AUC Geographica (Acta Universitatis Carolinae Geographica) is a scholarly academic journal continuously published since 1966 that publishes research in the broadly defined field of geography: physical geography, geo-ecology, regional, social, political and economic geography, regional development, cartography, geoinformatics, demography and geo-demography.
AUC Geographica also publishes articles that contribute to advances in geographic theory and methodology and address the questions of regional, socio-economic and population policy-making in Czechia.
Periodical twice yearly.
Release dates: June 30, December 31
All articles are licenced under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0), have DOI and are indexed in CrossRef database.
AUC Geographica is covered by the following services: EBSCO, GeoBibline, SCOPUS, Ulrichsweb and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).
The journal has been covered in the SCOPUS database since 1975 – today
The journal has been selected for coverage in Clarivate Analytics products and services. Beginning with V. 52 (1) 2017, this publication will be indexed and abstracted in Emerging Sources Citation Index.
The journal has been indexed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (MSHE) on the list of scientific journals recommended for authors to publish their articles. ICI World of Journals; Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Geographica.
Scopus Journal Metric
The journal is archived in Portico.
AUC GEOGRAPHICA, Vol 56 No 2 (2021), 205–219
The effect of public space indicators on the rural district’s life quality in Kuhdasht county, Iran
Ahmad Roumiani, Taghi Ebrahimi Salari, Hamideh Mahmoodi, Mofid Shateri
announced: 11. 10. 2021
This article evaluates nine rural districts in Kuhdasht county, Iran, with a population of 3535 between 2013–2016. We address the following two questions: First, what are the most important criteria and effective indicators in the rural population’s quality life enhancement? Second, is there any significant relationship between the public space indicators and quality life enhancement in the case study area? Six factors, including perceptual vision, buildings skeletons, culture and communities, activities, social interaction, and the environment from local peoples’ perspectives, explained 52.6 percent of the total variable variances. The Friedman test showed a significant difference among criteria of esthetics, semantic-perceptual, and activity-based functional at the alpha level of 0.01. The fitting growth regression model showed that the positive effect of the public space indicators on the rural population’s vitality and dynamism quality enhancement was about 0.723, indicating a significant relationship between them. It also stated a vital role of public space indicators in the rural population’s vitality and dynamism quality enhancement in the study area. The most important indicators were those of economic, social, and cultural dynamism and the body and space indicators.
keywords: public spaces; rural services; quality life; Kuhdasht county
1. Beck, H. (2009): Linking the quality of public spaces to quality of life. Journal of Place Management and Development 2(3), 240-248. CrossRef
2. Bolívar, J., Daponte, A., Rodríguez, M., Sánchez, J. J. (2010): The influence of individual, social and physical environment factors on physical activity in the adult population in Andalusia, Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7(1), 60-77. CrossRef
3. Besser, T. L., Recker, N., Parker, M. (2009): The impact of new employers from the outside, the growth of local capitalism, and new amenities on the social and economic welfare of small towns. Economic Development Quarterly 23(4), 306-316. CrossRef
4. Carmona, M., Heath, T., Tiesdell, S., Oc, T. (2004): Public Places Urban Spaces. Routledge.
5. Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L., Knuiman, M. (2012): Creating sense of community: The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology 32(4), 401-409. CrossRef
6. Friedmann, J. (2007): Reflections on place and place-making in the cities of China. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31(2), 257-279. CrossRef
7. Gehl, J., Gemzǿe, L. (1999): Public Spaces Public Life - Copenhagen 1996. Copenhagen.
8. Hartel, T., Fischer, J., Câmpeanu, C., Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., Fazey, I. (2014): The importance of ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania. Ecology and Society 19(2), 42-49. CrossRef
9. Helen, B. (2009): Linking the quality of public spaces to quality of life. Journal of Place Management and Development 2(3), 240-248. CrossRef
10. Idris, K., Mohamed Shaffril, H. A., Md. Yassin, S., Abu Samah, A., Hamzah, A., Abu Samaha, B. (2016): Quality of life in rural communities: Residents living near to Tambling, Pahang and Muar Rivers, Malaysia. PloS One 11(3), 116. CrossRef
11. Ismail, W. A. W., Said, I. (2015): Integrating the community in urban design and planning of public spaces: a review in Malaysian cities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 168, 357-364. CrossRef
12. Jalaladdini, S., Oktay, D. (2012): urban public spaces and vitality: a socio-spatial analysis in the streets of Cypriot towns. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 35, 664-674. CrossRef
13. Johnson, A., Glover, T. (2013): Understanding urban public space in a leisure context. Leisure Sciences 35(2), 190-197. CrossRef
14. Jung, H. J., Ryu, J. H. (2015): Sustaining a Korean traditional rural landscape in the context of cultural landscape. Sustainability 7(8), 11213-11239. CrossRef
15. Kaźmierczak, A. (2013): The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape and Urban Planning 109(1), 31-44. CrossRef
16. Kline, J. D. (2006): Public demand for preserving local open space. Society and Natural Resources 19(7), 645-659. CrossRef
17. Kavvakebi, L., Izadi Kharameh, H., Rahmatollah, Soleimani, R. (2012): Collective life in public green space, an attitude on socio-cultural diversity of space use, a case study of Shiraz Long Garden Linear Park. Journal of Urban Research and Planning 3(11), 97-114, https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=193807.
18. Kurz, P. (2014): Planting sustainability? On the management of hedgerows in Alpine bocage landscapes. Conference paper. Plants in Urban Areas and Landscape, Nitra. CrossRef
19. Majedi, H., Rezaei, M. M, Mansouri, E. (2014): Functional interpretation of neighborhood public spaces in terms of identity. Journal of Iranian Culture Research 7(4), 39-61. CrossRef
20. Meeus, J. H. A., Wijermans, M. P., Vroom, M. J. (1990): Agricultural landscapes in Europe and their transformation. Landscape and Urban Planning 18(3), 289-352. CrossRef
21. Moroni, S., Chiodelli, F. (2014): Public spaces, private spaces, and the right to the city. International Journal of E-Planning Research 3(1), 51-65. CrossRef
22. Nasution, A. D., Shalleh, A. Gh., Wahid, J. (2014): Livable public open space for citizen's quality of life in Medan, Indonesia. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management and Applied Sciences and Technologies 5(2), 131-142, http://TuEngr.com.
23. Orum, A. M., Neal, Z. P. (2009): Common ground? readings and reflections on public space. Routledge. CrossRef
24. Song, H., Pan, M., Chen, Y. (2016): Nightlife and public spaces in urban villages: A case study of the Pearl River Delta in China. Habitat International 57, 187-204. CrossRef
25. Stockdale, A., Barker, A. (2009): Sustainability and the multifunctional landscape: An assessment of approaches to planning and management in the Cairngorms National Park. Land Use Policy 26(2), 479-492. CrossRef
26. Tveit, M. S. (2009): Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management 90(9), 2882-2888. CrossRef
27. Węziak-Białowolska, D. (2016): Quality of life in cities - Empirical evidence in comparative European perspective. Cities 58, 87-96. CrossRef
28. Whisler, R. L., Waldorf, B. S., Mulligan, G. F., Plane, D. A. (2008): Quality of life and the migration of the college-educated: a life-course approach. Growth and Change 39(1), 58-94. CrossRef
29. Yoon, H., Srinivasan, S. (2015): Are they well situated? Spatial analysis of privately owned public space, Manhattan, New York City. Urban Affairs Review 51(3), 358-380. CrossRef
30. Zhong, X. (2020): Research on rural cultural space reconstruction based on the theory of space production. In E3S Web of Conferences 89, 1-4. CrossRef
The effect of public space indicators on the rural district’s life quality in Kuhdasht county, Iran is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
210 x 297 mm
published: 2 x per year
print price: 200 czk