improvement of environmental quality and satisfaction of living in new neighbourhoods by priority of actions on the basis of residents’ views (case study, kashan)

introductionhistoric cities and neighbourhoods in iran couldn’t adjust themselves to quick changes of the recent decades andhave lost their quality in many aspects. regardless of different cultural, economic and social conditions, newneighbourhoods have been formed next to old areas of the cities. although these new areas welcom ed newfunctions, they couldn’t provide suitable environments for their residents. this paper intends to promote theenvironmental quality and people satisfaction of living in neighborhood by recognizing and prioritizing the mainenvironmental quality factors which have effect on satisfaction of living in neighborhood. ghotb-e-ravandineighborhood where is developed in the last few decades was selected for this study. this neighborhood islocated adjacent to historical fabric of kashan city, in center of iran.materials and methodsthe research method is an evaluation of residents. to determine the required samples for the evaluation,cochran technique was applied. the indicators were measured by questionnaire was distributed among 164residents or 321 housing units in ghotb-e-ravandi neighbourhood. the actual samples were selected by thesystematic sampling method by mapping the housing units. data obtained through the residents interviews wereentered into a microcomputer and then analyzed by using spss. each indicator was measured by at least twoquestions with five different answer levels (very high, high, moderate, low, and very low). finally arithmeticmean of each category of questions was obtainded and scores of each indicator was applied in factor analysistechnique.results and discussionthe indicators are including physical qualities, social relationships, accessibility, place identity, vitality, safety,security and urban facilities. these indicators, mostly qualitative in nature, were then divided into several subindicators,based on area, city, and social and cultural contexts. to do this, the 32 indicators were selected fromother studies and literature reviews. because of the large number of indicators, multiple linear regressionanalysis cannot run in one step. therefore, the 32 indicators were summarized in 6 factors by using factoranalysis technique (table 1). to find the relation between residential environment quality and satisfaction ofliving in neighborhood, multiple linear regression analyses were used.in this analysis, dependent variable is satisfaction from living in new neighbourhoods and independentvariables are the 6 factors which are extracted from factor analysis technique. by using multiple linear regressionin spss, results of the study is summarized in 6 different models. in the models, the sixth one includes morevariable and higher adjusted r square value (75.1%) compared with others. such figure covers 75.1% of changesof the satisfaction from living in neighbourhood that includes highest percentage among models. besides, thestd. errors of the estimate are less than other models. confidence interval in all factors is 100% and dw1statistical test is 2.3 which are appropriate2 for this model (table 2). table 1. extracted environmental quality factors from factor analysis techniquecorrelatewith factorvariablescorrelatewith factorfactor variablespermeability 0.903 quality of houses 0.637quality of play grounds 0.867 easy and safe walking and biking 0.617access to green space 0.906 sense of safety and security 0.620quality of green spaces 0.809 design based on local climate 0.497recognition of landmarks in 0.751neighborhoodvacant and abandoned areas 0.463f1: quality andexistence ofpublic spacesresidents relationship 0.566 interaction with city managers 0.507social interaction and participation in 0.677 residents’ responsibility 0.797public activitiessense of belonging and attachment to 0.714 a place that gives dignity 0.678neighborhoodwell-connected with important 0.711parts of the cityevokes memories in places 0.582f2:identificationand socialrelationshipneighborhood center and sense of 0.583 mixed use 0.583central locationaesthetic aspects of the neighborhood 0.712 access to daily services 0.595safety and security traveling at 0.507nightadequate open spaces between buildings 0.538f3: vitality inneighbourhoodspacesabsence of environmental pollution 0.730 absence of noise pollution 0.808easy access to downtown 0.501f4: absence ofenvironmentalpollutionf5: legibility tendency to live in neighborhood 0.896 legibility 0.896no automobile dependence 0.759 access to public transport 0.560access to urban facilities 0.671f6: access tourban facilitiesnote. only structural coefficients above 0.40 are reported.table 2. comparison of 6 regression models to show the relations between environmental quality and satisfaction ofliving in neighbourhoodmodel r r square adjusted r square std. error of theestimate durbin-watson1 .658a .433 .429 .6612 .788b .621 .617 .5413 .820c .673 .667 .5044 .847d .718 .711 .4705 .864e .746 .738 .4486 .872f .760 .751 .436 2.034all variables are positive and at the same direction that is shown by increasing in each factor value,satisfaction from living in neighbourhood will be increased. beta coefficient indicates the importance of factorsin changing the satisfaction from living in neighbourhood. thus, if beta coefficient of one variable is more thananother, this may show that the variable has more impact on the residents’ judgement. regression formulaincludes main phenomenon (satisfaction from living in neighbourhood) as dependant variable. the factors asindependent variable are as follow:y= 0.166x1 + 0.658x2 + 0.435x3 + 0.227x4 + 0.212x5 + 0.120x6y: satisfaction from living in new neighbourhoodx1: quality and existence of public spacesx2: identification and social relationshipx3: vitality in neighbourhood spacesx4: absence of environmental pollutionx5: legibilityx6: access to urban facilitiesidentification and social relationship and vitality in neighbourhood spaces have the most impact, in order, onthe satisfaction from living in new neighbourhoods. conclusionscorrelation of 75.1 percent between dependent and independent variables shows the impact of environmentalquality on satisfaction from living in neighbourhood. in the same way 75.1% of changes in dependent variablecould be explained through independent environmental qualities variables. therefore, environmental quality hasdirect relationship with satisfaction of living in neighbourhood.for prioritization of indicators, beta quotient which shows the proportion of each factor on the satisfactionwas used. then, by multiplying the beta quotient by the proportion of each indicator in their factor, the impact ofeach indicator was recognized in the satisfaction. in the next step, by multiplying this amount by invertedaverage of indicator grade, the arrangement of priority of indicators for promotion of satisfaction by living inneighbourhood can be achieved. at the end, for promotion of the satisfaction, some solutions was recommended.the main physical indicators that should be considered to promote the satisfaction are includingneighbourhood that is well-connected with important parts of the city, aesthetic aspects of the neighbourhood,mixed use, neighbourhood center and sense of central location. the main social indicators are residents’responsibility, social interaction and participation in public activities, and interaction with city managers.