Geography

Geography

Assessing the Compatibility of Educational Spaces in Zanjan City with the Activities of Other Urban Land Uses

Document Type : Research Article

Authors
Hossein Tahmasebi Moghaddam 1
Bahareh Akbari Monfared 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Humanities, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor of phisycal Geography Group, Research Science Unit of Tehran Brench, Islamic Azad university, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/jiga.2025.2049475.1367
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Urbanization and rapid population growth have led to increased demand for land, making urban land use planning a critical tool for achieving sustainable and balanced urban development. In this context, the compatibility of educational spaces with other urban land uses plays a vital role in ensuring the quality of educational environments and the overall well-being of students. Inefficient urban development plans often result in incompatible land uses, leading to issues such as noise pollution, environmental degradation, and reduced educational productivity. This study focuses on Zanjan City, a central city in Iran, to assess the compatibility of educational spaces with other urban land uses. The research aims to identify compatible and incompatible educational land uses and evaluate the spatial distribution of these uses. By doing so, it seeks to provide insights into optimizing land use patterns and improving urban management to enhance the quality of educational spaces.
 
Methodology
This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach and is applied in terms of its objectives. Data were collected through documentary sources and surveys, with a focus on the urban land use plan of Zanjan City approved in 2022. The study utilized the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to weight the criteria for evaluating land use compatibility. A questionnaire was distributed to 15 experts to gather their opinions on the importance of various criteria. Spatial analysis was conducted using Geographic Information System (GIS) software to assess the compatibility of educational spaces with other land uses. The study considered eight key land use types affecting educational spaces, including proximity to green spaces, cultural institutions, residential areas, sports facilities, religious centers, healthcare facilities, industrial zones, and military installations. The compatibility of each land use was evaluated based on its distance from educational spaces, with different weightings assigned to each criterion.
 
Results and Discussion
The findings reveal that more than one-third of educational spaces in Zanjan City are incompatible with other land uses, leading to issues such as land use conflicts, insufficient suitable spaces, and environmental challenges. Specifically, 32% of educational spaces were found to be incompatible, while only 21% exhibited high compatibility with adjacent land uses. The analysis showed that educational spaces located near green spaces, cultural institutions, and residential areas had higher compatibility, while those near industrial zones, healthcare facilities, and military installations were less compatible.
The study identified that 58% of the city's area had high to very high compatibility with educational spaces in terms of proximity to green spaces, while only 0.37% of the area was deemed unsuitable. Similarly, 27% of the city's area showed high compatibility with cultural institutions, while 58% had low compatibility. Residential areas exhibited the highest compatibility, with 81% of the city's area being suitable for educational spaces. In contrast, industrial zones and healthcare facilities were found to be largely incompatible, with 27% and 32% of the city's area, respectively, being unsuitable for educational spaces.
The spatial analysis also highlighted that the central areas of Zanjan City had lower compatibility due to the concentration of incompatible land uses, while the peripheral areas showed higher compatibility. This uneven distribution underscores the need for more precise urban planning to address the challenges posed by incompatible land uses.
 
Conclusion
The study concludes that the compatibility of educational spaces with other urban land uses in Zanjan City is uneven, with a significant portion of educational spaces being incompatible with adjacent land uses. This incompatibility can negatively impact the quality of education and the well-being of students. The findings emphasize the importance of optimizing land use patterns and improving urban management to enhance the compatibility of educational spaces. Recommendations include prioritizing the development of educational spaces near green areas, cultural institutions, and residential zones, while maintaining appropriate distances from industrial zones, healthcare facilities, and military installations. The study also highlights the need for more comprehensive urban planning strategies to address the challenges posed by incompatible land uses and to promote sustainable urban development. By doing so, Zanjan City can improve the quality of its educational environments and contribute to the overall well-being of its residents.


Keywords
Land use compatibility
educational spaces
urban land use
Zanjan City

Subjects

  1. Adhikari, B., & Li, J. (2013). Modelling ambiguity in urban planning. Annals of GIS, 19(3), 143-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2013.806355
  2. Ahadnejad Reveshty, M., Sajjadi, Z., & Yari-Qoli, V. (2018). Examining the concept of urban livability in urban development plans (Case study: Comprehensive plan of Zanjan city). Geography (Scientific-Research and International Quarterly of the Iranian Geography Association), 16(59), 95–108. [Persian]. https://mag.iga.ir/article_246087.html
  3. Alexander, K. W., Benjamin, M., & Grephas, O. P. (2012). Urban landuse suitability assessment using geoinformation techniques for Kisumu municipality in Kenya. 13(2), 522-530. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/
  4. Azadi, H., Vanhaute, E., Janečková, K., Sklenička, P., Teklemariam, D., Feng, L., & Witlox, F. (2020). Evolution of land distribution in the context of development theories. Land Use Policy, 97(2020), 1-9.DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104730
  5. Bagheri, B., & Kenaanpour, A. (2023). Evaluation and qualitative analysis of urban land use from a spatial justice perspective using RN model and spatial statistical techniques (Case study: Ardabil city). Geography Scientific Journal, 21(78), 75–92. [Persian].https://dor.isc.ac/dor/http://dor.net/dor/20.1001.1.27833739.1402.21.78.5.0
  6. Cao, R., Zhu, J., Tu, W., Li, Q., Cao, J., Liu, B., ... & Qiu, G. (2018). Integrating aerial and street view images for urban land use classification. Remote Sensing, 10(10), 1-23.https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101553
  7. Ebrahimzadeh, I., & Zarei, Sh. (2012). An analysis of the optimal location of health-care centers using Geographic Information System (Case study: Firouzabad city). Geography (Scientific-Research Quarterly of the Iranian Geography Association), 10(35), 83–104. [Persian].https://mag.iga.ir/article_701236.html
  8. Fu, Y., Zhou, T., Yao, Y., Qiu, A., Wei, F., Liu, J., & Liu, T. (2021). Evaluating efficiency and order of urban land use structure: An empirical study of cities in Jiangsu, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283(2021),1-11.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124638
  9. Gao, P. P., Li, Y. P., Gong, J. W., & Huang, G. H. (2021). Urban land-use planning under multi-uncertainty and multiobjective considering ecosystem service value and economic benefit-A case study of Guangzhou, China. Ecological Complexity, 45(2021), 1-20.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2020.100886
  10. Haj Alizadeh, A. (2017). Evaluation and analysis of the suitability of public land use adjacency in the middle urban texture (Case study: Sabalan neighborhood, Ardabil). Sustainable Architecture and Urban Planning, 5(2), 71–84. [Persian]. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.25886274.1396.5.2.6.2
  11. Harris, J. M. (2000). Basic principles of sustainable development. Dimensions of sustainable development, 1(4), 21-40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23742119
  12. Hashem, N., & Balakrishnan, P. (2014). Change analysis of land use/land cover and modelling urban growth in Greater Doha, Qatar. Annals of GIS(ahead-of-print), 21(3), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2014.992369
  13. Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. Town planning review, 63(2), 143-162. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.63.2.422x602303814821
  14. Hersperger, A. M., Oliveira, E., Pagliarin, S., Palka, G., Verburg, P., Bolliger, J., & Grădinaru, S. (2018). Urban land-use change: The role of strategic spatial planning. Global Environmental Change, 51, 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.001
  15. Holguin-Veras, J., Ramirez-Rios, D., Ng, J., Wojtowicz, J., Haake, D., Lawson, C. T., ... & Cara, W. (2021). Freight-efficient land uses: Methodology, strategies, and Sustainability, 13(6), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063059
  16. Hsu, W. T., Holmes, T. J., & Morgan, F. (2014). Optimal city hierarchy: A dynamic programming approach to central place theory. Journal of Economic Theory, 154(2014), 245-273.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2014.09.018
  17. Huang, G., Li, D., Zhu, X., & Zhu, J. (2021). Influencing factors and their influencing mechanisms on urban resilience in China. Sustainable cities and society, 74(2021), 1-20.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103210
  18. Iannillo, A., & Fasolino, I. (2021). Land-use mix and urban sustainability: Benefits and indicators analysis. Sustainability, 13(23), 1-18.https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313460
  19. Jana, A., Sarkar, A., & Bardhan, R. (2020). Analysing outdoor airflow and pollution as a parameter to assess the compatibility of mass-scale low-cost residential development. Land Use Policy, 99(2022),1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105052
  20. Kangas, K., Brown, G., Kivinen, M., Tolvanen, A., Tuulentie, S., Karhu, J., ... & Juutinen, A. (2022). Land use synergies and conflicts identification in the framework of compatibility analyses and spatial assessment of ecological, socio-cultural and economic values. Journal of Environmental Management, 316 (2022), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115174
  21. Karami, A., & Mihanparast, A. (2020). Environmental-land suitability assessment for urban land planning (Case study: District 22 of Tehran). Geography Scientific-Research and International Quarterly of the Iranian Geography Association, 18(64), 51–63. [Persian].https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.27172996.1399.18.1.4.9
  22. Kashefidoost, D., & Haji Nejad, A. (2015). Evaluation of urban land use with a sustainable development approach (Case study: Piranshahr). Territorial Planning Journal, 7(1), 71–94. [Persian]. https://jtcp.ut.ac.ir/article_54782.html
  23. Kılkış, Ş. (2022). Urban emissions and land use efficiency scenarios towards effective climate mitigation in urban systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 167(2022), 1-20.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112733
  24. Lagopoulos, A. (2018). Clarifying Theoretical and Applied Land-Use Planning Concepts, 2(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/URBANSCI2010017.
  25. Liu, J., Zhang, Z., Xu, X., Kuang, W., Zhou, W., Zhang, S., ... & Jiang, N. (2010). Spatial patterns and driving forces of land use change in China during the early 21st century. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20, 483-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-010-0483-4
  26. uan, C., Liu, R., & Peng, S. (2021). Land-use suitability assessment for urban development using a GIS-based soft computing approach: A case study of Ili Valley, China. Ecological Indicators, 123(2021), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107333
  27. Michalos, A. C. (Ed.). (2014). Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands,  171(2014) .8-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5.
  28. Mozaffar, F., Mahdizadeh Seraj, F., & Mirmoradi, S. S. (2009). Recognizing the role of nature in educational spaces. Educational Technology Journal, 4(1), 37–46. [Persian].https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2009.1334
  29. Rahman, M. M., & Szabó, G. (2021). Multi-objective urban land use optimization using spatial data: A systematic review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 74.
  30. Rounsevell, M. D., Pedroli, B., Erb, K. H., Gramberger, M., Busck, A. G., Haberl, H., ... & Wolfslehner, B. (2012). Challenges for land system science. Land use policy, 29(4), 899-910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.007
  31. Saeednia, A. (2004). The Green Book: Municipality Guide. Tehran: Organization of Municipalities and Rural Affairs Publications. [Persian].https://www.azmoon-mohandesan.com.
  32. Samat, N., Mahamud, M. A., Tan, M. L., Maghsoodi Tilaki, M. J., & Tew, Y. L. (2020). Modelling land cover changes in peri-urban areas: A case study of george town conurbation, Malaysia. Land, 9(10), 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100373
  33. Shah Ali, A., Sarvar, R., & Tavakolan, A. (2024). An analysis of key factors affecting sustainable regional development in Makran. Geography Scientific Journal, 22(80), 19–38. [Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22034/iga.2024.704872
  34. Shahriar, F., Gandomkar, A., Hashempour, R., & Ramesht, M. H. (2016). Feasibility study of urban development and establishment of new cities in Qazvin province. Geography (Scientific-Research and International Quarterly of the Iranian Geography Association), 14(48), 73–91. [Persian]. https://mag.iga.ir/article_701092.html?lang=fa
  35. Sharifi, P., Manouchehri Miyandoab, E., Javan, Kh., & Ramazani Mehrian, M. (2024). The impact of urban land development on landscape patterns and ecological risk. Geography Scientific Journal, 22(82), 129–148. [Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22034/iga.2024.2022285.1290
  36. Statistical Center of Iran. (2016). Detailed results of the Population and Housing Census of Zanjan City (1956-2016). [Persian].https://amar.org.ir/population-and-housing-census
  37. Stewart, T. J., & Janssen, R. (2014). A multiobjective GIS-based land use planning algorithm. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 46(2014), 25-34.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.04.002
  38. Taleai, M., Sharifi, A., Sliuzas, R., & Mesgari, M. (2007). Evaluating the compatibility of multi-functional and intensive urban land uses. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 9(4), 375-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2006.12.002
  39. Taleai, M., Sliuzas, R., & Flacke, J. (2014). An integrated framework to evaluate the equity of urban public facilities using spatial multi-criteria analysis. Cities, 40, 56-69.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.04.006
  40. Taleshi, M., & Ghobadi, A. (2012). Urban land use sustainability assessment through evaluation of compatibility matrix case study: Karaj City. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(1), 57-64. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1986523
  41. Vafaei, A., & Dolatiarian, K. (2022). Assessment and evaluation of urban land use compatibility index using Geographic Information System - Case study: Kashan city. Geographical Information Journal (Sepehr), 31(123), 107–126. [Persian].https://doi.org/10.22131/sepehr.2022.69991
  42. Yang, J., Li, S., & Lu, H. (2019). Quantitative influence of land-use changes and urban expansion intensity on landscape pattern in Qingdao, China: Implications for urban sustainability. Sustainability, 11(21), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216174.
  43. Zanjan Municipality Statistical. (2016). Deputy of Planning and Human Development, Statistical Yearbook of Zanjan City. [Persian]. https://mpo-zn.ir//amayesh
  44. Zhang, X., Zhou, J., Li, G., Chen, C., Li, M., & Luo, J. (2020). Spatial pattern reconstruction of regional habitat quality based on the simulation of land use changes from 1975 to 2010. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 30, 601-620.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-020-1745-4
  45. Zheng, H., Wu, Y., He, H., Delang, C. O., Qian, J., Lu, J., ... & Li, G. (2023). Urban land use eco-efficiency and improvement in the western region of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 412(2023), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137385
  46. Zhou, L., Dang, X., Sun, Q., & Wang, S. (2020). Multi-Scenario Simulation of Urban Land Change in Shanghai by Random Forest and CA-Markov Sustainable Cities and Society, 55(2020), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102045
  47. Zhuo, Y., Zheng, H., Wu, C., Xu, Z., Li, G., & Yu, Z. (2019). Compatibility mix degree index: A novel measure to characterize urban land use mix pattern. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 75(2019), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2019.01.005

 

Geography
Volume 23, Issue 84
Spring 2025
Pages 105-129