Assessing the power of urban resilience against the seismic risk with emphasis on social and Institutional aspects (case study: Dist. 12 of Tehran)

Document Type : .

Authors

• Elnaz Jazayeri ¹
• Rasoul samadzadeh ²
• Hosein Hatami nezhad ³

¹ Ph.D. student of Geography and Urban Planning, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil Branch

² department of geography, science faculty, Ardabil branch, Islamic of university, Ardabil, Iran

³ Associate Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, University of Tehran

Abstract

Abstract
          In the next decades, the major driver of the increasing damages and losses from disasters will be the growth of people and assets in harm’s way, especially in urban areas. Tehran's largest gravity center in Iran is22 districts of the municipality, which is surrounded by high densities of active faults on the north and south.In order to deal with natural ‌hazards, especially earthquakes, there are several approaches in which the four-dimensional resiliency approach is one of the most important ones. So, objective of the current research is assessment of rates of indicators of social and characteristic aspects of resilient of Dist.12Tehran against earthquake that it has been assessed in global level based on optimal limit. For determination of optimal limit in this research, it was supposed that numerical amount of any indication in zones across the world level, in which has occurred various crisis up to now, being resilient against it (such as Japan & California) can be considered as optimal limit. Method of research in this text is descriptive-analytical type.The results of results indicate that among social indicators, indicator status of age structure of population, gender structure‌ of population has been calculated upper than optimal limit. However, status of studies level and health cover is lower than optimal limit. Among the indicators, related to institutional resilient, all indicators have a noticeable distance with optimal rate. Furthermore, institutional communications indicator with 46%distance, has a worse status from the optimal rate. Consequently, Institutional operation indicator with 41% and institutional background with 32% distance from the optimal rate are located in the next rows.
 
Key words: urban resilient, inDist. 12, Tehran, earthquake, Social resilience, Institutional resilience.
 
 
Expanded abstract
Introduction:
         The tragedies, related to natural risks are increased throughout the world and changing to threat and increasing the world economic costs together with them, can convert natural risk to tragedy and effects on vulnerable population , mostly natural disasters or destruction income resources and bio-possibilities, healthy of residents have been related and always a sever risk is for development specially in developing countries, however, at present the prevailing view has changed from focus on only vulnerable reduction to resilience promotion against accidents. On the other hand, the largest gravity center of population of Iran is Tehran city includes 22 municipal districts that has been surrounded with high density of active faults from north and south. Dist. 12 of Tehran is in central limit with historical tissue and dense and in various worn sections, the limit of object of studying is in macro sections of resilience has various problems and objects. The objective of this research has been evaluated assessment of urban resilience of Dist. 12, Tehran against earthquake from view of institutional & social dimensions that based on method of optimal limit. In order to operational definition of indexes in social aspect, 4 indexes with title of aging structure of population sexual structure, rate of health cover and studies level in city and in 3-index institutional aspect of institutional operation, institutional relations and institutional context  have been represented and in continuation, for definition of optimal limit in this research, it was supposed that numerical amount of any index in districts throughout the world in which have been evented various crises that have been resilient versus it (such as Japan and California) , it can be considered he optimal limit of being resilient.
Methodology:
        Method of research in this study is from descriptive – analytical type. Method of collection of information as librarian and fielding. In institutional resilient subject, method of questionnaire has been used for reaching to the objectives of the research its bases is a statistical society of the object of studying of citizens , residence in Dist. 12, Tehran. The volume of the sample has been calculated with using of Cochran’s general formula that is No.384 of the questionnaire and method of sampling is simple randomly. 
Results:
        With consideration to study the information, related to urban resilience title in the boundary of Dist. 12, Tehran, institutional and social resilience indexes status in this boundary has been calculated with consideration to definition of optimal limit of number 1 for any index. For making comparable indexes, all numbers were described as normal and percent. Also, with definition of optimal limit of indexes, distance of index from the limit, has been calculated. With consideration to amount of total resilience optimum in any section will be equal to one. On the Basis, the results are as follows: the indexes, related to social resilience and its subcategory was calculated proportional to the amount, determined with the optimal limit. Among social resilience indexes subcategories, aging structure of population with number 1032 is in upper status of the optimal limit. The index of sexual structure with number 1.03 is upper than the optimal limit. Studies level among subcategories of social index with number 0.94 is in lower status of the optimal limit. Health cover among social index subcategories with number 0.68 is in status lower than the optimal limit. Among institutional resilience indexes categories, institutional index with number 0.68 is in status lower than optimal limit. Institutional operation with number 0.59 is in status lower than the optimal limit.
Conclusion:
          The institutional limit is another index that was studied with number 0.54 that is in that status lower than the optimal limit. In continuation, regards to the represented findings , numerical rate of CRI meaning average of total of sub-indexes of each of institutional and social resilience aspects was calculated that in social section , number 0.99 that is having of low distance with optimal limit meaning 1 , was obtained and for institutional index , number 0.60 was obtained that it shows the operation in social section has been better proportional to institutional that it shows number 0.79  proportional to the optimal limit is in the lower status that totally, it can say, the institutional and social resilience status in Dist. 12 of Tehran is in the lower status proportional to optimal limit.

Keywords

• urban resilience in Dist. 12
• Tehran
• Earthquake
• social resilience
• Institutional resilience

20.1001.1.22285229.1398.10.39.4.2

---

References

1. Adger WN, (2006),Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16, pp:268–281.

1. 2.       -Ainuddin, S.,‌Routray,‌J. (2012). Community resilience framework for an earthquake prone area in Baluchistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2,pp 25-36.
2. Badri Seyed Ali , Ramezanzadeh Mehdi, Asgari Ali, Ghadiri Mojtaba and Salmani Mohammad, (1392), Role of local management in increasing of locative resilience against natural disasters with emphasis on floodwater, the case study 2 Kilieh Fountain pools of Tonekabon county and Kelardasht Abroud Sard, 2 quarterlies “Crisis management” , 3^rd No. Tehran, page 39- page 50
3. 4.       Baker A, (2002), Creating an empirically derived community resilience index of the Gulf of Mexico. Master thesis, Louisiana State University, USA
4. Barbarian Samoel , Ghoreishi Manouchehr, Arjang Ravesh, Mohajer Ashjaei, Research and study deep of construction land and earthquake risk in area of Tehran and environment “Report No.56” State geology organization” Tehran
5. 6.       Birkmann J,‌Wisner‌B‌, (2006) Measuring the un-measurable.‌The‌challenge of vulnerability. United Nations Univ 5,pp:1–58
6. 7.       Bruneau M, Chang SE, Eguchi RT, Lee GC, Rourke TD, Reinhorn AM et al (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthq Spectra 19(4):733–752
7. 8.       Burton,‌Christopher G.‌(2012).‌The‌Development of Metrics for Community Resilience to Natural Disasters, PhD Thesis, College of Arts and Sciences,California State University
8. 9.       Carpenter‌SR,‌Walker‌B,‌Anderies‌JM, Abel N (2001) From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4, pp:765–781.
9. 10.   Cutter LS, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) Community and regional resilience to natural disasters: perspective from hazards, disasters and emergency management, CARRI research report 1. Community and Regional Resilience Institute, Oak Ridge.
10. Detailed design report of Dist. 12, Tehran, 2006 – Bavand Consultant Engineers
11. 12.   Gallopin G (2006) Linkage between vulnerability, resilience and adaptative capacity. Glob Environ Chang 16,pp:293–303
12. 13.   Godschalk, D. (2003). Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities. Natural Hazards Review, 4 (3), pp:136-143.
13. 14.   Gunderson LH (2000) Ecological resilience: in theory and application. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31,pp:425–439.
14. 15.   Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 4, pp:1-23.
15. 16.   Janssen M, Ostrom E (2006) Resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation: a cross-cutting theme of International Human Dimension Programme on global Environmental Change. Glob Environ Chang 16,pp:237–239.
16. 17.   Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Turner BL II, Schiller A, Hsieh W-H (2005) Vulnerability of global environmental change. In: Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE (eds) Social contours of risk. Earthscan, London, pp:245–285
17. 18.   Kulig JC, Edge DS, Joyce B (2008) Understanding community resilience in rural communities through multimethod research. Community Dev 3,pp:77–94
18. 19.   McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA, Dokken DJ, White KS (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Adger W (ed) Vulnerability global environmental change, vol 16. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp:268–281
19. 20.   Miller F, Osbahr H, Boyd E, Thomalla F, Bharwani S, Ziervogel G, Walker B, Birkmann J, Van der Leeuw S, Rockstro¨m J, Hinkel J, Downing T, Folke C (2010) Resilience and vulnerability: complementary or conflicting concepts? Ecol Soc 15,pp:1–11
20. 21.   Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF, Pfefferbaum RL‌(2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities and strategy for disaster readiness. Community Psychol 41, pp:127–150.
21. 22.   Olwig FM (2012) Multi-sited resilience: the mutual construction of ‘‘local’’ and ‘‘global’’ understandings and practices of adaptation and innovation. Appl Geogr 33,pp:112–118
22. 23.   Paton D, Fohnston D (2001) Disasters and communities: vulnerability, resilience and preparedness. Disaster Prev Manag 10(4), pp: 270–277
23. Rezaei, Mohammadreza, (1392), Assess economic and institutional resilience of urban societies against natural accidents.
24. 25.   Smit B, Burton I, Klein RJT, Street R (1999) The science of adaptation: a framework for assessment. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 4, pp:199–213
25. 26.   Tobin G (1999) Sustainability and community resilience: the holy grail of hazard planning? Environ Hazards 1, pp:13–25
26. 27.   Turner‌II BL‌(2010) Vulnerability and resilience: coalescing or paralleling approaches for sustainability science? Global Environmental Change, Article in Press, G Model JGEC-789, pp: 1–7
27. 28.   UNISDR (2009) Terminology on disaster risk reduction. Available on http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/ Terminology
28. 29.   Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I (2004) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters, nd edn. Routledge, London
29. 30.   Cutter, S. L., C. G. Burton, and C. T. Emrich. (2010). “Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 7 (1): Article 51.
30. 31.   Fleischhauer, MI (2008) The role of spatial planning in strengthening urban resilience. Resilience Cities Terror Other Threat 10,pp:273–298.
31. 32.   Jha, A, K. Miner, T, W, and Stanton-Geddes, Z. (2013), Building Urban Resilience Principles, Tools, and Practice, Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-8865-5. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0, pp:209.
32. 33.   Lorena Figueiredo, Taku Honiden,Abel Schumann, (2018), Indicators for Resilient Cities, OECD Regional Development Working Papers.
33. 34.   Maru, Y. T. (2010). Resilient Regions: Clarity of Concepts and Challenges to Systemic Measurement. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 4 (1),pp:26-40.
34. 35.   Mayunga, J. S., (2007) "Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience: A capital-based approach", A Draft Working Paper Prepared for the Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building, 22- 28 July,
35. 36.   Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. National Academies Press.
36. 37.   Meerow s, Joshua P. Newell, Melissa Stults, (2016), Defining urban resilience: Areview Landscape and Urban Planning 147,pp: 38–49
37. 38.   Turner, M.D. (2013). “Political ecology I: an alliance with resilience”
38. 39.   United States Census Bureau (2013). “United States Census, Bureau. available at http://www.census.gov/. Accessed 23 August 2014.
39. 40.   USAID (2006) Concepts and practices of ‘‘resilience’’: a compilation form various secondary sources. United States Agency for International Development.