Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Sustainable Cities and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs The spatial analysis of the livability of 22 districts of Tehran Metropolis using multi-criteria decision making approaches Kimia Ghasemi a, ⁎ , Mahdi Hamzenejad b , Abolfazl Meshkini a a Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran b Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Livability Biological needs Tehran Metropolis SAW technique SDE method ABSTRACT In addition to increasing the attractiveness of urban environment, the advancement of living conditions in this environment provides a good basis for achieving the major goals of sustainable development. Nevertheless, the rapid growth of urbanization and other issues related to urban development have raised and augmented pro- blems in these settlements. This situation is well understood in many Iranian cities in which the consequences of rapid urban growth and insufficient financial and human resources in the management process are obviously felt. The purpose of this research is to analyze the livability of Tehran Metropolis in terms of the fulfilment of biological needs with regard to land uses for residential purposes, urban infrastructures, sanitation, green spaces, industry, administration, transportation, military, and commercial purposes. To this end, initially the pattern of distribution of biological services all over Tehran Metropolis was analyzed using the Standard deviational ellipse method; and then, using the SAW technique, the livability of districts in Tehran was measured with respect to the fulfilment of biological needs. The findings of this research show that different districts of Tehran Metropolitan do not have similar conditions of livability regarding their access to biological services and these services have not been distributed among them equitably. The present study introduces the spatial districts which are high on the list of priorities and which require greater attention so as to promote just distribution of biological services in Tehran. 1. Introduction Urbanization, regarded as a phenomenon that interacts with various essential aspects of modern life and consequently deemed as one of the important factors influencing the personal and social health of citizens, represents a network of complex social relationships and forms many basic challenges in the life of citizens (Pakzad, 2004). Most major cities face problems such as ethnic separation, segregation of land uses, se- paration of the workplace and habitations, the decay of neighborhoods, increased traffic, social and economic anomalies, and inequality of opportunities and unfair accessibility to resources. In order to address the abovementioned issues, various approaches have been proposed such as sustainability, quality of life, and livability (Ali Akbari & Akbari, 2017). Livability refers to various constructed views regarding the quality of life in any human living environment. The crux of this concept is to optimize the quality and unity of human life (Ellis & Roberts, 2016; Hagerty et al., 2001; Kashef, 2016); In fact, livability is an ensemble concept whose factors include or relate to a number of other complex characteristics or states, including sustainability, quality of both life and place, and healthy communities (Blassingame, 1998; Norris & Pittman, 2000). Livability can be broad or narrow depending on the context, and many studies, organizations and authorities around the world have theirs own definition. However, all place ‘quality of life’ in the center of the concept, and the measurable indicators tend to vary, though criteria such as density, transportation, security and sustain- ability remain constant (Perogordo, 2010). The most important simi- larity between the two concepts of livability and quality of life as well as the most significant distinction between these two concepts and the concept of sustainability is that they are both at the present time and at the same place. Meanwhile, two keywords for having a better under- standing of the concepts of quality of life and livability are now and here which can differentiate the scale and perspectives of these two concepts from other similar concepts (van Kamp, Eidelmeijer, Marsman, & Hollander, 2003). Although there is a great similarity be- tween the notions of livability and quality of life; the distinction be- tween these two is the fact that livability refers to the facilities of the built and natural environment and quality of life refers to the users’ experience and judgment (good; bad; or indifferent) after using those facilities (VanZerr, Seskin, & Carr, 2011). In other words; quality of life is an abstract (subjective) theme pertaining to the general well-being of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.018 Received 19 October 2017; Received in revised form 10 January 2018; Accepted 10 January 2018 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: k.ghasemi@modares.ac.ir (K. Ghasemi). Sustainable Cities and Society 38 (2018) 382–404 2210-6707/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T