تحلیل سیاست گذارانه میزان شیوع آسیب های اجتماعی و اولویت بندی آنها در محلات شهری؛ مورد مطالعه: محلات محروم و برخوردار شهر کرمانشاه (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
محلات محروم در کلان شهرها، مهم ترین بسترهای شکل گیری و گسترش مسائل اجتماعی و یکی از عوامل مهم تهدید کننده امنیت شهرها محسوب می شوند. این مقاله با هدف ارائه تحلیلی متفاوت از میزان شیوع و اولویت بندی مسائل اجتماعی در محلات محروم شهر کرمانشاه، تدوین شده است. روش پژوهش، ترکیبی (کمی و کیفی) بوده است. در بخش کمی، 800 نمونه از 15 محله، شامل 2 محله برخوردار و 13 محله محروم انتخاب شده است. در بخش کیفی، 13 جلسه بحث گروهی متمرکز با حضور معتمدان محلات محروم تشکیل شده است. براساس نتایج پژوهش، بین میزان شیوع یک آسیب در محله و میزان اولویت رسیدگی به آن، تفاوت وجود دارد. در حالی که شایع ترین مسائل اجتماعی در تمام محلات بررسی شده، مسائل اقتصادی (بیکاری و فقر) است، اما مسائل اولویت دار برای رسیدگی از نظر ساکنان، اولاً در محلات مختلف متفاوت است؛ دوم، لزوماً اقتصادی نیستند و سوم، سطح مطالبات فراگیر و معطوف به رفع تبعیض از محلات محروم در قیاس با کل شهر است. نتایج پژوهش بر آن است که نشان دهد فضای فکری سیاست گذاری در تعقیب مسائل اجتماعی در محلات محروم، مبتنی بر اولویت بندی مسائل پر شیوع و به همین دلیل محکوم به شکست است. همچنین نقش میانجی های اجرای برنامه های سیاست گذارانه، به نوعی مناسک گرایی تقلیل یافته است. علاوه بر آن، حاکمیت دیدگاه همه جانبه گرایانه به جای دیدگاه کل گرایانه، موجبات بازتولید مسائل اجتماعی را در محلات محروم فراهم کرده است.Examining Social Issues and Their Prioritization in Affluent vs. Deprived Urban Neighborhoods: A Policy Analysis of Kermanshah, Iran
Introduction A social problem is an issue that is widely seen as challenging within a society. This definition combines objective and subjective factors and varies across time and location. Marginalized and deprived neighborhoods are a major problem in modern cities, causing various types of social harm (Amiri et al., 2013). Kermanshah, a major Iranian city, faces this issue - it has 36 designated high-need areas, 13 of which are marginalized. Despite efforts to address these neighborhoods, the results have been unsatisfactory. The key question is: what prioritization framework should policies use to target social problems in these neighborhoods and how does it align with the actual prevalence of issues in the areas? Materials & Methods This study used a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative components. For the quantitative portion, a survey was conducted. A multi-stage cluster sampling technique was used to select 800 households from 2 affluent neighborhoods and 13 deprived neighborhoods. The target population included all households in the selected areas (Statistics Center of Iran, 2015). The initial sample size, calculated using Cochran's formula, was 400 households. However, to ensure a minimum of 30 samples for smaller neighborhoods and a maximum of 100 for larger ones, the final sample size increased to 650 households in the deprived neighborhoods and 150 in the affluent ones. The validity of the survey questionnaire was confirmed through expert review. The qualitative component used a three-tier approach to establish the research validity and reliability. Discussion of Results & Conclusion The research findings indicated that the residents of deprived neighborhoods primarily viewed economic issues, such as poverty, unemployment, and deprivation, as the most pressing social problems. However, the specific priorities identified by the local stakeholders for addressing these issues did not always align with the actual prevalence of problems in the communities. A key insight was the disconnect between the severity of problems in a neighborhood and the prioritization for addressing them. While economic challenges were widely recognized as major social issues, the priorities identified by the local actors often focused on other concerns, such as security, accessibility, health, and education infrastructure. This suggested a duality between the prevalence of problems and prioritization of solutions. These findings indicated that policymaking around social problems in the deprived neighborhoods tended to prioritize common, easily-addressed issues, rather than the deeper, more systemic challenges facing these communities. This approach might aim to produce and reproduce certain individual and collective identities aligned with those of more affluent urban areas, rather than truly empowering the marginalized communities. The research findings revealed an interesting contrast. While economic problems were widely recognized as the most significant social issues across all the deprived neighborhoods, the specific priorities identified by local stakeholders varied. In some areas, priorities centered on security and accessibility, while in others, the focus was on health and education infrastructure. This suggested that the problems perceived as most pressing by community members were not necessarily the ones that were economically-driven. Moreover, the service institutions tasked with implementing neighborhood improvement programs, such as the police, welfare agencies, and religious centers, had struggled to effectively meet the communities' desired goals. These institutions, which were meant to serve as intermediaries in translating program principles to the target population, had fallen short in providing effective services aligned with the communities' needs and priorities. Notably, these findings came despite the government's reliance on these service institutions to drive neighborhood empowerment and improvement programs. The research indicated that the performance of these mediating organizations varied significantly across different localities. This suggested that the underlying rationale behind policymaking on social issues in these neighborhoods might be focused on addressing the most visible, common problems, rather than the deeper, systemic challenges. To this end, policymakers had often utilized available tools and techniques, such as increasing the duties and responsibilities of service providers. Additionally, this approach appeared to aim at producing and reproducing certain individual and collective identities that aligned with the standards of more affluent urban areas, rather than empowering the marginalized communities themselves.