechter M, Horne C. Theories of social order : a reader. 2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press; 2009.

  35. Western JS, Lanyon A. Anomie in the Asia Pacific region: the Australian study. In: Atteslander P, Gransow B, Western J, editors. Comparative anomie research: hidden barriers-hidden potential for social development. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd; 1999.

  36. Huppert FA, Marks N, Clark A, et al. Measuring well-being across Europe: description of the ESS well-being module and preliminary findings. Soc Indic Res. 2009;91(3):301–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. the Official Crime Statistics of Mashhad City. Mashhad: Mashhad Police Department; 2016. OCSMC.

  38. Perspectives on Global Development. Social cohesion in a shifting world. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2012. p. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ashley C, Carney D. Sustainable livelihoods; lessons from early experiences. London: Department for International Development; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Karl M. Monitoring and Evaluating Stakeholder Participation in Agriculture and Rural Development Projects: A Literature Review. Rome: Sustainable Development Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations; 2000.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors declare that no body provided intellectual assistance, technical help, or special equipment or materials.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Architecture and Urban Design, Art University of Isfahan, Hakimnezami Street, Isfahan, Iran

    Amir Forouhar

  2. School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran, Iran

    Mahnoosh Hasankhani

Authors
  1. Amir Forouhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahnoosh Hasankhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir Forouhar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forouhar, A., Hasankhani, M. Urban Renewal Mega Projects and Residents’ Quality of Life: Evidence from Historical Religious Center of Mashhad Metropolis. J Urban Health 95, 232–244 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0224-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0224-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation