Biophilic ” planning , a new approach in achieving liveable cities in Iranian new towns – Hashtgerd case study

Urbanization development in Iran has caused increasing critical problems, with the result that there is a need to review urban planning in this country. This article aims to explore the impact of biophilic planning on liveability, with special focus on the role of nature as part of society. The study was done in Hashtgerd, an Iranian new town, where an environmental analysis showed that this town can be developed on the West, North and North-West, due to the natural potential of the area. Based on the literature review and content analysis (selective coding), components of biophilic planning and liveability of new towns have been identified and used to test the opinions of 382 residents in Hashtgerd on biophilic planning and liveability of a new town in Iran. The data from the questionnaire were collected and processed, using SPSS software. The final dependent and independent variables were identified and analysed. Correlation coefficients in the regression analysis were used to analyse the effects on each other between the identified dependent and independent variables. According to the results and findings, urban management (a component of biophilic planning) has the biggest effect in achieving liveable cities. The outcome of the study is crucial for construction and urban planning team members, clients and environmentalists. Another reason, that is particularly relevant to developing countries, is the natural potential and related industries to create beneficial social and economic impacts.


INTRODUCTION
To transition from the sanitary city of the twentieth century to the sustainable city of the twentyfirst, new knowledge needs to be developed and applied in order to understand the role of nature in cities (Vitousek, Mooney, Lubchenco & Mellilo, 1997: 494-499).
Interest in the remediating role of nature in the city has had a slow and steady history since the rise of the industrial city, including some of the early designs of Fredrick Law Olmsted, using water features in urban parks to remediate water pollution, and his advocacy of parks as 'lungs' to counter pollution.Ebenezer Howard's Garden cities, Le Corbusier's Contemporary city, and Frank Lloyd Wright's Broad acre city plan also reflect ideas of the importance of urban nature; urban designers and ecologists such as Ian McHarg's (1971) Design with nature, andSpirn (1984), as well as planners such as Rutherford Platt (1994) and open-space advocates such as Charles Little (1992) took up the refrain in the second half of the 20 th century.These latter thinkers advocated that nature should be considered both in designing new urban development (watersheds and their functions, for example), and in positioning buildings in cities to enhance natural elements such as cooling winds in hot summers, or increasing the availability of sunlight in winter.In the 2000s, there was an explosion of interest in the distribution of parks and open spaces relative to the equitable provision of ecosystem services (Boone, Buckley, Grove & Sister, 2009: 767-782;Heynen, Perkins & Roy, 2006: 3-25;Wolch, Wilson & Fehrenbach, 2005: 4-35;Pincetl, 2010: 43-58).
A 'biophilic city' is a green city, a city with abundant nature and natural systems that are visible and accessible to urbanites.It is not only about physical conditions and urban design (parks, green features, urban wildlife, and walkable environments), but also about the spirit of a place, its emotional commitment and concern about nature and other forms of life, its interest in, and curiosity about nature, which can be expressed in the budget priorities of a local government as well as in the lifestyles and life patterns of its citizens.On the other hand, a 'biophilic city' is at its heart a biodiversity city, a city with abundant nature, a place where, in the normal course of work, play and life, residents feel, see, and experience rich nature (plants, trees, and animals) (Beatley, 2010: 45).

Urbanization development in
Iran and in the world has caused increasing critical problems, with the result that there is a need to review urban planning in this country.Spatial distribution of cities and population and their control and management were not included in a comprehensive national plan; the problems arising from rapid urban growth have become complex.It is necessary to pay attention to urban space quality, due to the influx of people.Biophilic planning and liveability issues are important in new towns.The four new towns of Andisheh, Pardis, Parand, and Hashtgerd are located and built near the capital of Iran (Tehran).For this study, Hashtgerd was selected, due to possible future development and environmental potential.Both the Daghestan fault line and the Northern-Alborz fault line near the town are considered a natural risk, as soil movement is likely to occur when the faults become active.Natural and environmental analyses of the new towns indicate that Hashtgerd can be developed in the West, North and the North-West due to its natural potential.This article aims to explore the impact of biophilic planning on liveability, with special focus on the role of nature as part of society.The following research questions were examined:  (Kellert, 2005).
In 1995, William Rees, co-author of Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth (1996), and Boone & Modarres (2007: 296) as well as other authors suggested that the greatest opportunities to make the changes necessary for general sustainability can be found in cities. Planners such as Scott Campbell (1996: 296) (Wilson, 1993: 31;Gruchow, 1995).
To Wilson, biophilia is a "complex of learning rules" developed over thousands of years of evolution and human-environment interaction: "For more than 99 percent of human history people have lived in huntergatherer bands totally and intimately involved with other organisms." During this period of history, and further back in history, human beings depended on an exact learned knowledge of crucial aspects of natural history.In short, the brain evolved in a bio-centric world, not a machine-regulated world.It would, therefore, be quite extraordinary to find that all learning rules related to that world have been erased in a few thousand years, even in the tiny minority of peoples who have existed for more than one or two generations in wholly urban environments (Wilson, 1993: 32).
The importance of urban green spaces and urban forests is increasing worldwide, due to the expansion of urban land fuelled by urbanization.The provision of parks and green spaces in urban areas makes a vital contribution to the quality of urban life.Nature is beneficial for human beings in various ways; people in cities do not get the opportunity to have intimate contact with nature.Realizing the importance of nature in human life, theorists and researchers associated with biophilia argue that we need to re-imagine cities as 'biophilic cities' (Beatley, 2010)."A Biophilic city is a city abundant with nature, a city that looks for opportunities to repair and restore and creatively insert nature wherever it can" (Beatley, 2010: 2).

Liveable concept
In the Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary, Hornby & Turnbull (2010) refer to liveability as being "fit for life".It can be said that, in 1981, Donald Appleyard introduced the first concept of liveability as liveable streets (Appleyard, 1981).Jacobs and Appleyard (1987: 115-116) defined liveability as a city where every individual can live relatively easily; this is the necessary goal of a proper urban environment.
Liveable city refers to an urban system that helps the psychological, social, physical and personal wellbeing of all residents (Cities PLUS, 2003) who have the same opportunity to participate in, and benefit from the economic and political life of the city.

Second step
A better way to Zon: Ten principles to create more liveable cities (Elliott, 2008) Towards a liveable city (Buchwald, 2003) Liveable city (Evas, 2002).

Second step
A better way to Zon: Ten principles to create more liveable cities (Elliott, 2008) Towards a liveable city (Buchwald, 2003) Liveable city (Evas, 2002).
Liveable city Partners for liveable communities (Appleyard, 1981) Social  , 1997: 13-19).These cities pay attention to creating architecture, street views and public spaces that facilitate the presence of city inhabitants in public areas.These cities are committed to reducing traffic and solving the safety problems of pollution and noise, using a range of mechanisms (Crowhurst & Lennard, 1987).
In 1997, Henry Lenard defined some factors for the bases of the city.
He defined liveable city as a living organism.However, the metaphor of the city as an organism can act as a powerful conceptual framework.This framework allows us to simultaneously test different components and focus on the interdependence of these components and the natural environment (Timmer & Seymoar, 2005).Mercer Institute (2014) defined the index of living quality as political and social environment, cultural and social environment, economic environment, fun, products, habitats, clinical consideration, schools and teaching, public services, and transportation (Mercer Institute, 2014).
The Economist Intelligence Unit defined the variables of life quality as income, health, political and security stability, family life, social life, Building new towns, as a basic solution to the country's urbanization system began in 1981 and is still continuing.After more than three decades of this activity, it seems necessary to investigate the reasons why population growth is higher in some towns.Hashtgerd town was chosen for this study, as it is the most populated new town near Tehran.

Research methods
This article explores the impact of biophilic planning on liveability, with special focus on the role of nature as part of society.An extensive literature review on biophilic planning and liveability was done to identify biophilic and liveability planning components (Mayring, 2000: online).Subsequently, a case study of a city that applies biophilic and liveability planning components was generated.
The example city -Hashtgerd -was selected from the literature based on various natural and environmental elements, typifying the majority of Iranian new towns (Zebardast & Jahan Shah Lou, 2007: 5-22).

Data collection
The use of qualitative content analysis data reduction (selective coding) allowed the researcher to develop dominant themes and common data (Thomas, 2006: 240), in order to create a proposed model based on the literature reviewed.In the case study, semi-structured interviews with 382 Hashtgerd new town residents involved a series of forty questions that were used to obtain the opinions from residents regarding the effect of biophilic planning on liveability in Hashtgerd new town.Questions 1-3 asked biographic information.All other questions testing the components associated with liveable cities were set up based on a fivepoint Likert scale (where 1=very good, 2=good, 3=moderate, 4=poor, and 5=very poor).Likert-type or frequency scales use fixed choice response formats and are designed to measure attitudes or opinions (Bowling, 1997;Burns & Grove, 1997).These ordinal scales measure levels of agreement/ disagreement.The issues of validity and reliability were confirmed based on Cronbach's alpha, with an average reliability level of 0.862.Source: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl.

Sample size
In

Data analysis and interpretation of findings
Based on the literature review and content analysis (selective coding), components of biophilic planning and liveability of new towns have been identified and used to propose a concept model of biophilic planning and liveability of a new town in Iran.
Having collected and processed the data from the questionnaire using SPSS software, the final dependent and independent variables were identified and analysed.Correlation coefficients in the regression analysis were used to analyse the effects on each other between the identified dependent and independent variables (Uyanik & Güler, 2013: 234).In this article, liveability components were taken as independent variables and the biophilic planning components were considered the dependent variables.

Questionnaire results
Based on a five-point Likert scale, where 1=very good, 2=good, 3=moderate, 4=poor and 5=very poor, Table 1 shows the average mean scores from responding residents of Hashtgerd in terms of vitality, sense of place, identity, access, participation and resilience, as the six proposed components associated with liveable cities.
Questions (Q10-Q16) on access criteria were rated the highest, with an average mean score of 2.9705; the component participation was rated the lowest, with a total average of 2.3691.Vitality was rated, based on questions 4 and 5 (Q4, Q5), with an average of 2.7251.
Q6 on affiliation scored an average of 2.9031 and Q7 on identity scored 2.6257.Q8 on resilience scored 2.4372 and Q9 on participation scored 2.3691.
The average liveability score of 2.6718 is slightly less than the median of three, thus indicating that the average liveability is good.
Based on a five-point Likert scale,

Proposed liveable city concept model and variables
Results from the questionnaire show that both the natural context (environment) and the planning context are important in the development of liveable cities.
Figure 5 shows the proposed concept model with the components that are important for a liveable city, based on the physical organisation as well as the social and economical organisation of a new city.
The model outlines the value components that are deemed significant in both the natural context and the planning context that lead to liveable cities through biophilic planning.In the natural context, the model proposes resilience, vitality, affiliation, identity, accessibility and participation as components for liveable cities, which are viewed as the independent variables.In the planning context, the model proposes biophilic activities, environment, historical pattern, infill development, urban management, biophilic housing and education as components for biophilic planning, which are considered the dependent variables.

Regression analysis results
Correlation coefficients in the regression analysis were applied to measure the effects that biophilic planning variables had on the liveability variables by reporting the results of the B-Coefficients showing the amount by which the dependent variables change when changing the independent variables by one unit and keeping other independent variables constant.

Vitality
Equation 1 between Vitality and Biophilic planning variables was calculated as follows: Equation 1: Y (Vitality) = 0.247B+0.211E+0.147N+0.209U+0.055H Table 3 shows the effects of biophilic planning components on the vitality component of liveability.Regression equation 1 shows that biophilic activities change .247units for every one unit in vitality.This means that, for every increase of one unit in biophilic activities, a 24.7% positive effect in the Vitality variable will occur, indicating that Biophilic activities will have the highest positive effect on Vitality.
In one-unit measurement increments, the effects of other variables are listed below: Education (E) showed an increase and has a 21.1% effect on Vitality.
Urban management (U) showed an increase and has a 20.9% effect on Vitality.
Environment (N) showed an increase and has a 14.7% effect on Vitality.
Biophilic housing (H) showed an increase and has a 5.5% effect on Vitality.
Historical pattern and Infill development had no significant effect on Vitality.These factors were thus excluded from the regression equation.

Identity
Equation 2 between Identity and Biophilic planning variables was calculated as follows: Equation 2: Y (Identity) = 0.296E+0.044U+0.280H+0.018PTable 4 shows the effects of biophilic planning components on the Identity component of liveability.

Vitality
Regression equation 2 shows that Education change .296units for every unit change in Identity.This means that, for every increase of one unit in Education, a 29.6% change in the Identity variable will occur in a positive direction.Education seems to have the highest effect on Identity.
In changes of one unit, the effects of other variables are listed below: Urban management (U) showed an increase and has a 4.4% effect on Identity.
Biophilic housing (H) showed an increase and has a 28% effect on Identity.
Historical pattern (P) showed an increase and has a 1.8% effect on Identity.
Biophilic activities, the Environment and Infill development had no significant effect on Identity.These factors were thus excluded from the regression equation.
Regression equation 3 shows that Environment change .360units for every unit change in Affiliation.This means that, for every increase of one unit in Environment, a 36% positive change in the Affiliation variable will occur.It seems that Environment has the biggest effect on Affiliation.
In unit measurements of one, the effects of other variables are listed below: Urban management (U) showed an increase and has a 27.5% effect on Affiliation.
Infill development (I) showed an increase and has a 25.9% effect on Affiliation.
Historical pattern (P) showed an increase and has a 31% effect on Affiliation.
Biophilic activities (B) showed an increase and has a 17.2% effect on Affiliation.
Education (E) showed an increase and has a 7.8% effect on Affiliation.
Biophilic housing has no effect on Affiliation.This factor was thus excluded from the regression equation.

Resilience
Equation 4 between Resilience and Biophilic planning variables was calculated as follows: Table 6 shows the effects of biophilic planning components on the Resilience component of liveability.
Regression equation 4 shows that Urban management change .836units for every unit change in Resilience.This means that, for every increase of one unit in Urban management, a 83.6% positive increase in the Resilience variable will occur.It seems that Urban management has the biggest effect on Resilience.
In unit measurements of one, the effects of other variables are listed below: Environment (N) showed an increase and has a 23.9% effect on Resilience.
Infill development (I) showed an increase and has a 23.1% effect on Resilience.
Biophilic activities (B) showed an increase and has a 22.2% effect on Resilience.
Education, Biophilic housing and Historical pattern had no effect on Resilience.These factors were thus excluded from the regression equation.

Partnership
Equation 5 between Partnership and biophilic planning variables was calculated as follows:  Equation 5: Y (Partnership) = 0.126E+0.373N+0.317U+0.093B Table 7 shows the effects of biophilic planning components on the Partnership component of liveability.
Regression equation 5 shows that Environment changes .373units for every unit change in Partnership.This means that, for every increase of one unit in Environment, a 37.3% increase in the Partnership variable will occur in a positive direction.It seems that Environment has the biggest effect on Partnership.
In unit measurements of one, the effects of other variables are listed below: Urban management (U) showed an increase and has a 31.7%effect on Partnership.
Education (E) showed an increase and has a 12.6% effect on Partnership.
Biophilic activities (B) showed an increase and has a 9.3% effect on Partnership.
Biophilic housing, Historical pattern and Infill development had no effect on Partnership.These factors were thus excluded from the regression equation.

Accessibility
Equation 6 between Accessibility and biophilic planning variables was calculated as follows: Equation 6: Y (Accessibility) = 0.145B+0.187N+0.228U+0.554I+0.130H Table 8 shows the effects of biophilic planning components on the Accessibility component of liveability.
Regression equation 6 shows that Infill development changes .554units for every unit change in Accessibility.This means that, for every increase of one unit in Infill development, a 55.4% increase in the accessibility variable will occur in a positive direction.It seems that Infill development has the greatest effect on Accessibility.
In unit measurements of one, the effects of other variables are listed below: Urban management (U) showed an increase and has a 22.8% effect on Accessibility.
Environment (N) showed an increase and has a 18.7% effect on Accessibility.
Biophilic activities (B) showed an increase and has a 14.5% effect on Accessibility.
Biophilic housing (H) showed an increase and has a 13% effect on Accessibility.
Resilience, Education and Historical pattern had no effect on Accessibility.These factors were thus excluded from the regression equation.

Relations between liveability and biophilic planning
Figure 6 visually presents the relations between the liveability variables (independent) and the biophilic planning variables (dependent).
The final equation between Liveability variables and biophilic planning was calculated as follows: Equation 7: (Liveability) = 0.179B+ 0.038E+0.171N+0.192U+0.016I+0.113H+0.022P The final equation shows the relation between biophilic planning variables and liveability of Hashtgerd new town.According to these equations, for every increase of one unit of Urban management, a 19.2% increase in liveability will occur in Hashtgerd.It seems that Urban management has the most impact on the liveability of new cities.
In unit measurements of one, the effects of each biophilic component on liveability are listed below: Urban management (U) showed an increase and has a 19.2% effect on Liveability.
Biophilic activities (B) showed an increase and has a 17.9% effect on Liveability.
Environment (N) showed an increase and has a 17% effect on Liveability.
Biophilic housing (H) showed an increase and has a 11.3% effect on Liveability.Education (E) showed an increase and has a 3.8% effect on Liveability.
Historical pattern (P) showed an increase and has a 2.2% effect on Liveability.
Infill development (I) showed an increase and has a 1.6% effect on Liveability.
The regression equation confirms that biophilic planning achieves liveability in Hashtgerd new town.

DISCUSSION
The research focused on the achievement of liveable cities through a new planning approach, namely biophilic planning.Analysis of the literature and the results from the questionnaire survey reflected factors influencing biophilic planning in Hashtgerd new town.
The average liveability score of 2.6718 was slightly less than the median of three, indicating that the respondents rated the average liveability criteria in Hashtgerd as good.Overall, the average score for biophilic planning was 3.0567, which is equal to the median of 3, indicating that respondents rated the average biophilic planning components in Hashtgerd as good.
Biophilic planning appears to have potential as a way of providing an indication of the sustainability impacts of urban environment.In particular, it is innovative, as it provides a way to connect with nature.
Figure 5: Liveable city concept model Source: Researchers

Table 1 :
Mean value of the components associated with liveable cities

Table 3 :
Ranking of biophilic planning variables in Vitality

Table 4 :
Ranking of biophilic planning variables in Identity

Table 5 :
Ranking of biophilic planning variables in Affiliation

Table 7 :
Ranking of biophilic planning variables in Partnership

Table 8 :
Ranking of biophilic planning variables in Accessibility