A comparison of neighbourhood liveability as perceived by two groups of residents: Tehran, Iran and Tartu, Estonia

•We make a transition from the expert application of liveability indicators.•We test their applicability for neighbourhood liveability evaluation by residents.•Similarities in environmental preferences are found between citizens of Tartu and Tehran.•The neighbourhood liveability is influenced by att...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Urban forestry & urban greening 2018-10, Vol.35, p.8-20
Main Authors: Norouzian-Maleki, Saeid, Bell, Simon, Hosseini, Seyed-Bagher, Faizi, Mohsen, Saleh-Sedghpour, Bahram
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Liveability
Neighbourhood
Physical characteristics
Residents’ preferences
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•We make a transition from the expert application of liveability indicators.•We test their applicability for neighbourhood liveability evaluation by residents.•Similarities in environmental preferences are found between citizens of Tartu and Tehran.•The neighbourhood liveability is influenced by attributes of residential neighbourhoods. Liveability is an important component of the sustainable urban environment, especially in residential neighbourhoods. This study presents a comparison in perceived liveability between residents living in two very different locations, Tehran, Iran and Tartu, Estonia, using a questionnaire survey (n = 102). The image-questionnaire was used to measure residents’ response towards environmental factors and to examine the relationships between the attributes of residential neighbourhoods and perceived liveability. Statistical analyses were performed to analyze the data collected from the survey. The results showed that the neighbourhood liveability was positively influenced by proportion and scale of the spaces, amount of private green areas, street character, amount of public greenery, the variety of building form, the mix of buildings from different periods, perceived crowding and social density. The study demonstrated that residents can assess the factors and that the approach worked in two contrasting locations. The results also showed a great deal of similarity in preference, although this was not the main aim of the study. The approach has potential to be incorporated into participatory urban planning models.
ISSN:1618-8667
1610-8167
DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.08.004