شناسایی و طبقه بندی مؤلفه های تاب‌آوری اجتماعی و اقتصادی در سکونتگاه های غیررسمی (مطالعۀ موردی: ناحیه 6 منطقه 4 شهرداری تهران با تمرکز محله خاک سفید)

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار جغرافیا و برنامه‏ ریزی شهری، دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران

چکیده

عمدتاً شهرها و سکونتگاه‏ها در مکان‏های در معرض وقوع انواع سوانح و مخاطرات طبیعی ایجاد شده‏اند و نگاه مدیران و برنامه‏ریزان شهری نگاه مقابله‏ای و کاهش مخاطرات بوده است. پژوهش حاضر به دنبال شناسایی و طبقه‏بندی مؤلفه‏های تاب‏آوری در سکونتگاه غیررسمی در سطح محلة خاک‏سفید است. این پژوهش در گروه تحقیقات کاربردی قرار دارد. برای جمع‏‏آوری اطلاعات از روش کتابخانه‏ای و میدانی استفاده شد. معیارها و عوامل مؤثر بر تاب‏آوری با مرور منابع تهیه ‏شد و برای تهیةفهرست نهایی معیارها و اولویت‏بندی آن‏ها از پرسش‏نامه استفاده شد. پس از تکمیل پرسش‏نامه‏‏ها توسط 20 نفر از کارشناسان متخصص، معیارها با روش FANP وزن داده شد. پوششزمین استخراج‏شدهازرویتصاویرماهوارهایلندستسال 2017، در نرم‏افزار ENVI 4.8 طبقه‏بندی شد. سپس، لایه‏های طبقه‏بندی‏شده در محیط IDRISI فازی و در ARC MAP روی هم گذاری شد. با تأثیر وزنهرکدامازمعیارهایمؤثردرمیزانتاب‏‏آوریلایه‏‏هاوترکیب نقشه‏‏ها، میزانتاب‏‏آوریمشخصشد و بر اساس مدل TOPSIS منطقة مورد مطالعه با توجه به میزان تاب‏آوری رتبه‏بندی شد. نتایج پژوهش نشان می‏‏دهدتاب‏‏آوری محلة خاک‏سفید و بافت‏های اسکان غیررسمی در برابر بحران‏های محیطی در سطح ضعیفی است. وقتی وضعیت فضایی هر یک از شاخص‏های تاب‏‏آوری را در سطح محله بررسی می‏‏‏کنیم شاهد شرایط متفاوت تاب‏‏آوری آن‏ها هستیم که معلول وضعیت متفاوت در ویژگی ‏های کالبدی، اجتماعی، و اقتصادی است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Identification and Classification of Socio-Economic Resilience Criteria in Informal Settlements (Case Study: District 6 of region 4, Tehran Municipality, Focusing on Khak Sefid Neighborhood)

نویسنده [English]

  • Seed Isaac Jalalian
Assistant Professor of Geography and Urban Planning, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Mostly cities and settlements have been created in places exposed to all kinds of natural disasters and hazards, and managers and urban planners have been confrontational and reducing hazards. In recent years, a new concept has been introduced in the face of unknowns and uncertainties called resilience. Knowledge of resilience and resiliency status is particularly important. Resilience can be introduced as a concept of disruption, surprise and change. There are two types of disaster management strategies: Predictive and Resilience strategies, one for dealing with problems, and the second for dealing with unknown problems. The neighborhood is white soil.

Methodology
The research method is descriptive-analytical and applied. To compare the indices, a questionnaire was prepared by 20 faculty members and experts in environmental planning, urban planning, rural planning and urban planning (in decision making and ranking techniques according to the researcher's opinion). And the nature of the topic and the range of experts and experts in the field are chosen, as well as the number of samples considered to reach a theoretical saturation, ie the greater the number of matched answers, the more weighted the criteria were by FANP. The weight of each of these criteria is influenced by the degree of resilience in the layers and The maps were combined to determine the resiliency.

Results and discussion
According to the findings of the study, the informal settlement area under study is not in a good condition in terms of resiliency, indicating high vulnerability of this tissue to natural disasters and hazards. Survey of spatial resilience status shows that resilience rates in each of the indices are different at different levels of the neighborhood and do not have a uniform trend. Areas of low resilience have the most socially disadvantaged, are less valuable in land prices, and more economically vulnerable, the poorest, and the most vulnerable. They have room.

Conclusion
In general, the result of this study was that the resilience of white soil neighborhood and informal settlement textures to environmental crises is poor. When examining the spatial status of each of the resilience indices at the neighborhood level, we find different resilience conditions that result in different status in the physical, social, and economic characteristics, so it can be deduced that different resilience indices have different effects. On the resilience rate of the white soil neighborhood and with changes in the status of these indices at different levels of the neighborhood has also changed the resilience status


Introduction
Mostly cities and settlements have been created in places exposed to all kinds of natural disasters and hazards, and managers and urban planners have been confrontational and reducing hazards. In recent years, a new concept has been introduced in the face of unknowns and uncertainties called resilience. Knowledge of resilience and resiliency status is particularly important. Resilience can be introduced as a concept of disruption, surprise and change. There are two types of disaster management strategies: Predictive and Resilience strategies, one for dealing with problems, and the second for dealing with unknown problems. The neighborhood is white soil.

Methodology
The research method is descriptive-analytical and applied. To compare the indices, a questionnaire was prepared by 20 faculty members and experts in environmental planning, urban planning, rural planning and urban planning (in decision making and ranking techniques according to the researcher's opinion). And the nature of the topic and the range of experts and experts in the field are chosen, as well as the number of samples considered to reach a theoretical saturation, ie the greater the number of matched answers, the more weighted the criteria were by FANP. The weight of each of these criteria is influenced by the degree of resilience in the layers and The maps were combined to determine the resiliency.

Results and discussion
According to the findings of the study, the informal settlement area under study is not in a good condition in terms of resiliency, indicating high vulnerability of this tissue to natural disasters and hazards. Survey of spatial resilience status shows that resilience rates in each of the indices are different at different levels of the neighborhood and do not have a uniform trend. Areas of low resilience have the most socially disadvantaged, are less valuable in land prices, and more economically vulnerable, the poorest, and the most vulnerable. They have room.

Conclusion
In general, the result of this study was that the resilience of white soil neighborhood and informal settlement textures to environmental crises is poor. When examining the spatial status of each of the resilience indices at the neighborhood level, we find different resilience conditions that result in different status in the physical, social, and economic characteristics, so it can be deduced that different resilience indices have different effects. On the resilience rate of the white soil neighborhood and with changes in the status of these indices at different levels of the neighborhood has also changed the resilience status
In general, the result of this study was that the resilience of white soil neighborhood and informal settlement textures to environmental crises is poor. When examining the spatial status of each of the resilience indices at the neighborhood level, we find different resilience conditions that result in different status in the physical, social, and economic characteristics, so it can be deduced that different resilience indices have different effects. On the resilience rate of the white soil neighborhood and with changes in the status of these indices at different levels of the neighborhood has also changed the resilience status
In general, the result of this study was that the resilience of white soil neighborhood and informal settlement textures to environmental crises is poor. When examining the spatial status of each of the resilience indices at the neighborhood level, we find different resilience conditions that result in different status in the physical, social, and economic characteristics,

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Resilience Components
  • Socio-Economic Resilience
  • Informal Settlement
  • Khak Sefid
  • Tehran
احمدی، عبدالمجید؛ فتحی، سعید و اکبری، ابراهیم، 1397، ارزیابی تاب‏‏آوری محیط شهری در برابر مخاطرات طبیعی با تأکید بر زمین‏‏لرزه با استفاده از منطق فازی و GIS (مطالعة موردی: شهر ارومیه)، جغرافیا و مخاطرات محیطی، ش 27، صص 57-73.
اسدی عزیزآبادی، مهسا؛ زیاری، کرامت‏اله و وطن‏‏خواهی، محسن، 1397، سنجش و ارزیابی میزان تاب‏‏آوری بافت‏‏های فرسودة شهری در برابر مخاطرات محیطی نمونة موردی: بافت فرسودة کلان‏‏شهر کرج، نشریة پژوهش و برنامه‏ریزی شهری، س 9، ش 35، صص 111-122.
پاشاپور، حجت‏اله و پوراکرمی، محمد، 1396، سنجش ابعاد کالبدی تاب‏‏آوری شهری در بابر مخاطرات طبیعی (زلزله) مطالعة موردی منطقة 12 شهر تهران، فصل‏نامة مطالعات برنامه‏ریزی سکونتگاه‏‏های انسانی، دورة 12، ش 4، صص 985-1002.
توکلی، هانیه؛ خادم‏الحسینی، احمد و خسروی حاجیوند، ایرج، 1396، بررسی مؤلفه‏‏های تاب‏‏آوری شهری با تأکید بر سوانح طبیعی (زلزله) (نمونة موردی منطقة 16 تهران)، فصل‏نامة مطالعات مدیریت شهری، س 9، ش 32، صص 87-100.
جواهری‌پور، مهرداد، 1394، محله‌های فرودست شهری و حق به شهر موردپژوهی محلة خاک‌سفید شهر تهران، پژوهش‌های انسان‌شناسی ایران (نامة علوم اجتماعی)، دورة 5، ش 2، صص ۱۶۳-182.
حاتمی‏نژاد، حسین؛ فرهادی‏خواه حسین؛ آروین، محمود و رحیم‏‏پور، نگار، 1396، بررسی ابعاد مؤثر بر تاب‏‏آوری شهری با استفاده از مدل ساختاری تفسیر (نمونة موردی: شهر اهواز)، فصل‏نامة دانش پیشگیری و مدیرت بحران، دورة 7، ش 1، صص 35-45.
حکیمی، هادی؛ معبودی، محمدتقی و علیزاده، پریا، 1396، تحلیل تاب‏‏آوری فردی ساکنین سکونتگاه‏‏های غیررسمی در مقابل مخاطرات محیطی (مطالعۀ موردی: شهر ارومیه)، پژوهشهای جغرافیایی و برنامهریزی شهری، دورة 5، ش 2، صص ۱۷۳-198.
حیدری‏فر، محمدرئوف؛ حسینی سیاه‏گلی، مهناز و سلیمانی راد، اسماعیل، 1397، سنجش مؤلفه‏های تاب‏آوری شهری، فصل‏نامة جغرافیا و مطالعات محیطی، دورة  7، ش 28، صص ۱۰۷-125.
رضایی، محمدرضا؛ رفیعیان، مجتبی و حسینی، سیدمصطفی، 1394، سنجش و ارزیابی میزان تاب‏آوری کالبدی اجتماع‏های شهری در برابر زلزله (مطالعة موردی: محله‏های شهر تهران)، پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی، دورة 47، ش 4، صص ۶۰۹-623.
سازمان عمران و نوسازی شهرداری کرج، 1395.
شکری فیروزجاه، پری، 1396، تحلیل فضایی میزان تاب‏‏آوری مناطق شهر بابال در برابر مخاطرات محیطی، نشریة برنامه‏‏ریزی توسعةکالبدی، ش 2، صص 27-44.
شیعه، اسماعیل؛ حبیبی، کیومرث و کمالی‏نسب، حامد، 1390، فرایند شکل‏گیری و گسترش سکونتگاه‏های غیررسمی (نمونة موردی: محلة خاک‏سفید کرج)، فصل‏نامة مسکن و محیط روستا، ش 133، ص 39-48.
ضرغامی، سعید؛ تیموری، اصغر؛ محمدیان مصمم، حسن و شماعی، علی، 1395، سنجش و ارزیابی میزان تاب‏‏آوری محله‏‏های شهری در برابر زلزله (بخش مرکزی شهر زنجان)، پژوهش و برنامه‏ریزی شهری، س 7، ش 27، صص 77-92.
غلام‏‏زاده، رسول؛ آذر، عادل و قنواتی، مهدی، 1391، مدل‏‏سازی مسیری‏- ساختاری در مدیریت: کاربرد نرم‏‏افزار Smart PLS، تهران، نشر نگاه دانش.
فرزاد بهتاش، محمدرضا؛ کی‏نژاد، محمدعلی؛ پیربابایی، محمدتقی و عسگری، علی، 1392، ارزیابی و تحلیل ابعاد و مؤلفه‏‏های تاب‏‏آوری کلان‏‏شهر تبریز، معماری و شهرسازی، دورة 18، ش 3، صص 33-42.
فرزاد بهتاش، محمدرضا؛ کی‏نژاد، محمدعلی؛ پیربابایی، محمدتقی؛ آقابابایی، محمدتقی، 1391، تبیین ابعاد و مؤلفه‏‏های تاب‏‏آوری در شهرهای اسلامی، مجلة مطالعات شهر ایرانی-اسلامی، ش 9، صص 113-121.
کمانداری، محسن؛ اجزاء شکوهی، محمد و رهنما، محمدرحیم، 1397، تحلیل فضایی شاخص‏‏های اجتماعی تاب‏‏آوری شهری در مناطق چهارگانة شهر کرمان، جغرافیای اجتماعی شهری، ش 13، صص 70-85.
محمدی سرین دیزج، مهدی و احدنژاد روشتی، محسن، 1395، ارزیابی میزان تاب‏‏آوری کالبدی شهری در برابر مخاطرة زلزله مورد مطالعه: شهر زنجان، نشریة تحلیل فضایی مخاطرات محیطی، س 3، ش 1، صص 103-118.
محمدی، اکبر؛ آشوری، کسری و رباطی، بشیر، 1395، تبیین و ارزیابی مؤلفه‏‏های تاب‏‏آوری نهادی و اجتماعی در سکونتگاه‏‏های خودانگیختة شهری؛ مطالعة موردی: ناحیة منفصل شهری نایسر، مطالعات شهری، ش 22، صص 75-88.
محمودی سفیدکوهی، عقیل و رسولی، سید حسن، 1396، سنجش و ارزیابی کاهش خطرات زلزله با تأکید بر تاب‏‏آوری شهری، پژوهش‏های نوین علوم جغرافیایی، معماری و شهرسازی، ش 10، صص 227-263.
مرکز آمار ایران، 1395، سرشماری عمومی نفوس و مسکن.
نقدی، مانی و رحیمی، محمود، 1396، سنجش و ارزیابی میزان تاب‏‏آوری در محلات شهری و بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر آن (موردپژوهی: محلة فرحزاد تهران)، مطالعات جغرافیا، عمران و مدیریت شهری، دورة 3، ش 3، صص 1-26.
وزارت راه و شهرسازی، 1395، گزارش مرحلة نخست برنامةسامان‏دهیسکونتگاه‏هایغیررسمیشهرتهرانواقدامات توانمندسازیاجتماعاتآن‏هاباتأکیدبربهسازیشهری (بادیدگاه شهرنگر)، ج ۲، مطالعات مجموعة شهری تهران.
24. Agudelo-Vero, Claudia M.  Wouter R.W.A. Leduc., Adriaan R. Mels, and Huub H.M. Rijnaarts, 2012, Harvesting urban resources towards more resilient cities. In: Resources, Conservation and Recycling, No. 64, PP. 3-12.
25. Ahmadi, Abdolmajid; Fathi, Saeed and Akbari, Ibrahim, 1397, Assessment of Resilience of Urban Environment to Natural Hazards with Emphasis on Earthquakes Using Fuzzy Logic and GIS (Case Study: Urmia City). Geography and Environmental Hazards, No. 27, PP. 57-73.
26. Ajibade, I., 2017, Can a future city enhance urban resilience and sustainability? A political ecology analysis of Eko Atlantic city, Nigeria International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction Can a future city enhance urban resilience and sustainability ? A political ecolog. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 2, No. 3, PP. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.029.
27. Allan, P. and Bryant, M., 2010, The Critical role of Open Space in Earthquake Recovery: A Case study. NZSEE Conference, Victoria university of Wellington, Wellington New Zealand.
28. Asadi Azizabadi, Mahsa; Ziyari, Keramatollah,  and Vatankhahi, Mohsen, 1397, Assessment and Evaluation of Resilience of Urban Deteriorated Tissues against Environmental Hazards Case Study: Deteriorated Texture of Karaj Metropolitan Area, Journal of Urban Research and Planning, Vol. 9, No 35, PP. 111-122.
29. Bastamnia, A.; Rezaie, MR.; Tazesh, Y. and Dastoorpoor, M., 2016, Evaluation of Urban Resilience to Earthquake A Case Study: Dehdasht City. International Journal of Ecology & Development, Vol. 31, No. 4.
30. Bozza, A.; Asprone, D. and Fabbrocino, F., 2017, Urban Resilience : A Civil Engineering Perspective. Sustainability Review, Vol. 9, No. 103, PP. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010103.
31. Buckle, P.; Graham, M. and Syd, S., 2000, New approaches to assessing vulnerability and resilience. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, PP. 8-14.
32. Cerѐ, G.; Rezgui, Y. and Zhao, W., 2017, Critical review of existing built environment resilience frameworks: Directions for future research. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 25,  No. 4, PP. 173-189.
33. Coaffee, J. and Fussey, P., 2017, Resilient planning for sporting mega-events : designing and managing safe and secure urban places for London 2012 and beyond. Brazilian Journal of Urban Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, PP. 165-177.
34. Cutter, S. L.; Christopher, G. and Burton, Christopher, T. E., 2010, Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions, Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, PP. 1-14.
35. Danan, G.; Gerland, P.; Pelletier, F. and Cohen, B., 2015, Risk of Exposure and Vulnerability to Natural Disasters at the City Level: A Global Overview. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
36. Dodman, D.; Leck, H.; Rusca, M. and Colenbrander, S., 2017, African Urbanisation and Urbanism: Implications for risk accumulation and reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 26, No. 5, PP. 7-15.
37. Empowering Their Communities with Emphasis on Urban Improvement (with Urbanist Perspective), Vol. Two, Studies of Tehran Urban Complex.
38. Farzad Behtash, Mohammad Reza; Kaynejad, Mohammad Ali; Pir Babaei, Mohammad Taghi and Agha Babaei, Mohammad Taghi, 2012, Explaining the Dimensions and Components of Resilience in Islamic Cities, Iranian Journal of Islamic City Studies, No. 9, PP. 113-121.
39. Farzad Behtash, Mohammad Reza; Ki Nzad, Mohammad Ali; Pir Babaei, Mohammad Taghi and Asgari, Ali, 2013, Evaluation and Analysis of Resilience Dimensions and Components of Tabriz Metropolitan, Architecture and Urban Development, Vol. 18, No. 3, PP. 33-42.
40. Folke, C., 2016, Resilience (Republished), Ecology and Society, Vol. 21, No. 4, PP. 1-30.
41. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T. and Rockström, J., 2010, Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability, Ecology and Society, Vol. 15, No. 4.
42. Gholamzadeh, Rasool; Azar, Adel and Ghanawati, Mehdi, 2012, Structural Path Modeling in Management: Using Smart PLS Software, Tehran: Knowledge Publishing.
43. Gunderson, L.H., 2010, Ecological and human community resilience in response to natural disasters, Ecology and Society, Vol. 15, No. 2, PP. 323-331.
44. Hakimi, Hadi; Mabudi, Mohammad Taghi and Alizadeh, Parya, 2017, An Analysis of Individual Resilience of Informal Settlement Residents against Environmental Hazard (Case study: Urmia City) ,Geographical Research and Urban Planning, Vol. 5, No. 2, PP. 173-198.
45. Hatami Nejad, Hossein; Farhadi Khossein, Hossein; Arvin, Mahmood and Rahimpour, Negar, 1396, Investigating the Effective Dimensions of Urban Resilience Using Structural Interpretation Model (Case Study: Ahvaz City), Quarterly Knowledge Prevention and Management Quarterly, Vol. 7 , No. 1, PP. 35-45.
46. Heidari Far, Mohammadrev; Hosseini Sangoli,  and Soleimani Rad, Ismail, 1979, Measurement of Urban Resilience Components, Journal of Geography and Environmental Studies, Vol. 7, No. 28, PP. 107-125.
47. Iran Census Center, 2016, General Census of Population and Housing.
48. Kamandari, Mohsen; Ajzae Shokohi, Mohammad and Rahnama, Mohammad Rahim, 1979, Spatial Analysis of Social Indicators of Urban Resilience in Four Regions of Kerman, Urban Social Geography, No. 13, PP. 70-85.
49. Karaj Municipality Civil and Renovation Organization, 2016.
50. Mahmoudi Sefidkohi, Aqil and Rasouli, Seyed Hassan, 1986, Measurement and Evaluation of Earthquake Risk Reduction with Emphasis on Urban Resilience, Modern Geographical Sciences, Architecture and Urban Studies, No. 10, PP. 227-263.
51. Marjolein, S. and Waterhout, B., 2017, Building up resilience in cities worldwide – Rotterdam as participant in the 100 Resilient Cities Programme. Cities: The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning, Vol. 12, No. 61, PP. 109-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.011.
52. Meerow, S.; Newell, J. P. and Stults, M., 2016, Landscape and Urban Planning Defining urban resilience : A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 147, No. 5, PP. 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011.
53. Mehmood, A., 2016, Of resilient places : planning for urban resilience. European Planning Studies ISSN, Vol. 24, No. 2, PP. 407-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1082980.
54. Ministry of Roads and Urban Planning, 2016, Report on the First Stage of Informal Settlement Planning in Tehran.
55. Mohammad Sarin Dizaj, Mehdi and Ahmadinejad Rushti, Mohsen, 2016, Assessment of Urban Physical Resilience to Earthquake Hazard Study: Zanjan City, Spatial Analysis of Environmental Hazards, Vol. 3, No. 1, PP. 103-118.
56. Mohammadi, Akbar; Ashouri, Kasra and Robati, Bashir, 2016, Explaining and Evaluating the Components of Institutional and Social Resilience in Urban Spontaneous Settlements; Case Study: Neisser Urban Decline, Urban Studies, No. 22, PP. 75-88.
57. Naghdi, Mani and Rahimi, Mahmood, 1396, Measurement and Evaluation of Resilience in Urban Neighborhoods and Investigating Factors Affecting it (Case Study: Farahzad Neighborhood of Tehran), Geography, Civil and Urban Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, PP. 1-26.
58. Pashapour, Hojjatollah and Pourakarmi, Mohammad, 1396, Assessing the Physical Dimensions of Urban Resilience in the Event of Natural Hazards (Earthquake) Case Study of District 12 of Tehran, Journal of Human Settlements Planning Studies, Vol. 12, No. 4, PP. 985-1002.
59. Rapaport, C., 2018, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, No. 31, PP. 470-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.05.020.
60. Rezaei, Mohammad Reza; Rafieian, Mojtaba and Hosseini, Seyed Mostafi, 2015, Assessment and Evaluation of Physical Resilience of Urban Societies against Earthquake (Case Study: Tehran Neighborhoods), Human Geography Research, Vol. 47, No. 4, PP. 623-609.
61. Rose, A., 2009, Economic Resilience to Disasters: CARRI Research Report 8. Community and Regional Resilience Initiative, Oak Ridge, TN.
62. Sanderson, D., 2000, Cities, Disasters and Livelihoods, Risk Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, PP. 49-58.
63. Shia, Ismail; Habibi, Kiomars and Kamali Nasab, Hamed, 2011, The Process of Formation and Expansion of Informal Settlements (Case Study: White Khak Neighborhood of Karaj), Journal of Housing and Rural Environment, No. 133, PP. 39-48.
64. Shokri Firouzjah, Perry, 1396, Spatial Analysis of Resilience of Babil City Areas to Environmental Hazards, Journal of Physical Development Planning, No. 2, PP. 27-44.
65. Spaans, M. and Waterhout, B., 2017, Building up resilience in cities worldwide – Rotterdam as participant in the 100 Resilient Cities Programme, Cities, Vol. 61, PP. 109-116.
66. Tavakoli, Haniyeh; Khadem Al-Husseini, Ahmad and Khosravi Hajivand, Iraj, 1396, Investigation of Urban Resilience Components with Emphasis on Natural Disasters (Earthquake Case Study), Urban Management Studies Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 32, PP. 87-100.
67. Verrucci, E.; Rossetto, T.; Twigg, J. and Adams, BJ., 2012, Multi-disciplinary Indicators for evaluating the Seismic Resilience of Urban Areas. In: (Proceedings) 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal.
69. Zarghami, Saeed; Taymouri, Asghar; Mohammadian Mosammam, Hassan and Shamaee, Ali, 2016, Measurement and Evaluation of Resilience to Urban Earthquakes (Central Section of Zanjan), Urban Planning and Research, Vol. 7, No. 27, PP. 77-92.
70. Zhang, X. and Li, H., 2018, Urban resilience and urban sustainability : What we know and what do not know ? Cities, No. 72, PP. 141-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.08.009.