چكيده لاتين :
Introduction
Mobility (Movements) has attained a considerable significance as a topic in theory and social research in recent years. The so called “mobility turn” or “new mobilities paradigm” (Sheller & Urry, 2006) is the clearest effort to bring together different types of movements into a single analysis, and to challenge tendency of social sciences to treat stability as normal and mobility as problematic. The main reason for paying attention to the issue of urban mobilities and residential preferences in the past few decades is its social, demographic, cultural and spatial consequences. On the other hand intra-urban migration which is done mainly from the old valuable urban cores into the new and the middle areas, affects on the socio-spatial structure of urban areas and increasing exhaust of old textures of urban areas. Now the problem of old urban areas is a major issue in most cities. Many study (Lee, 1966; Kahn, 2007; Baker, 2002, (Pourahmad et al, 2011; Sajjad and Dastjerdi, 2008; Tavallaei and Yari, 2011; Yosefi & Agajani, 2011) has been done about the causes of residential mobility and its mechanisms. One of the classic and most cited works on residential mobility is Rossi’s ‘Why Families Move’ (1965) which suggested lifecycle changes of families as the primary reason why they moved. Speare et al (1974) as Rossi emphasize on the adjustment to dissatisfaction. According to this analysis dissatisfaction ultimately results in moving behavior is the direct result of changes in the needs of a household, changes in the social and physical amenities offered by a particular location, or a change in the standards used to evaluate these factors. Lee and others (2011) have concluded that a subjective assessment of neighbourhood has a significant impact on the thought of movement, but has little effect on the real movement. Besides these factors, increasing social capital and cohesion in neighborhood will strengthen neighborhood stability by encouraging residents to prolong their residence time. Theory of relative deprivation, it is claimed that migration is not accidental behavior, but is a response to eliminating of poverty. In general, most research has been conducted on the residential mobility tended to focus on the demographic characteristics of the household. These researches sometimes reported inconsistent results. Quigley and Weinberg (1977) mentioned many of inconsistency have arisen from definitional differences, differing analytical methods and non-parallel sampling procedures. Theoretical framework of present article is the combination of different models in which most of the variables have been selected from the theoretical literature. While not relying on any particular theoretical approach or model, try to sociological approach has main weigh in the selection of variables.
Materials and Methods
This research was conducted in survey method which the unit of analysis is the individual and level analysis is micro. The population of the study consisted of 20 years and older citizens of Khomeinishahr. This city is located 12 km north-west of the urban fabric of the Isfahan and currently divided into old and new tissues. According to statistics of the 2011 census, this city had a 61,240 people over 20 years. Sample size with using Cochran formula 240 was calculated. The sampling method of the three neighbors was chosen among fourth and blocks and the sample randomly choose among them. Satisfaction of residence, social capital, religiosity, a sense of relative deprivation, the importance of privacy are research independent variables and tend to move to a new area is the dependent variable. Also variables such as age, gender, education and variables related to characteristics of housing such as type of housing, construction period and area were considered as control variables. Face validity was used to assessing validity and Cronbachʹs alpha coefficient for assessing reliability of the measurement scales.
Discussion of Results & Conclusions
Results indicate that the overall tendency of residents to move was low to moderate (46.7 out of 100) and mean of behavior component is higher than both the feelings and behavior. In addition, about 65% had responded to the question of relocation, definitely. The overall mean of all items indicate that satisfaction rate of the facilities is moderate. About overall residential satisfaction, most of respondents has moderate satisfaction from district facilities (mean 51 out of 100), however, the rate of satisfaction of their living is moderate low and most of them think the region and the local extent in which they live is the good place for life (mean 41.6 out of 100). Amount of Social capital in neighborhood in is all indicators is middle to low (42.9 out of 100) Fining indicates that respondents give great importance to the privacy and solitude and prefer to live more convenient and regardless of informal controls. The feeling of deprivation, most respondents believed that the status of welfare, income, education and housing in their neighborhoods has not much different from new neighborhoods. The results show that the more than 80% of respondents had endorsed Religiousness of their family. Among the socio-demographic variable, only gender was significantly related to the tendency to move that was consistence with the findings of the Kin (1961) whereas age, education, household size, and the old housing has not significant relationship with tendency to move. Also results indicate there is no significant relationship between different income groups and tend to move. However, the findings suggest that there is a negative correlation between religious beliefs and the tendency to move. Also results show that previous history of residential moving and those how did not such experience was significant difference in terms of the tendency to move. Nevertheless, this issue was not confirmed about the components of the residential moving. Hierarchical regression analyzes indicated that among all independent variables entered into the model (satisfaction, social capital, religiosity, importance of privacy, relative deprivation) with the control of socio-demographic variables, only three variables, privacy and overall satisfaction capital able stay in model and explain 39% of the variance of tendency to move to new neighborhoods. In the second model, it is observed that among the socio-demographic variables, only gender was significant; however, this issue has very little impact on the increasing adjusted R square coefficient so it is negligible. Logistic regression analysis partially confirmed the results of the hierarchical regression. The results indicate that the sensitivity of the model to determining who tend to move was 90% and who were not tend to move was 73.9 percent. In total, this model has been able to separating %85.1 correctly. Overall satisfaction can also be a deterrent for the residential displacement. This finding is in the line with researches that shows that dissatisfaction of community is important driver to moving. People move to another place because of dissatisfaction with the lack of quality schools, lack of the people participation, noise, crime, poor social interaction and community spirit. About privacy can be said that the residents who give importance this issue are more inclined to move. According to Altman, human pursuit an environment where they are able to reach their desired ideal of privacy. In this condition they are free and have the right to choose, they can inter anyone to this realm that is consistent with their desire. The results also suggest a negative relationship between social capital with tendency to move. Kan (2007) in their empirical study of social capital and its relationship with the movement came to the conclusion that having social capital in place can prevent long-distance mobility (migration) but has negligible effect on the inter-city displacement.
