Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 95, Issue 2, pp 232–244 | Cite as

Urban Renewal Mega Projects and Residents’ Quality of Life: Evidence from Historical Religious Center of Mashhad Metropolis

  • Amir ForouharEmail author
  • Mahnoosh Hasankhani


Urban decay is the process by which a historical city center, or an old part of a city, falls into decrepitude and faces serious problems. Urban management, therefore, implements renewal mega projects with the goal of physical and functional revitalization, retrieval of socioeconomic capacities, and improving of quality of life of residents. Ignoring the complexities of these large-scale interventions in the old and historical urban fabrics may lead to undesirable consequences, including an additional decline of quality of life. Thus, the present paper aims to assess the impact of renewal mega projects on residents’ subjective quality of life, in the historical religious district of the holy city of Mashhad (Samen District). A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of impact assessment, including questionnaires, semi-structured personal interviews, and direct observation, is used in this paper. The results yield that the Samen Renewal Project has significantly reduced the resident’s subjective quality of life, due to its undesirable impacts on physical, socio-cultural, and economic environments.


Quality of life Urban renewal Mega project Impact assessment Mashhad Iran 



The authors declare that no body provided intellectual assistance, technical help, or special equipment or materials.

Funding Information

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Dale OJ. Urban Planning in Singapore: The Transformation of a City. Oxford: Oxford university press; 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hoffman V. The lost history of urban renewal. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Place-making and Urban Sustainability. 2008;1(3):281–301.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forouhar A, Kheyroddin R. The impact of commercialization on the spatial quality of residential neighbourhoods: evidence from Nasr neighbourhood of Tehran. Geographical Planning of Space Quarterly Journal. 2016;6(20):63–84.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee YJ. Subjective quality of life measurement in Taipei. Build Environ. 2008;43(7):1205–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tesfazghi ES, Martinez JA, Verplanke JJ. Variability of quality of life at small scales: Addis Ababa Kirkos Sub-City. Soc Indic Res. 2010;98(1):73–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rogerson RJ. Quality of life and city competitiveness. Urban Stud. 1999;36(5):969–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seik FT. Quality of life in cities. Cities. 2001;18(1):1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kamp Iv, Leidelmeijer K, Marsman G, Hollander A. Urban environmental quality and human well-being towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts: a literature study. Landsc Urban Plan. 2003;65(1):5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Türksever AN, Atalik G. Possibilities and limitations for the measurement of the quality of life in urban areas. Soc Indic Res. 2001;53(2):163–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costanza R, Fisher B, Ali S, et al. Quality of life: an approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being. Ecol Econ. 2007;61(2):267–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Das D. Urban quality of life: a case study of Guwahati. Soc Indic Res. 2008;88(2):297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soleimani M, Tavallaei S, Mansuorian H, Barati Z. The assessment of quality of life in transitional neighborhoods. Soc Indic Res. 2013;119(3):1589–1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marans RW, Stimson RJ. Social Indicators Research Series: Investigating Quality of Urban Life: Theory, Methods, and Empirical Research. Vol 45: Springer Netherlands; 2011.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Szalai A, Andrews F. The quality of life: comparative studies, vol. 20. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1980.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marsella AJ, Levi L, Ekblad S. The importance of including quality-of-life indices in international social and economic development activities. Appl Prev Psychol. 1997;6(2):55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Musschenga AW. The relation between concepts of quality of life, health and happiness. J Med Philos. 1997;22(1):11–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mulligan G, Carruthers J, Cahill M. Urban quality of life and public policy: a survey. In: Capello R, Nijkamp P, editors. Contributions to economic analysis, vol. 266. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B; 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCrea STK, Stimson R. What is the strength of the link between objective and subjective indicators of urban quality of life? Applied Research in Quality of Life. 2006;1(1):79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carr D. Encyclopedia of the life course and human development. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA; 2009.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cummins RA. The domains of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos. Soc Indic Res. 1996;38(1):303–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mitchell G. Indicators as tools to guide progress on the sustainable development pathway. London: Urban International Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hazel H, Lickerman J, Flynn P. Calvert–Henderson quality of life indicators: a new tool for assessing national trends. Bethseda, MD: Calvert Group; 2000.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mitchell G, Namdeo A, Kay D. A new disease-burden method for estimating the impact of outdoor air quality on human health. Sci Total Environ. 2000;246(2):153–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johansson S. Conceptualizing and measuring quality of life for national policy. Social Indicators Research Series: Assessing Quality of Life and Living Conditions to Guide National Policy. Vol 11. Dordrecht: Springer; 2002.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rojas M. Experienced poverty and income poverty in Mexico: a subjective well-being approach. World Dev. 2008;36(6):1078–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2013.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Forouhar A. Estimating the impact of metro rail stations on residential property values: evidence from Tehran. Journal of Public Transport: Planning and Operations. 2016;8(3):427–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roche CJ. Impact Assessment for Development Agencies: Learning to Value Change: Oxford: Oxfam; 1999.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Statistical Year Book of Mashhad. Mashhad: Department of Planning and Development of Mashhad Municipality; 2016. SYBM.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Report on the Samen Renewal Project. Mashhad: Department of Urban Planning and Architecture of Mashhad Municipality; 2002.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sirgy J, Cornwell T. How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Soc Indic Res. 2002;59(1):79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hillier B, Greene M, Desyllas J. Self-generated neighbourhoods: the role of urban form in the consolidation of informal settlements. Urban Design International. 2000;5(2):61–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Report on the Residents’ Problems of the Central Fabric of Mashhad. Mashhad: City Council of Mashhad; 2016. RPCFM.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hechter M, Horne C. Theories of social order : a reader. 2nd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Western JS, Lanyon A. Anomie in the Asia Pacific region: the Australian study. In: Atteslander P, Gransow B, Western J, editors. Comparative anomie research: hidden barriers-hidden potential for social development. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd; 1999.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Huppert FA, Marks N, Clark A, et al. Measuring well-being across Europe: description of the ESS well-being module and preliminary findings. Soc Indic Res. 2009;91(3):301–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    the Official Crime Statistics of Mashhad City. Mashhad: Mashhad Police Department; 2016. OCSMC.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Perspectives on Global Development. Social cohesion in a shifting world. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2012. p. 2011.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ashley C, Carney D. Sustainable livelihoods; lessons from early experiences. London: Department for International Development; 1999.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Karl M. Monitoring and Evaluating Stakeholder Participation in Agriculture and Rural Development Projects: A Literature Review. Rome: Sustainable Development Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations; 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture and Urban DesignArt University of IsfahanIsfahanIran
  2. 2.School of Architecture and Environmental DesignIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations