Assessing the Social Resilience of Rural Areas against Flooding using FANP and WASPAS Models (Case Study: Chardange District of Sari County)

جغرافیا و مخاطرات محیطی

Article 1, Volume 8, Issue 2 - Serial Number 30, October 2018, Pages 1-26   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/geo.v0i0.78724

Author

Zahra Sharifinia^*

Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University

Abstract

1 Introduction
The occurrence of natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes leave a number of damaging effects in the majority of geographical regions, particularly in rural areas. Given their close connection to the natural environment and their limited capacity, rural areas are more vulnerable compared to urban regions. The essential assets and properties of rural residents are reduced by annual floods which destroy agricultural products, houses, infrastructure, and machinery. Consequently, today’s conditions makes governments shift from focusing on reducing vulnerability to increasing resilience against disasters in order to decrease the effects of natural hazards.
The purpose of the present study is to assess the villages in Chahardangeh region in terms of social resilience against flood. The aim is to offer a number of practical solutions in line with increasing social resilience and ultimately, reducing the severity of damages caused by floods. Accordingly, this study seeks to provide answers to the following questions: What are the most significant social resilience indices in villages under study? What are their significance coefficients? What are the conditions of investigated villages in terms of social resilience? 
2 Review of Literature and Theoretical Framework
There has been numerous studies conducted on the area of social resilience. Having conducted a study on the social resilience indices of Farahzad District against earthquakes, Heydarian, Rahimi, Fathollahi and Ghafoori (2017) concluded that indices including awareness, knowledge, and social dependency had the highest and lowest effects on the social resilience of this district, respectively. Ebadallahzadeh Maleki, Khanloo, Ziyari and Shaliamin (2017) assessed social resilience in Ardabil City and ranked districts including Touy, Gazran, Aali Ghapou, and Owjadkhan from the 1st to 4th, respectively. Mobaraki, Lalepur and Afzaligorooh (2017) analyzed various dimensions of resilience in Kerman City in addition to institutional, economic, and physical indices. Saja, Teo, Goonetilleke and Ziyath (2018) proposed the “5S model” which involves social structure, capital, mechanism, equity, and beliefs as a comprehensive and compatible framework to measure social resilience. WASPAS technique, however, was employed in the present study which is a combination of weight accumulation and production model and is based upon objective methods in order to assess social resilience; It is more accurate and sensitive compared to other independent methods. Moreover, while the concept of resilience has been discussed through viewing the physical, economic, institutional, administrative, environmental, and social dimensions in previous research simultaneously, the concept is examined in the present research exclusively through a social outlook and with respect to the flooding crisis.
3 Method
The present study was conducted using a descriptive approach with applied purposes. Data were collected using library and field studies. The total population of the study included a number of villages in Chahardangeh region, most of which are subject to floods. According to the official 2016 census, the total population of rural areas under examination is approximately 1435; however, the sample population of the study was calculated 303 using Cochran’s formula. They were selected via stratified random sampling. The validity of questionnaires was confirmed through the comments of experts; its reliability was also indicated as 0.83 using Cronbach’s Alpha in the SPSS software. Finally, data were analyzed using the FANP model and WASPAS technique.
4 Results and Discussion
In this study, the weight of indices were indicated using FANP model. Subsequently, factor analysis was carried out using 24 candid indices (according to theoretical research) via the SPSS software. Ultimately, factors were named using the 5S model of social resilience proposed by Saja et al. (2018). Given the relative significance coefficient of indices, the highest and lowest effects in social resilience across Chahardangeh region belong to neighborhood bonds and willingness to help against disasters with values of 0.0935 and 0.0061, respectively.
Results obtained from WASPAS calculations showed that the highest extent of social resilience against flood belong to Araa and Chaharroudbar villages with values of 0.9184 and 0.9126, respectively, while the lowest value belonged to Zekryakola village with a value of 0.6597.
5 Conclusion
The results obtained in this study according to the FANP model demonstrated the unequal coefficients of social resilience indices. On the other hand, results obtained from the WASPAS model in assessing the extent of social resilience also showed that the studied villages are at different levels in terms of social resilience. Between villages including Araa, Aliird, Chalou, and Chaharroudbar with high extents of social resilience and villages including Bard, Bandbon, Tillebon, Zekryakola, Saeid Abad, and Ghalehsar with low extents of social resilience, there are a number of differences in terms of social resilience indices which are listed below:

Overall, villages including Araa, Aliird, Chalou, and Chaharroudbar has a younger mean age compared to villages including Bard, Bandbon, Tillebon, Zekryakola, Saeid Abad, and Ghalehsar; therefore, the former group would have a more positive reaction in times of crisis.
Social interactions in villages including Bard, Bandbon, Tillebon, Zekryakola, Saeid Abad, and Ghalehsar has been reduced majorly due to housing instabilities which indicates the lower resilience of these villages in the social aspect.
In villages including Bard, Bandbon, Tillebon, Zekryakola, Saeid Abad, and Ghalehsar, only 46% of the respondents were willing to cooperate after crisis; according to these respondents, the reason for their unwillingness was lack of necessary knowledge in this context.
As a result of the lack of knowledge and awareness, people in villages Bard, Bandbon, Tillebon, Zekryakola, Saeid Abad, and Ghalehsar, saw crisis management as the sole responsibility of governmental bodies. Only 30.7% of the respondents were willing to form NGOs to cooperate before, after and during the occurrence of floods.

Subsequently, the following recommendations are listed in line with increasing social resilience in order to induce more flexibility among rural residents during possible occurrences of floods:

Increasing the local knowledge and the awareness of rural residents with respect to the dangers of flood through attempts made by rural management and Islamic Councils of rural areas;
Providing suitable platforms for the participation of rural residents through holding flood maneuvers with operational and educational purposes rather than exhibitive;
Altering flood paths so that the properties and belongings of rural residents such as houses, animals, and farming and gardening lands remain unharmed;
Holding seminars, workshops, and educational courses on how to prepare and confront possible floods in order to designate and operationalize social resilience indices.

Keywords

Social Resilience; Flooding; FANP; WASPAS; Chardange

References

بدری، سیدعلی؛ رمضان زاده لسبوئی، مهدی؛ عسگری، علی؛ قدیری معصوم، مجتبی؛ سلمانی، محمد؛ 1392. نقش مدیریت محلی در ارتقای تاب آوری مکانی در برابر بلایای طبیعی با تاکید بر سیلاب (مطالعه موردی: دو حوضه چشمه کیله شهرستان تنکابن و سردآبرود کلاردشت). دوفصلنامه مدیریت بحران. دوره 2. شماره 3. 37-48.

حیدریان، شیدا؛ رحیمی، محمود؛ فتح الهی، ثریا؛ غفوری، سیروان؛ 1396. تحلیل شاخص‌های تاب آوری سکونتگاه‌های غیر رسمی در برابر زلزله با رویکرد اجتماعی (نمونه موردی: محله فرحزاد تهران). نگرش‌های نو در جغرافیای انسانی. سال 10. شماره 1. 246- 260.

داداش پور، هاشم؛ عادلی، زینب؛ 1394. سنجش ظرفیت‌های تاب آوری در مجموعه شهری قزوین. دو فصلنامه مدیریت بحران. دوره 4. شماره 2. 73-84.

ذاکرحقیقی، کیانوش؛ اکبریان، زهرا؛ 1394. تحلیل قیاسی میزان تاب آوری اجتماعی در محلات تاریخی- مسکونی و تدوین یک برنامه راهبردی- عملیاتی برای ارتقای آن (مورد مطالعه: محلات برج قربان و چرچره شهر همدان). پژوهشنامه جغرافیای انتظامی. سال 3. شماره 12. 23-48.

رضایی، محمدرضا؛ رفیعیان، مجتبی؛ حسینی، سیدمصطفی؛ 1394. سنجش و ارزیابی میزان تاب آوری کالبدی اجتماع‌های شهری در برابر زلزله (مطالعه موردی: محله‌های شهر تهران). پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی. دوره 47. شماره 4. 609-623.

رکن الدین افتخاری، عبدالرضا؛ موسوی، سیدمحمد؛ پورطاهری، مهدی؛ فرج زاده اصل، منوچهر؛ 1393. تحلیل نقش تنوع معیشتی در تاب آوری خانوارهای روستایی در شرایط خشکسالی (مطالعه موردی: مناطق در معرض خشکسالی استان اصفهان). پژوهش‌های روستایی. سال 5. شماره 3. 639-662.

صادقلو، طاهره؛ سجاسی قیداری، حمدالله؛ 1393. اولویت بندی عوامل مؤثر بر افزایش تاب آوری کشاورزان در برابر مخاطرات طبیعی با تاکید بر خشکسالی (منطقه مورد مطالعه: کشاورزان روستاهای شهرستان ایجرود). جغرافیا و مخاطرات محیطی. دوره 3. شماره 10. 129-153.

صادقلو، طاهره؛ سجاسی قیداری، حمدالله؛ 1393. راهبردهای مدیریت مخاطره سیل در مناطق روستایی با مدل SWOC-TOPSIS (مطالعه موردی: حوضه آبریز قره چای رامیان). فصلنامه جغرافیا و مخاطرات محیطی. شماره 12. 105-128.

صالحی، اسماعیل؛ آقابابایی، محمدتقی؛ سرمدی، هاجر؛ فرزادبهتاش، محمدرضا؛ 1390. بررسی میزان تاب آوری محیطی با استفاده از مدل شبکه علیت. محیط شناسی. سال 37. شماره 59. 99-112.

صالحی، صادق؛ افلاکی، زینب؛ موسی زاده، حسین؛ زنگی آبادی، زینب؛ 1395. ارزیابی ژئوسایت های گردشگری با روش فاسیلوس و نیکولاس (مطالعه موردی: روستاهای بخش چهاردانگه شهرستان ساری). فصلنامه پژوهش‌های روستایی. دوره 7. شماره 2. 300-314.

عباداله زاده ملکی، شهرام؛ خانلو، نسیم؛ زیاری، کرامت الله؛ شالی امینی، وحید؛ 1396. سنجش و ارزیابی تاب آوری اجتماعی جهت مقابله با بحران‌های طبیعی (مطالعه موردی: زلزله در محلات تاریخی شهر اردبیل). مدیریت شهری. شماره 48. 263-280.

فرزادبهتاش، محمدرضا؛ کی نژاد، محمدعلی؛ پیربابایی، محمدتقی؛ عسگری، علی؛1392. ارزیابی و تحلیل ابعاد و مؤلفه‌های تاب آوری کلان شهر تبریر. نشریه هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی. دوره 18. شماره 3. 33-42.

لطفی، حیدری؛ مفرح بناب، مجتبی؛ آفتاب، احمد؛ مجنونی توتاخانه، علی؛ 1397. نقش حکمروایی مطلوب شهری در افزایش تاب آوری سکونت گاه‌های غیررسمی در ایران (مطالعه موردی: کلان شهر تبریز). فصلنامه جغرافیا (برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای). دوره 30. شماره 1. 209-224.

مبارکی، امید؛ لاله پور، منیژه؛ افضلی گروه، زهرا؛ 1396. ارزیابی و تحلیل ابعاد و مؤلفه‌های تاب آوری شهر کرمان. جغرافیا و توسعه. شماره 47. 89-104.

مجنونی توتاخانه، علی؛ حیدری ساربا، وکیل؛ مفرح بناب، مجتبی؛ 1396. بررسی اثرات خشکسالی دریاچة ارومیه بر تغییرات تاب آوری سکونت گاه‌های روستایی. پژوهش و برنامه ریزی روستایی. سال 6. شماره 20. 65-89.

مطیعی لنگرودی، سیدحسن؛ قدیری معصوم، مجتبی؛ اسکندری چوبقلو، حافظ؛ طورانی، علی؛ خسروی مهر، حمیده؛ 1394. بررسی نقش مدیریت مشارکتی در کاهش آثار سیل (مطالعه موردی: روستاهای حوضه رودخانه زنگمار ماکو). نشریه جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی. سال 19. شماره 51. 311-339.

نوری، سید هدایت الله؛ سپهوند، فرخنده؛ 1395. تحلیل تاب آوری سکونتگاه‌های روستایی در برابر مخاطرات طبیعی با تاکید بر زلزله (مورد مطالعه: دهستان شیروان شهرستان بروجرد). پژوهش‌های روستایی. دوره 7. شماره 2. 272-285.

نیکمردنمین، سارا؛ برک پور، ناصر؛ عبداللهی، مجید؛ 1393. کاهش خطرات زلزله با تاکید بر عوامل اجتماعی رویکرد تاب آوری (نمونه موردی: منطقه 22 تهران). مدیریت شهری. شماره 37. 19-34.

هندی، هوشنگ؛ اقبالی، ناصر؛ سرور، رحیم؛ پیشگاهی فرد، زهرا؛ 1395. بررسی اثر تراکم بر تاب آوری مناطق شهری (نمونه موردی: محلات ناحیه یک منطقه چهارده شهر تهران). نگرش‌های نو در جغرافیای انسانی. سال 8. شماره 3. 39-53.

Ainuddin, S., & Routray, J. K., 2012. Community resilience framework for an earthquake prone area in Baluchistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2(1), 25-36.

Alshehri, S.A., Rezgui, Y., & Haijiang, Li., 2015. Disaster community resilience assessment method: a consensus-based Delphi and AHP approach. Natural Hazards, 78 (1), 395-416.

Antrobus, D., 2011. Smart green cities: from modernization to resilience? Journal Urban Research & Practice, 4(2), 207-214.

Brand, F.S., & Jax, K., 2007. Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 1-23.

Bruneau, M., Chang, S.E., Eguchi, R.T., Lee, G.C., O’Rourke, T.D., Reinhorn, A.M., Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W.A., & Winterfeldt, D., 2003. A Framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 733-752.

Cutter, S.L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J., 2008. A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598-606.

Endress, M., 2015. The social constructedness of resilience. Social Sciences, 4, 533-545.

Klein, R.J.T., Nicholls, R.J., & Thomalla, F., 2003. Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept? Environmental Hazards, 5(1), 35-45.

Lechner, S., Jacometti, j., McBean, G., & mitchison, N., 2016. Resilience in a complex world – Avoiding cross-sector collapse. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 19, 84-91.

Maguire, B., & Hagan, P., 2007. Disasters and communities: understanding social resilience, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 22(2), 16-20.

Manyena, S.B., 2006. The concept of resilience revisited. Disaster, 30(4), 434-450.

Norris, F.H., Stevens, S.P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K.F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L., 2008. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 127-150.

O’Brien, K., Sygna, L., & Haugen, J.E., 2004. Vulnerable or resilient? A multi-scale assessment of climate impacts and vulnerability in norway. Climatic Change, 64(1-2), 193-225.

Prashar, S., Shaw, R., & Takeuchi, Y., 2013. Community action planning in East Delhi: A participatory approach to build urban disaster resilience. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18(4), 429-448.

Saja, A.M.A., Teo, M., Goonetilleke, A., & Ziyath, A. M., 2018. An inclusive and adaptive framework for measuring social resilience to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 28, 862-873.