Evaluation of Social and Cultural Resilience of Urban Land Use (Case Study: Region 1 Tehran)

جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری

Article 6, Volume 5, Issue 1 - Serial Number 8, September 2018, Pages 113-130   

Document Type: Scientific-Research

DOI: 10.22067/gusd.v5i1.49505

Authors

Yasser Moarrab¹; Esmaeil Salehi^{* 1}; Mohammad Javad Amiri¹; Behruz Narouee²

¹University of Tehran

²Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

The word vulnerability conveys different meanings and interpretations for different people and has been used in various areas by various groups such as researchers of accidents, the society of global environmental change researchers and also research groups in the field of food security, development, and poverty (Birkmann & Wisner, 2006). Even in the area of scientific literature related to disaster risk, the vulnerability has different connotations depending on the researcher's orientation and perspective. According to Birkmann (2006), in the current literature on vulnerability, there are two different methods to systematize the concept of vulnerability. Here some definitions are presented. (Cutter, 1996):

Vulnerability means a threat to which people are exposed (Cutter, 1996).
Vulnerability means the number of damages to an element or a collection of certain elements exposed to risk, resulting from the occurrence of a natural phenomenon with certain intensity and magnitude (Cutter, 1996).

Generally, vulnerability is a concept derived from the social sciences and was a response to the perception only based on the risk that existed toward risk of accidents in the 1970s. Since the beginning of the 1980s, the dominance of technical intervention-based risk-oriented strategies in the field of disasters was challenged by the paradigm of using vulnerability as the starting point of risk reduction. The approach combines the amount of sensitivity of the people and communities exposed to risk with their cultural, economic and social capabilities to deal with injuries that may occur (Birkmann, 2006).
There are complex systems of services in cities which have tight relationships with each other, while each one facing numerous natural and man-made threats and any disruption in each of the systems causes troubles for other systems. Thus, cities should be made in such a way that they can resist the threats or in other words, be resilient (Tompkins & Hurlston, 2012).
Investigation of urban resilience is one of the vital issues for preparedness of a city against natural and man-made disasters. As the degree of resilience of cities increases, damages resulting from the hazards can be minimized (McEntire, Fuller & Weber, 2002). Also, recognition of resilience can help with the determination of the characteristics and features that increase the capacity of communities to deal with disasters and propose tools to help the process of vulnerability reduction.

Methodology

At the first step of this research, the theoretical framework was determined by collecting data from library and electronic resources and related articles. Then the important criteria and sub-criteria for assessing the urban land use Socio-cultural resilience were determined by incorporating the expert opinions and reviewing the previous research. Then the FAHP method, which incorporated the opinions of 15 experts and faculty members in the field of environmental planning, urban planning, rural planning and urban development, was used to make pairwise comparison between important dimensions and criteria. At this stage, all valuations were based on experiences and studies of those experts. After making pairwise comparisons, the maps of district resilience factors were standardized in Idrisi environment , and then the weight of each resilience factor was applied to the layers in the GIS environment. The maps were then merged to determine the resilience of the district.

Results

The following steps were taken to assess and determine the urban land use Socio-cultural resilience in Tehran’s district 1:

Step 1: Analysis of the role and determination of socio-cultural land use criteria for investigating resilience
Step 2: Obtaining weight of socio-cultural land use criteria
Step 3: Development of the fuzzy maps with respect to land use resilience criteria

The map-related to each criterion was standardized in IDRISI environment.

Step 4: Development of resilience map of socio-cultural land use criteria
Step 5: Development of a map of the socio-cultural resilience of land use

After applying the weights of criteria on their layers and merging them in GIS environment, Tehran’s district 1 urban land use resiliency map was developed

Step 6: Determination of socio-cultural resilience of land use

Six levels of resilience were defined to classify the district 1 urban land use resiliency; these levels included: fully resilient, resilient, moderately resilient (moderately vulnerable), vulnerable, and fully vulnerable.

Conclusion

The socio-cultural dimension plays an important role in enhancing the urban resilience. This dimension consisted of 8 criteria including population density, and land uses related to healthcare, education, culture, tourism, sports, law enforcement, and religion. After overlaying all layers corresponding to criteria, district 1 gained an average resiliency score of 0.69, which indicate the resilience of this district with respect to this dimension.
Given the findings of the study, the following suggestions are recommended:

Creating tourism camps and improving the facilities and services in areas hosting tourist attractions;
Facilitating and encouraging the private sector to invest in the district’s tourism business;
Preventing new construction on undeveloped lands and saving these lands for crisis management applications by converting them to open spaces such as sports grounds, garden and temporary bazaars;
Using cultural centers to raise the citizens’ awareness and enhance their mental readiness to deal with disasters;
Using the advertisement potential of cultural centers and tourist attractions to inform people about the resiliency of their living environment to motivate them to reconstruct and reinforce these environments;
Reorganization and relocation of military bases in the region out of the urban territory;
Considering the low level of sports space per capita and the inadequate distribution of these spaces, and given the availability of undeveloped land throughout the district, the development of new multifunction sports spaces with adequate distribution and with proper attention to their crisis management functions is recommended.

Keywords

Resilience; Social and cultural; Urban Land Use; Vulnerability

References

1. امینی ورکی، س.؛ مدیری، م.؛ شمسایی رفرقندی، ف.؛ قنبری نسب، ع. (1393) . شناسایی دیدگاه‌های حاکم بر آسیب‌‌پذیری شهرها در برابر مخاطرات محیطی و استخراج مولفه‌های تاثیرگذار در آن با استفاده از روش کیو ، دو فصلنامه مدیری بحران، ویژه نامه هفنه پدافند غیرعامل، 5- 18.

2. بای، ن.؛ منتظری، م.؛گندمکار، ا. (1392). مطالعه تاثیر عوامل هیدرواقلیم بر مخاطرات طبیعی استان گلستان با تاکید بر سیلاب، فصلنامه علمی- پژوهشی امداد و نجات، سال پنجم، شماره (2)، 1-13.

3. بدری، س.ع.؛ رمضان زاده لسبوئی،‌ م.؛ عسگری، ع.؛ قدیری معصوم،‌ م.؛ سلمانی، م.(‌1392). نقش مدیریت محلی در ارتقای تاب‌آوری مکانی در برابر بلایای طبیعی با تاکید برسیلاب؛ (مطالعه‌ی موردی: دو حوضه‌ی چشمه کیله-ی شهرستان تنکابن و سردآبرود کلاردشت) ، دو فصلنامه مدیریت بحران، شماره (3)،‌ 39-50.

4. برنامه‌ریزی عملیاتی شهر تهران (1393). معاونت برنامه‌ریزی و توسعه شهری، اداره کل برنامه و بودجه، 1393-1397.

5. حبیبی،‌ ک.، سرکارگراردکانی،‌ ع.؛ یوسفی،‌ ز.؛ صفدرنژاد، م.؛ (1392). پیاده‌سازی الگوریتم‌های سلسله مراتبی / فازی جهت تعیین آسیب‌پذیری چندعامله‌ی هسته‌ی مرکزی شهرها(مطالعه موردی: منطقه 6 تهران) ، دو فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی مدیریت بحران، شماره (2)،‌ صص 67- 76.

6. سلمانی مقدم، م.، امیراحمدی، ا.؛ ‌کاویان، ف.(1393).کاربرد برنامه‌ریزی کاربری اراضی در افزایش تاب‌آوری شهری در برابر زمین لرزه با استفاده از سیستم اطلاعات جغرافیاییGIS؛ (مطالعه موردی:‌ شهرسبزوار)»، مطالعات جغرافیایی مناطق خشک، شماره (17)، 17- 34.

7. شریف‌نیا، ف.(1391). بررسی رابطه کاربری زمین شهری و میزان تاب‌ آوری در برابر زلزله و ارائه راهکارها در زمینه برنامه‌ریزی شهری؛ ( نمونه موردی: منطقه تهران) ، دانشکده پردیس هنرهای زیبا دانشکده شهرسازی، ‌دانشگاه تهران، استاد راهنما: دکتر اسفندیار زبردست.

8. عزیزی،‌ م.؛ اکبری،‌ر.(1387). ملاحضلات شهرسازی در سنجش آسیب‌پذیری شهرها در برابر زلزله،‌ مطالعه موردی: منطقه فرحزاد، تهران ، نشریه هنرهای زیبا، شماره(34)، 25- 26.

9. گیوه‌چی،‌س.؛ ‌عطار، م.؛ (1392). کاربرد مدل‌های تصمیم‌گیری چندمعیاره در مکان‌یابی اسکان موقت پس از زلزله(مطالعه موردی: منطقه‌ی 6 شیراز) ، دو فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی مدیریت بحران، شماره (2)،‌ 35- 43.

10. محمودی‌نژاد، ه.؛ پورجعفر، م.؛ بمانیان، م.؛ انصاری، م.؛ تقوایی، ع.(1387). «پدیدارشناسی محیط شهری: تاملی در ارتقای فضا به مکان شهری، علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست ، دوره دهم، شماره (4)، 282- 297.

11. میروکیلی، ع.(1385) . مکان‌یابی مراکز امداد رسانی و اسکان موقت جمعیت پس از وقوع زلزله با استفاده از GIS ، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد شهرسازی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی.

12. نیکمرد نمین،‌ س.؛ برک‌پور، ن.؛ عبداللهی، م. (1393). کاهش خطرات زلزله با تاکید بر عوامل اجتماعی رویکرد تاب‌‌آوری(نمونه موردی: منطقه 22 تهران) ، نشریه مدیریت شهری، شماره (37)، 19- 34.

13. Aguirre, B. (2006). On the concept of resilience. Retreived from http:// udspace. udel. edu/ handle/19716/2517

14. Ajibade, I., McBean, G., & Bezner-Kerr, R. (2013). Urban flooding in Lagos, Nigeria: Patterns of vulnerability and resilience among women. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1714-1725.

15. Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions. Measuring vulnerability to natural hazards: Towards disaster resilient societies, 1, 9-54.

16. Birkmann, J., & Wisner, B. (2006). Measuring the Un-Measurable: the Challenge of Vulnerability. UNU- EHS. Retrieved from http:// collections. unu. edu/ eserv/ UNU: 1872/pdf3962.pdf

17. 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). Retrieved from https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/

18. Burton, C. G. (2012). The development of metrics for community resilience to natural disasters. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, U.S

19. Cutter, S. L. (1996). Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in human geography, 20(4), 529- 539.

20. Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 7(1). 1-22.

21. Derissen, S., Quaas, M., & Baumgärtner, S. (2009). The relationship between resilience and sustainable development of ecological-economic systems (No. 146). University of Lüneburg Working Paper Series in Economics, Derived from https:// www. leuphana. de/ fileadmin/ user_upload/Forschungseinrichtungen/ifvwl/WorkingPapers/wp_146_Upload.pdf

22. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global environmental change, 16(3), 253-267.

23. Gaillard, J. C. (2007). The resilience of traditional societies in facing natural hazards. Disaster Prevention and Management, 16(4), 522 – 544.

24. Hazleton, V., Harrison-Rexrode, J., & Kennan, W. R. (2007). New technologies in the formation of personal and public relations. Social Capital and Social Media. In S. C. Duhe, New media and public relations (pp. 91-105). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

25. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23.

26. Holling, C.S. (1986). The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In W. C. Clark and WC, R. Munn (eds) Sustainable development of the biosphere (pp. 292–317),. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

27. Hutter, G., Kuhlicke, C., Glade, T., & Felgentreff, C. (2013). Natural hazards and resilience: exploring institutional and organizational dimensions of social resilience. Natural hazards, 67(1), 1-6.

28. Joakim, E. (2008). Assessing ‘The hazards of Place’ model of vulnerability: A case study of the Waterloo region, (Unpublished masters’ thesis). Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada.

29. Joerin, J., & Shaw, R. (2011). Chapter 3 mapping climate and disaster resilience in cities. In Climate and disaster resilience in cities (pp. 47-61). Bradford, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Maguire B., & Hagan, P. (2007). Disasters and communities: understanding social resilience. Aust J Emerg Manage 22(2).16–20.

30. McEntire, D. A., Fuller, C., Johnston, C. W., & Weber, R. (2002). A comparison of disaster paradigms: The search for a holistic policy guide. Public Administration Review, 62(3), 267-281.

31. Miletti, D. (1999). Disasters by design: a reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Washington, WD: Joseph Henry Press.

32. Normandin, J. M., Therrien, M. C., & Tanguay, G. A. (2009, June). City strength in times of turbulence: strategic resilience indicators. In Proc. of the Joint Conference on City Futures, Madrid (pp. 4-6). Madrid, Spain.

33. Perring, C. A. (2006). Resilience and sustainable development. Environment and Development Economics, 17(53), 417-427.

34. Pimm, S. L. (1984). The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature, 307(59409), 321–326.

35. Pooley, J. A., & Cohen, L. (2010). Resilience: A definition in context. Australian Community Psychologist, 22(1), 30-37.

36. Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2014, March). Major principles and criteria for development of an urban resilience assessment index. In J. G. Singh (Ed.), International Conference and Utility Exhibition 2014 on Green Energy for Sustainable Development (pp. 1-5). Jomtien Palm Beach Hotel and Resort, Pattaya City, Thailand.

37. Timmerman, P. (1981). Vulnerability, resilience and the collapse of society: a review of models and possible climatic applications. Journal of Climatology, 1(4), 396-396.

38. Tompkins, E., & Hurlston, L. A. (2012). Public-private partnerships in the provision of environmental governance: A case of disaster management. In E. Boyd & C. Folke (Eds.), Adapting institutions: Governance, complexity and social–ecological resilience (pp. 171–189). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

39. UNEP. (2008). Disaster risk management for coastal tourism destinations Responding to climate change. Retrieved from https:// www. onecaribbean. org/ wp - content/ uploads/ Disaster - Risk-Management-Coastal-Tourism-UNEP-CAST.pdf

40. Villagran, J. C. (2006). Vulnerability: A conceptual and methodological review. UNU- EHS. Retreaved from http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/8337.pdf

41. Wang, S. H., Huang, S. L., & Budd, W. W. (2012). Resilience analysis of the interaction of between typhoons and land use change. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(4), 303-315.

42. Wildavsky, A. (1991). Searching for safety. New Jersey, NJ: Transaction Publishers