Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 37, Issue 2 (2022)
GeoRes 2022, 37(2): 189-199 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2021/12/18 | Accepted: 2022/02/24 | Published: 2022/04/8
Received: 2021/12/18 | Accepted: 2022/02/24 | Published: 2022/04/8
How to cite this article
Houshyar H, Ramazantash Dehgorje H. The Status QUO Analysis of the Buildings Vulnerability in the City of Oshnavieh to Earthquake. GeoRes 2022; 37 (2) :189-199
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1274-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1274-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Authors
H. Houshyar *1, H. Ramazantash Dehgorje1
1- Department of Geography, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract (895 Views)
Aims: Today, one of the most important dangers that always threatens cities is the risk of earthquakes. The aim of this study was to analyze the vulnerability of buildings in Oshnavieyeh city to possible earthquakes.
Methodology: The present research is an applied type with a quantitative-analytical approach that has been done in 2021 in the Oshnavieyeh. This study assessed the situation of the neighborhoods of Oshnavieyeh in terms of vulnerability Based on 8 indicators, physical-environmental, including: type of materials, building life, building quality, number of floors, population density, land use, slope, and river area. Also, the AHP-VIKOR integrated model was used to measure vulnerability, Intermediate degree of damage index method, GIS and Idrisi software.
Findings: The vulnerability of buildings in the city of Oshnaviyeh is serious. The seismicity of the neighborhoods was different. Neighborhoods 1, 4, 5 and 7 have the most damage against earthquakes. Neighborhoods 2, 3 and parts of neighborhoods 6, 11 and 12 have the least damage.
Conclusion: Reasons for damage in these neighborhoods can be considered the use of low and unsustainable materials such as bricks, clay and wood, long life of buildings (76% of the city level), high population density in neighborhoods 4, 5, 7, high slope and the existence of faults were the way to go in this city. Also the buildings were built without the slightest attention to building regulations.
Methodology: The present research is an applied type with a quantitative-analytical approach that has been done in 2021 in the Oshnavieyeh. This study assessed the situation of the neighborhoods of Oshnavieyeh in terms of vulnerability Based on 8 indicators, physical-environmental, including: type of materials, building life, building quality, number of floors, population density, land use, slope, and river area. Also, the AHP-VIKOR integrated model was used to measure vulnerability, Intermediate degree of damage index method, GIS and Idrisi software.
Findings: The vulnerability of buildings in the city of Oshnaviyeh is serious. The seismicity of the neighborhoods was different. Neighborhoods 1, 4, 5 and 7 have the most damage against earthquakes. Neighborhoods 2, 3 and parts of neighborhoods 6, 11 and 12 have the least damage.
Conclusion: Reasons for damage in these neighborhoods can be considered the use of low and unsustainable materials such as bricks, clay and wood, long life of buildings (76% of the city level), high population density in neighborhoods 4, 5, 7, high slope and the existence of faults were the way to go in this city. Also the buildings were built without the slightest attention to building regulations.
References
1. Abedini M, Sarmasti N (2016). Vulnerability factor of Tabriz metropolitan against earthquake risk assessment and estimation of casualties. Physical Geography Quarterly. 9(32):35-56. [Persian] [Link]
2. Abo El Ezz A, Nollet MJ, Nastev M (2015). Assessment of earthquake-induced damage in Quebec City, Canada. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. (12):16-24. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.11.004]
3. Ahamadi A, Fathi S, Akbari E (2019). Assessment of urban resilience against natural hazards with an emphasis on earthquake and using fuzzy logic and GIS (a case study of Urmia city). Journal of Geography and Environmental Hazards. 7(3):57-73. [Persian] [Link]
4. Alavi S, Hosseini S, Bahrami F, Ashorlo M (2017). Evaluation of urban fabric vulnerability rateto earthquake using ANP and GIS techniques (Case study: Semirom city). Scientific - Research Quarterly of Geographical Data (SEPEHR). 25(100):129-146. [Persian] [Link]
5. Amini J, Ahadnezhad M, Farajzadeh M (2015). The vulnerability assessment of urban housing in earthquake against (a case study: 9th district of Tehran municipality). Urban Regional Studies and Research.3(9):19-36. [Persian] [Link]
6. Botero V (2009). Geo-information for measuring vulnerability to earthquake: a fitness for use approach [dissertation]. Netherland: ITC. [Link]
7. Eshghi Chaharborj A, Nazmfar H, Ghaffari A (2017). Assessing the physical resilience of a city against possible earthquakes (Case Study: region one of Tehran). Journal of Physical Development Planning. 2(4):11-26. [Persian] [Link]
8. Federico R, Silvia C, Walter S, Tiago M, Paulo B (2021). An improved seismic vulnerability assessment approach for historical urban centres: the case study of Campi Alto di Norcia, Italy. Applied Sciences. 11(2):849. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/app11020849]
9. Ghaffari A, Yazdani M, Gholami, A (2018). Land suitability analysis in locating compost production centers (case study: Fars province). Geography and Environmental Planning (University of Isfahan). 29(1):127-152. [Persian] [Link]
10. Hatami Nejad H, Haraeini M, Alizade P (2018). An analysis of cultural facility distribution in the cities of Qazvin province. Journal of Regional Planning. 8 (30):67-76. [Persian] [Link]
11. Iranmanesh F, Eshraghi M (2006). Application of GIS in planning and location of evacuation spaces of earthquake-affected population's Case study: District 22 of Tehran. Third Conference on Spatial Information System, Tehran, Iran Mapping Organization. Tehran: CIVILICA. [Persian] [Link]
12. Jafari Azar S, Sabzghabaei GH, Tavakoly M, Dashti S (2018). Application of multi-criteria decision-making methods in environmental risk assessment (case study: the international wetland of Shadegan, Khur_e_ Omayyeh and Khur_e_Mousa Estuary). Journal of Geography and Environment Hazards. 6(4):97-119. [Persian] [Link]
13. Kamranzad F, Memarian H, Zare M (2020). Earthquake risk assessment for Tehran, Iran. International Journal of Geo-Information. 9(7):430. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/ijgi9070430]
14. Lantada N, Pujades L, Barbat, A (2009). Vulnerability index and capacity spectrum, based method for urban seismic risk evaluation. Natural Hazards. 51(3):501-524. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11069-007-9212-4]
15. Meshkini A, Ghaed Rahmati S, Shabanzadeh Namini R (2015). Analysis of urban fabric vulnerability against earthquake (Case study: Tehran, District 2). Human Geography Research Quarterly. 46(4):843-856. [Link]
16. Modiri M, Shaterian M, Hosseini, S (2017). Modeling the vulnerability of urban areas at the time of earthquake (Case study: Tehran metropolitan area 3). Journal of Natural Environment Hazards.13(4):143-164. [Persian] [Link]
17. Ratiranjan J, Biswajeet P, Ghassan B (2020). Earthquake vulnerability assessment in Northern Sumatra province by using a multi-criteria decision-making model. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 46:101518-101530. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101518]
18. Ratiranjan J, Biswajeet P, Ghassan B, Abdullah M, Ardiansyahe N, Hizir S (2020). Earquake hazard and risk assessment using machine learning approaches at Palu, Indonesia. Science of the Total Environment. 749(141582). [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141582]
19. Sadeghi N, Bezi Kh, Khajeh Shokouhi A, Rezaei H (2018). Analysis and estimation of earthquake vulnerability of urban housing case study: Gorgan. Journal of Environmental Geography. 7(25):73-88. [Persian] [Link]
20. Sarris A, Loupasakis C, Soupios P, Trigkas V, Vallianatos F (2009). Earthquake vulnerability and seismic risk assessment of urban areas in high seismic regions: application to Chania City, Crete Island, Greece. Natural Hazards. 54:395-412. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11069-009-9475-z]
21. Tabibian M, Mozafari N (2018). Assessment of vulnerability of residential areas to earthquake disasters and its planning guidelines (case study: District number 6, Tehran municipality). MOTALEATE SHAHRI. 7(27):93-112. [Persian] [Link]
22. Yariyan P, Avand M, Soltani F, Ghorbanzadeh O, Blaschke T (2020). Earthquake vulnerability mapping using different hybrid models. Symmetry. 12(3):405. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/sym12030405]
23. Zare M, Rezaei M, Rahimi A (2016). Vulnerability assessment of eroded tissue of Marvdasht city against earthquake using ANP and GIS. Journal of Urban Research and Planning. 7(26):75-92. [Persian] [Link]