Compilation and validation of indicators for assessing the vulnerability of urban peripherals to earthquake (case study: rural settlements in the Tehran metropolitan area)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD student in Geography and Rural Planning, Department of Human Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Human Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Human Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction

Due to the increase in population and the increase in the interaction between humans and the natural environment, humans are more exposed to the risk of natural disasters. Despite all the progress made in recent decades, the negative effects of natural disasters are still felt, and mankind has not been able to significantly reduce the damage caused by natural hazards. Earthquake is one of the natural hazards that cannot be predicted and causes many damages every year. Iran is considered one of the most earthquake-prone countries in the world and has historically witnessed many severe earthquakes. In this context, the Tehran metropolitan area is one of the areas with a high risk of earthquakes in Iran, which, in addition to the risk of earthquakes due to the high population density, has a high potential for vulnerability to earthquakes. So far, several studies have been conducted in connection with the vulnerability of urban spaces located in the Tehran metropolitan area, but the vulnerability of rural spaces located in the Tehran metropolitan area has not received much attention from researchers. The first step to analyzing natural disasters and assessing vulnerability to hazards is to identify and determine appropriate indicators. Since in the studies carried out so far, the identification of earthquake vulnerability assessment indicators according to the specific characteristics of peri-urban spaces has not been done, the purpose of this study is to compile and validate appropriate indicators for assessing the vulnerability of rural settlements located in the Tehran metropolitan area.

Methodology

This study is applied research, and it is descriptive-analytical in terms of method. The research approach is a mixed method (qualitative-quantitative). The qualitative part of the research has been done by using a systematic review of research sources and checking the content of similar articles. From this point of view, the indicators for assessing the vulnerability of rural settlements against earthquakes have been identified. After that, the appropriateness of each index was determined using the Delphi method and the opinions of experts. In the quantitative part of the research, using descriptive and inferential statistics such as mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and One-sample t-test, indicators have been refined and validated. The statistical population of this research included all the experts and people specializing in the field of vulnerability to environmental hazards, of whom 40 experts were selected as a sample by using the purposeful sampling method.

Results and discussion

In this study, 38 scientific articles related to the research topic have been identified by using a systematic review of sources to identify indicators of vulnerability to earthquakes, and 98 indicators have been identified by examining their content in the first step. This number has reached 41 indicators after performing initial refinement, removing irrelevant items, and merging similar items. These indicators, categorized in the form of three components that make up the concept of vulnerability, include exposure, susceptibility, and resilience. For validation, the indicators have been provided to the experts through the design of a questionnaire. The analysis of the results from the collection of questionnaires reveals that the component of being exposed to risk has three indicators. Each of the three indicators has been considered appropriate by experts in terms of the average, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, t-statistic value, and significance level. The susceptibility component has 17 indicators, two of which are in poor condition in terms of mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, t-statistic value, and significance level, and 15 other indicators are in good condition and have been approved by experts. The resilience component has 21 indicators, two of which are in poor condition in terms of mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, t-statistic value, and significance level, and 19 other indicators are in good condition and have been approved by experts. Finally, among the identified indicators, 37 of them were approved as suitable indicators for assessing the vulnerability of peri-urban rural settlements against earthquakes.

Conclusion

The findings of the study demonstrate that the values obtained for the indicators of risk exposure are at a more suitable level than the indicators of the other two components, confirming the expert consensus and agreement about the indicators of risk exposure. After that, there are the susceptibility component and the resilience component in terms of the experts' agreement. The results of this research, in terms of scientific application, provide a suitable platform for researchers in the fields of geographic sciences, environmental sciences, social sciences, disaster sciences, and other related specialized fields, each of which in some way studies the concept of vulnerability to earthquake hazards.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

اردلان، علی. 1392. نقشه راه مدیریت و کاهش خطر بلایا در نظام سلامت جمهوری اسلامی ایران. تهران: انتشارات وزارت بهداشت، درمان و آموزش پزشکی.
پوراحمد، احمد؛ لطفی، صدیق؛ فرجی، امین و عظیمی، آزاده. 1388. بررسی ابعاد پیشگیری از بحران زلزله (مطالعه موردی: شهر بابل). مجله مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری و منطقه‌ای، شماره اول، صص 24-1.
دربان آستانه، علیرضا؛ شیخ‌زاده، محسن و بازگیر، سعید. 1397. راهبردهای کاهش آسیب‌پذیری بافت مسکونی در برابر خطر زلزله (مطالعۀ موردی: منطقۀ 6 شهر تهران). پژوهش‌های جغرافیای برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دوره 6، شماره 2، صص 288-265.
رضوانی، محمدرضا؛ صادقلو، طاهره؛ رکن‌الدین افتخاری، عبدالرضا و فرجی سبکبار، حسنعلی. 1392. توسعه و اعتبارسنجی شاخص‌های مؤثر در شبکه فضایی بازاریابی محصول شیر در مناطق روستایی. پژوهش‌های روستایی، دوره 4، شماره 4، صص 824-793.
زمانی، پارسا؛ صادقی‌ها، مهدی و امیریان، سهراب. 1401. خوانش عوامل کلیدی موفقیت در بازآفرینی سکونتگاه‌های پیراشهری با تأکید بر ذینفعان نهایی (مورد: شهر چهاردانگه). مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، سال چهارم، شماره دوم، صص 118-103.
سجاسی‌قیداری، حمدالله؛ رکن‌الدین افتخاری، عبدالرضا و پورطاهری، مهدی. 1393. تدوین و اعتبارسنجی شاخص‌های توسعه کارآفرینی اکوتوریستی در مناطق روستایی. مطالعات برنامه‌ریزی سکونتگاه‌های انسانی، دوره 9، شماره 26، صص 70-45.
طالشی، مصطفی، علی‌اکبری، اسماعیل؛ جعفری، مصطفی و سیداخلاقی، سیدجعفر. 1396. تدوین و اعتبارسنجی شاخص‌های مناسب ارزیابی تاب‌آوری روستایی در برابر مخاطره خشک‌سالی مطالعه موردی: حوضه آبخیز حبله رود. تحقیقات مرتع و بیابان ایران، دوره 24، شماره 4، صص 896-881.
علی‌نژاد امامقلی، کوروش؛ احمدیان، محمدعلی و قنبرزاده دربان، هادی. 1399. راهکارهای کاهش مخاطرات طبیعی در سازمان‌های مرتبط با مدیریت بحران مورد: سکونتگاه‌های پیراشهر قوچان. مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، سال دوم، شماره دوم، صص 50-33.
فراهانی، فرهاد؛ رجبی، آزیتا و اقبالی، ناصر. 1400. واکاوی جایگاه اصول پدافند غیرعامل در طرح‌های بازآفرینی شهری فضاهای پیراکلا‌‌ن‌شهری مورد: شهر قرچک. مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، سال سوم، شماره دوم، صص 46-27.
کفایتی، نرگس؛ قربانی، خلیل و عبدالله زاده، غلامحسین. 1400. تدوین و اعتبارسنجی شاخص‌های مناسب ارزیابی آسیب‌پذیری مناطق کشاورزی در شرایط خشک‌سالی. مجله تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی ایران، دوره 52، شماره 3، صص 468-457.
کلانتری، خلیل؛ اسدی، علی و چوبچیان، شهلا. 1388. تدوین و اعتبارسنجی شاخص‌های توسعه پایدار مناطق روستایی. مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری و منطقه‌ای، شماره 2، صص 86-69.
محمدی، اکبر. 1399. برآورد آسیب‌پذیری لرزه‌ای مسکن شهری و روستایی در مناطق سکونتگاهی کشور ایران با تأکید بر نوع اسکلت و مصالح مورداستفاده. فصلنامه علمی برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای، دوره 10، شماره 39، صص 78-37.
مرکز آمار ایران. 1395. سرشماری عمومی نفوس و مسکن کشور.
مرکز آمار ایران. 1400. سالنامه آماری استان تهران.
مرکز آمار ایران. 1400. سالنامه آماری استان کرج.        
مسلمی، آرمان؛ توکلی‌نیا، جمیله؛ فنی، زهره و رضویان، محمدتقی. 1401. پایداری اقتصادی در مناطق پیراشهری اسلامشهر. مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، سال چهارم، شماره اول، صص 106-87.
مکانیکی، جواد؛ اسمعیل‌نژاد، جواد و اکبرپور، محمد. 1398. ارزیابی آسیب‌پذیری سکونتگاه‌های روستایی در مقابل مخاطرات محیطی (موردمطالعه: شهرستان‌های بیرجند و خوسف). پژوهش‌های روستایی، دوره 10، شماره 2، صص 257-244.
موسوی، سیدعارف؛ طالشی، مصطفی و دربان آستانه، علیرضا. 1396. تدوین و اعتبارسنجی شاخص‌های بومی حکمروایی خوب روستایی. مجله مدیریت شهری و روستایی، شماره 49، صص 524-502.
نسترن، مهین و پیرانی، فرزانه. 1398. تدوین و اعتبارسنجی معیارها و شاخص‌های توسعه شهر هوشمند (موردمطالعه: منطقه سه شهر اصفهان). مجله جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری، سال 6، شماره 1، صص 164-147.
نعیمی، امیر و صدیقی، حسن. 1392. شناسایی ابعاد راهبردی توسعه روستایی در ایران: دیدگاه صاحب‌نظران دانشگاه‌های تربیت مدرس و تهران. فصلنامه علمی روستا و توسعه، دوره 16، شماره 2، صص 63-45.
Aksha, S.K., Juran, L., Resler, L.M. and Zhang, Y., 2019. An analysis of social vulnerability to natural hazards in Nepal using a modified social vulnerability index. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 10, pp.103-116.
Bakkensen, L.A., Fox‐Lent, C., Read, L.K. and Linkov, I., 2017. Validating resilience and vulnerability indices in the context of natural disasters. Risk analysis, 37(5), pp.982-1004.
Becker, J.S., Potter, S.H., Vinnell, L.J., Nakayachi, K., McBride, S.K. and Johnston, D.M., 2020. Earthquake early warning in Aotearoa New Zealand: A survey of public perspectives to guide warning system development. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), pp.1-12.
Brooks, N., 2003. Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: A conceptual framework. Tyndall Centre for climate change research working paper, 38(38), pp.1-16.
Burton, C.G., Toquica, M., Asad, K.M.B. and Musori, M., 2022. Validation and development of composite indices for measuring vulnerability to earthquakes using a socio-economic perspective. Natural Hazards, 111(2), pp.1301-1334.
Botero Fernández, V., 2009. Geo-information for measuring vulnerability to earthquakes: a fitness for use approach (Doctoral dissertation, University Utrecht).
Cats, O., Yap, M. and van Oort, N., 2016. Exposing the role of exposure: Public transport network risk analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 88, pp.1-14.
Contreras, D., Blaschke, T., Kienberger, S. and Zeil, P., 2011. Spatial vulnerability indicators: measuring recovery processes after earthquakes. In 8th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM 2011). Newcastle University.
CRED (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters). 2015. The human cost of natural disasters: A global perspective. Brussels: CRED.
Cutter, S.L., 1996. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in human geography, 20(4), pp.529-539.
Cabrera-Nguyen, P., 2010. Author guidelines for reporting scale development and validation results in the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 1(2), pp.99-103.
Dash, S.R., Bhattacharya, S., Blakeborough, A. and Hyodo, M., 2008, October. PY curve to model lateral response of pile foundations in liquefied soils. In 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Beijing, China (pp. 12-17).
De Haen, H. and Hemrich, G., 2007. The economics of natural disasters: Implications and challenges for food security. Agricultural economics, 37, pp.31-45.
Erdik, M., 2021. Earthquake risk assessment from insurance perspective. In Advances in assessment and modeling of earthquake loss (pp. 111-154). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Global Change Data Lab. 2023. Natural Disasters Data. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters  (accessed on 1 September 2023).
Huggel, C., Raissig, A., Rohrer, M., Romero, G., Diaz, A. and Salzmann, N., 2015. How useful and reliable are disaster databases in the context of climate and global change? A comparative case study analysis in Peru. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 15(3), pp.475-485.
Jones, R.L., Guha-Sapir, D. and Tubeuf, S., 2022. Human and economic impacts of natural disasters: can we trust the global data?. Scientific data, 9(1), p.572.
Kamranzad, F., Memarian, H. and Zare, M., 2020. Earthquake risk assessment for Tehran, Iran. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(7), p.430.
Lian, P., Zhuo, Z., Qi, Y., Xu, D. and Deng, X., 2021. The impacts of training on farmers’ preparedness behaviors of earthquake disaster—evidence from earthquake-prone settlements in rural China. Agriculture, 11(8), p.726.
Minos-Minopoulos, D., Dominey-Howes, D. and Pavlopoulos, K., 2017. Vulnerability assessment of archaeological sites to earthquake hazard: an indicator based method integrating spatial and temporal aspects. Annals of Geophysics, 60(4), pp.S0445-S0445.
Moseley, J. and Dritsos, S., 2016, November. Next Generation Rapid Visual Screening for RC Buildings to Assess Earthquake Resilience. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Concrete Structures, Thessaloniki, Greece (pp. 10-12).
Orencio, P.M. and Fujii, M., 2013. An index to determine vulnerability of communities in a coastal zone: A case study of Baler, Aurora, Philippines. Ambio, 42, pp.61-71.
Papathoma-Köhle, M., Schlögl, M. and Fuchs, S., 2019. Vulnerability indicators for natural hazards: An innovative selection and weighting approach. Scientific Reports, 9(1), p.15026.
Preciado, A., Ramirez-Gaytan, A., Santos, J.C. and Rodriguez, O., 2020. Seismic vulnerability assessment and reduction at a territorial scale on masonry and adobe housing by rapid vulnerability indicators: The case of Tlajomulco, Mexico. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 44, p.101425.
Ray, B., 2017. Response of a resilient community to natural disasters: The Gorkha earthquake in Nepal, 2015. The Professional Geographer, 69(4), pp.644-654.
Sarvar, H., Amini, J. and Laleh-Poor, M., 2011. Assessment of risk caused by earthquake in region 1 of Tehran using the combination of RADIUS, TOPSIS and AHP models. Journal of Civil Engineering and Urbanism, 1(1), pp.39-48.
Schmidtlein, M.C., Deutsch, R.C., Piegorsch, W.W. and Cutter, S.L., 2008. A sensitivity analysis of the social vulnerability index. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 28(4), pp.1099-1114.
Sharpe, A.M., Halkias, D., Vaccarino, F. and Hunter, S.M., 2017. Post-earthquake community capacity and vulnerability reduction at the small-scale local level: collective narratives from Greece, Japan, and New Zealand. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 8(2-3), pp.116-132.
Simon, D., Arfvidsson, H., Anand, G., Bazaz, A., Fenna, G., Foster, K., Jain, G., Hansson, S., Evans, L.M., Moodley, N. and Nyambuga, C., 2016. Developing and testing the Urban Sustainable Development Goal’s targets and indicators–a five-city study. Environment and Urbanization, 28(1), pp.49-63.
Thornley, L., Ball, J., Signal, L., Lawson-Te Aho, K. and Rawson, E., 2015. Building community resilience: learning from the Canterbury earthquakes. Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 10(1), pp.23-35.
Wang, X., Dou, A., Sun, G., Ding, X. and Yuan, X., 2013, July. Study on the vulnerability assessment of catastrophe earthquake based on RS and GIS and its primary application. In 2013 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium-IGARSS (pp. 688-691). IEEE.
Wisner, B., P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis. 2004. At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. 2nd edn. London:Routledge.
Wieland, M., Pittore, M., Parolai, S., Begaliev, U., Yasunov, P., Tyagunov, S., Moldobekov, B., Saidiy, S., Ilyasov, I. and Abakanov, T., 2015. A multiscale exposure model for seismic risk assessment in Central Asia. Seismological Research Letters, 86(1), pp.210-222.
Ye, W. and Jia, J., 2023. Assessment and analysis of social vulnerability to island seismic disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, p.104008.
Yoon, D.K., 2012. Assessment of social vulnerability to natural disasters: a comparative study. Natural hazards, 63, pp.823-843.
Zhou, Y., Li, N., Wu, W. and Wu, J., 2014. Assessment of provincial social vulnerability to natural disasters in China. Natural hazards, 71, pp.2165-2186.
Preipheral Urban Spaces Development
Volume 5, Issue 2 - Serial Number 10
Autumn and Winter
July 2023
Pages 1-16

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics