The Measurement of Environmental Resilience of Villages against Earthquake Hazard (Case Study: Mojezat Dehestan in Zanjan County)

Journal of Research and Rural Planning

مقاله 6، دوره 6، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 17، شهریور 2017، صفحه 81-97  

نوع مقاله: علمی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jrrp.v6i1.53038

نویسندگان

Hamid Barghi ؛ Sedigheh Hashemi؛ Nasrin Jafari

University of Isfahan

چکیده

Extended abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
Disasters do not affect all members of a society equally. Disaster scholars, and to a less extent the general public, have acknowledged that disasters do not indiscriminately distribute risk. Indeed, disasters are the products of the social, political, and economical environment, as well as the natural events that cause them. In the last three decades, two geophysical hazards, Haiti earthquake in 2010, and the Indonesian earthquake and tsunami in 2004 have caused the highest death toll from natural disasters. Natural disasters such as floods and earthquake in geographical areas, especially in rural areas often have undesired adverse effects. Natural disasters had mostly endangered health of residents, especially children and the elderly by destroying the sources of income and living facilities, and had always been a serious threat to development, especially in developing countries. This subject reminds the necessity of attention to resilience at the local level (village); because, local resilience believes that resiliency almost depends on properties and action in microscale. Local resiliency based on events means that local community is able to stand against extreme natural events without damages like destructive losses and damages or loss of production of power or quality of life.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The relationship between a society's sustainability of resiliency and risks includes many social, economic, political and complex physical factors. There are three common models for studying resilience: mitigation model, recovery model, and structural-cognitive model.


3. METHOLOGY
In this research, the sampling method has two steps. In the first step, due to vulnerability of villages against the earthquake, among twenty-four villages in the study area, eleven villages with more than 20 households were selected as the sample of study. Because these villages are near to the faults, they are more in danger of earthquakes. Therefore, sampling was performed in eleven selected villages. These villages have a population of 6413 people. Since the exact number of people in a society cannot be calculated due to time and cost restrictions, the sample size was calculated using Cochran's formula, which includes 362 people. To evaluate resiliency in villages, independent samples t test, Pearson correlation coefficient, Friedman ANOVA, and Prometheus techniques as well as Electra 1 have been used.
4. DISCUSSION
The analysis and increase of resilience of natural disasters has become an important and extensive field in a way that currently the issue is shifting from analyzing the movement of the mutual sustainable development and disaster management towards increasing resilience. Accordingly, the analysis and increase of the resilience of human and environmental systems against natural disasters is moving towards achieving the goal of sustainable development which has gained a particular importance. Reviewing literature and previous successful experiences showed that increasing resilience of residents and the resiliency of rural settlements is the best way to reduce the effects of natural disasters. The most important step to increase the resiliency is identification of the amount of rural areas and rural people's resiliency. Therefore, the present study seeks to investigate the status of resiliency in Mojezat district against danger of earthquake so that the economic, social, organizational, and infrastructural resiliency can be studied.
5. CONCLU#SION
The results showed that among the various aspects studied, the social dimension has high resiliency and organizational dimension has low resiliency. Because rural people tend to participate in helping the victims, be members of community groups and cooperate with architects. However, villager's due to lack of appropriate institutional context and unsuccessful performance of institutions related to crisis management have been less satisfied with these organizations. This issue led to the fact that the organizational dimension based on independent samples T test becomes fairly good. It is also confirmed by Friedman test. The existence of positive and significant relationship between different dimensions indicates that strengthening one dimension of resiliency can help increasing resiliency in other dimensions. Prometheus technique showed that Doran and Ramin villages, according to the indexes studied in rural areas, had the highest rank.
According to the obtained results, the following points can be proposed to increase resiliency:
1-Improving institutional and organizational infrastructure and creating a bilateral relationship between the local organizations and rural people in order to increase people's satisfaction and improve institutional resiliency, especially in Riyhan, Segheltuli and Qynerjhe villages.
2- Increasing participation among individuals, people, and their members of the local groups, especially among the educated class and in Barutaghaji village because of the low average of the social dimension in this village.
3- Improving infrastructure in SeghlTuli and BarotAghaji through development of infrastructure facilities, improving the quality of housing and increasing public services, especially the houses of pastoral class.
4. Paying more attention to Chavarzaq and Riyhan Villages and reducing the vulnerability of these villages, especially in the organizational aspect.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Resiliency؛ Earthquake؛ Mojezat Dehestan؛ Prometheus and Electre techniques

مراجع

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

2. Arouri, M., Nguyen, C., & Youssef, A. B. (2015). Natural disasters, household welfare, and resilience: Evidence from rural Vietnam. World development, 70, 59-77. ‏

3. Badri, S. A., Ramazanadeh Lsbuyi, M., Asgari, A., Ghadir Masoom, M., & Salmani, M. (1392/2013). The role of local management in improving resilience against natural disasters with emphasis on flooding (Case study: Two basins of Cheshme Kyle). Journal of Emergency Management, 1(2), 37-48. [In Persian]

4. Barton, D., Morton, J., & Hendy, C. (2001). Drought contingency planning for pastoral livelihoods. Natural Resources Institute.

5. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6. Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M., ... & von Winterfeldt, D. (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake spectra, 19(4), 733-752. ‏

7. De Haen, H., & Hemrich, G. (2007). The economics of natural disasters: Implications and challenges for food security. Agricultural Economics, 37(1), 31–45.

8. Farzad Behtash, M., Kay Nezhad, M., Pirbabaie, M., & Asgari, A. (1392/2013). Assessment and analysis of large dimensions and components of Tabriz. Journal of Fine Arts, Architecture and Urban Planning, 18(2), 33-42. [In Persian]

9. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 35, 557-581. ‏

10. Foster, H. D. (1997). The Ozymandias principles: Thirty-one strategies for surviving change. Canada: UBC Press.

11. Fothergill, A., & Peek, L. A. (2004). Poverty and disasters in the United States: A review of recent sociological findings. Natural Hazards, 32, 89–110.

12. Gallopin, G. C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity, resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation: A cross-cutting theme of the international human dimensions program on environmental changes). Glob Environ. Chang, 16, 293–303.

13. Gaillard, J. C. (2007). Resilience of traditional societies in facing natural hazards. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 16(4), 522-544.

14. Godschalk, D. R. (2003). Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4(3), 136-143.

15. Henestra, D., Kovacs, P., McBean, G., & Sweeting, R. (2004). Background paper on disaster resilient cities. Toronto: Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction.

16. Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.

17. 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.‏

18. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19. Lebel, L. (2001). Faculty of Social Sciences. Chiang Mai University.

20. Levin, S. A. (1998). Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems, 1, 431–436.

21. Lizarralde, G., Chmutina, K., Bosher, L., & Andrew, D. (2015). Sustainability and resilience in the built environment: The challenges of establishing a turquoise agenda in the UK. Sustainable Cities and Society, 15, 96–104.

22. Lizarralde, G., Valladares, A., Olivera, A., Bornstein, L., Gould, K., & Duyne Barenstein, J. (2015). A systems approach to resilience in the built environment: The case of Cuba. Disasters, 39(1), 76–95.

23. Mileti, D. (Ed.). (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

24. Mitchell, T., & Harris, K. (2012). Resilience: A risk management approach, background note, ODI.

25. Normandin, J. M., Therrien, M. C., & Tanguay G. A. (2011). City strength in times of turbulence: Strategic resilience indicators. Paper presented at the 41st Conference of Urban Affairs Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

26. Ramezanzadeh, M., badri, S.A., Asgari, A., salmani, M., & Ghadiri, M.M. (1391/2012). Rural resilience sample Tourism regions on Multiple Attribute Decision Making (Case Study: Cheshmeh Kileh Branch, Tonekabon County and Sardabrood Branch, Kelardasht County). Journal of tourism planning and development, 3(1), 78-97. [In Persian]

27. Rezaei, M.R. (1392/2013). Evaluating the economic and institutional resilience of urban communities to natural disasters using PROMETHE technique (Case study: Tehran districts). The Journal of Emergency Management, (3), 38-27. [In Persian]

28. Rose, A. (2004). Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management, 13(4), 307–314.

29. Sadeghlu, T., & Sojasi Ghidari, H. (1393/2014). Prioritization of factors affecting the increase of farmers' resilience against natural hazards with an emphasis on drought. Journal of Geography and Environmental Hazards, 10, 129-154. [In Persian]

30. Salehi, A., Aghababaie, M., Sarmadi, H., & Farzad Behtash, M. (1390/2011). An investigation of environmental resilience using causality network model. Journal of Environmental Studies, 37(59), 99-112. [In Persian]

31. Tobin, G. A. (1999). Sustainability and community resilience: The holy grail of hazards planning (Part B: global environmental change). Environmental Hazards, 1(1), 13–25.

32. World Bank. (2010). Natural hazards, unnatural disasters, the economics of effective prevention. USA: The World Bank.