Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 1 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(1): 1-10 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/01/15 | Accepted: 2023/03/1 | Published: 2023/03/5
Received: 2023/01/15 | Accepted: 2023/03/1 | Published: 2023/03/5
How to cite this article
Eskandari N, Saeideh Zarabadi Z, Habib F. Modeling of the Fragility of Iran Cities Using Interpretive-Structural Method. GeoRes 2023; 38 (1) :1-10
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1426-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1426-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:
1- Department of Urban Development, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (46 Views)
Introduction
Cities are constantly growing and developing; however, this growth is often accompanied by challenges and problems that drive them toward fragility. Unlike the past, when urbanization was associated with job opportunities and improved access to essential services, today’s urbanization exposes residents to greater risks [Nogueira, 2017]. Challenges such as migration, poverty, inequality in the face of pandemics, and violence have increasingly put cities under pressure, while only a limited number of them are equipped with the necessary tools to confront these threats [De Boer et al., 2016].
Muggah argues that the acceleration of urbanization in the coming decade will not occur in America or Europe, but rather across Africa, the Arab world, and throughout Asia [Muggah, 2013]. This is an alarming signal for the cities in these regions, as such challenges contribute to urban fragility [Bosetti et al., 2016] and, given the central role of cities in national economies, may even push entire countries toward collapse [Muggah, 2016]. Accordingly, the rapid pace of urbanization and the resulting emergence of new issues and crises create major challenges for policymakers, marking the onset of fragility within cities [De Boer, 2015].
Urban fragility encompasses a set of unresolved problems that diminish a city’s functional capacity, especially during crises. Every city experiences some level of fragility depending on its ability to address such problems. It is noteworthy that the degree of urban fragility largely depends on governmental performance in managing emerging issues [Selby & Desouza, 2019]. Cities become fragile when their institutions lose legitimacy, authority, and sufficient capacity to fulfill their fundamental duties, such as ensuring citizens’ safety and security, protecting property and infrastructure, providing access to water, electricity, and healthcare, and upholding basic norms and rights [Foreign Affairs, 2015].
Fragility, whether at the national or urban scale, results from the accumulation of multiple risks and can manifest either abruptly or gradually [Global Agenda Council, 2016]. Since the causes of urban fragility differ across contexts, identifying these drivers is essential, as it enables researchers to consider the unique conditions of each city [Selby & Desouza, 2019] and recognize that responses to urban fragility vary across time and space [Muggah & Jutersonke, 2012]. Importantly, urban fragility can be viewed both as a cause and a consequence of urban management and spatial organization processes. To reduce fragility, key risks that may render a city dysfunctional and hinder its ability to perform essential functions must be assessed and prioritized [De Boer et al., 2016].
Under fragile conditions, a city or community faces excessive pressures and threats, each requiring distinct responses. Therefore, understanding fragility, identifying its drivers, and prioritizing strategies to mitigate them are critical for reducing urban vulnerability, an imperative that is increasingly recognized in urban development planning.
A review of the theoretical foundations reveals that numerous scholars, including Beall, McLoughlin, De Boer, Plegata, Miklos, Paoliello, Nogueira, Muggah, Mosaic, Villanueva, Selby, Desouza, and Okeke have emphasized the necessity of identifying and addressing urban fragility. Among them, Muggah and De Boer are pioneers in this field, having conducted the most extensive body of research on the subject. Between 2012 and 2017, Muggah carried out several studies on fragile cities and emphasized that urban fragility is not a permanent condition [Muggah, 2014; Muggah, 2016]. Similarly, De Boer has asserted that a city cannot be categorized as entirely fragile or entirely resilient; rather, it represents a mixture of both states to varying degrees [De Boer, 2016].
Miklos and Paoliello have demonstrated that the concept of the “fragile city” not only provides a novel analytical framework for understanding contemporary urban violence and inequality but also offers a foundation for new international humanitarian interventions [Miklos & Paoliello, 2017]. Subsequently, Collier argued that fragility is a set of interrelated characteristics, fragmented identities, lack of governmental legitimacy and capacity, insecurity, absence of formal enterprises, and susceptibility to shocks that reinforce one another and challenge conventional solutions. In this regard, local institutions and the private sector can play an important role in mitigating fragility [Collier, 2019].
Selby and Desouza examined how developed cities, located in relatively stable countries, may nonetheless become fragile. They proposed a conceptual framework for understanding the nature of fragile cities in the developed world [Selby & Desouza, 2019]. Okeke and colleagues, by reviewing existing literature and focusing on three Nigerian cities, have identified the causes of urban fragility and discussed it as a major obstacle to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals [Okeke et al., 2020].
Furthermore, in his most recent study, De Boer examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cities worldwide, highlighting the deep inequalities that exist within them. He pointes to the digital divide as one such inequality revealed by the pandemic, which has caused hardship and suffering for hundreds of millions of people. This study evaluated the sources of urban fragility and explored approaches that could help cities develop more resilient urban systems and continue progressing even in times of crisis [De Boer, 2022].
In another study on urban fragility, twenty key factors influencing the fragility of Iranian cities were identified through a structural analysis approach. These factors included rapid urbanization, concentrated poverty, widespread corruption, social and gender inequality, unemployment rate, political instability, pandemics, informal settlements, urban violence, economic security, civic participation, insufficient urban services, exposure to natural disasters, social safety, income inequality, uneven distribution of security and development capacities, sanctions, global economic shocks, insecurity, and sudden price fluctuations [Eskandari et al., 2021].
According to this definition, urban fragility refers to a city’s breakdown under the cumulative impact of multiple risks across different dimensions of economic, social, institutional, environmental, socio-political, and international. It is an inevitable yet reversible condition [Eskandari et al., 2021], and its occurrence is at least somewhat probable in any city.
Given the rapid pace of urban growth and development in Iran, and the accompanying emergence of multifaceted challenges within urban spatial structures, this study aims to prioritize the key drivers influencing the fragility of Iranian cities, with the ultimate goal of preventing and reducing urban fragility.
Methodology
The present study is a descriptive–analytical research based on the pragmatist paradigm, conducted through a mixed qualitative–quantitative approach. It employed the Delphi technique and the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) method to prioritize the drivers of urban fragility according to their degree of influence. The study was carried out in Tehran between 2019 and 2022.
The main data collection tool was a binary questionnaire. To assess and verify the validity of the questionnaire, face validity criteria were applied. Since the purpose of the study was not to generalize the results, a purposive sampling method was used to select both the Delphi panel and the ISM expert group. The selection criteria for experts included theoretical expertise, practical experience, willingness and ability to participate, and accessibility. Ensuring the comprehensiveness of expert perspectives was a key consideration in determining the sample size. Ultimately, 14 experts, including specialists and university professors in the fields of urban planning and urban management, were selected to participate in the research process.
Initially, based on a review of the theoretical literature, 91 drivers were identified as preliminary indicators of urban fragility. These 91 drivers were then evaluated using a Likert-scale questionnaire, and based on the Delphi experts’ consensus, 51 drivers with lower agreement levels were removed, leaving 40 key drivers. Subsequently, with expert input, the ISM matrices were developed.
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) is a technique designed to manage the complex interrelationships among parameters. It is interpretive, as it relies on expert judgment to determine whether a relationship exists between parameters, and structural, as it derives a comprehensive hierarchical model from a complex system of interrelated elements [Firouzjaian et al., 2012].
The ISM-based framework was developed through the following steps:
Findings
Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM)
After identifying the dimensions and indicators of urban fragility, these factors were incorporated into the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM). In this matrix, the 20 selected factors were listed across the rows and columns, and the experts were asked to determine the pairwise relationships between the factors. The SSIM was developed using four types of conceptual relationships and completed through expert evaluation and validation.
Reachability Matrix
The initial reachability matrix was obtained by converting the SSIM into a binary (0–1) matrix. To derive the reachability matrix, the symbols V and X in the SSIM were replaced with the value 1, and A and O were replaced with 0. The conversion of all rows resulted in the formation of the initial reachability matrix.
Subsequently, the transitive relationships among the dimensions and indicators were examined. A transitive relationship occurs when, for example, dimension J leads to I, and I leads to K—therefore, J is also considered to lead to K. By converting the symbolic relationships in the SSIM into binary values, the initial reachability matrix was constructed.
In the next step, all secondary (transitive) relationships among parameters were reviewed, and each parameter’s driving power and dependence were identified.
The drivers of fragility whose sets of reachability and intersection elements were identical were placed at the highest level of the ISM hierarchy. The 20 key factors influencing urban fragility in Iran were classified into 11 hierarchical levels.
The final diagram was drawn based on these hierarchical levels and the results of the final reachability matrix. The criteria located at the higher levels of the hierarchy exhibited lower driving power and, consequently, less influence compared to those positioned at the lower levels.
Clustering of Factors Influencing Urban Fragility in Iran
At this stage, the MICMAC analysis was applied to categorize parameters based on their driving power and dependence. After determining the strength of each factor’s influence and dependency, all the parameters contributing to the concept of urban fragility in Iran were classified into one of the four clusters defined by the MICMAC matrix of parameter effects.
Discussion
This study was conducted with the aim of ranking urban fragility drivers in order to prioritize actions and reduce urban fragility. Numerous factors contribute to the increasing fragility of Iranian cities, and recognizing these drivers is of crucial importance for adopting appropriate policies and strategies. Accordingly, identifying the drivers that lead to urban fragility and classifying them based on their level of influence is considered one of the most essential steps in urban management.
In this research, 20 drivers including rapid urbanization, concentrated poverty, widespread corruption, social and gender inequality, unemployment rate, political instability, pandemics, informal settlements, urban violence, economic insecurity, public participation rate, shortage of essential urban services, exposure to natural disasters, social insecurity, income inequality, uneven distribution of developmental–security capacities, sanctions, global economic shocks, real insecurity, and sudden price shocks were ranked according to their degree of influence on urban fragility in Iranian cities [Eskandari et al., 2021].
The results indicated that social and gender inequality, followed by political instability and sanctions, were identified as the most influential factors triggering fragility in Iranian cities. These parameters had the highest level of penetration and functioned as the foundational pillars of the model. Therefore, in addressing urban fragility in Iran, particular attention should first be paid to these key factors. These findings are consistent with the results of several previous studies [Nogueira, 2017; Chawla, 2017; Muggah, 2016; Muggah, 2017; De Boer et al., 2016; American Planning Association, 2018; Ganson & Wennmann, 2016; Raleigh, 2015; Mcloughlin, 2016; Climate-diplomacy, 2019; Okeke et al., 2020; Selby & Desouza, 2019].
Cluster analysis of the factors influencing urban fragility in Iran revealed that social and gender inequality [Arimah, 2010], political instability [Beall et al., 2013], rapid urbanization [Abel et al., 2016], unequal distribution of developmental–security capacities [De Boer, 2016], sanctions [De Boer et al., 2016], widespread corruption [Archer & Dodman, 2017], and informal settlements [Call, 2011] were largely influenced by other parameters and, from a systemic perspective, belonged to the category of dependent and affected elements. In other words, many factors contributed to the formation of these parameters, while they themselves had limited capacity to generate other parameters.
Parameters such as global economic shocks [De Boer, 2022], pandemics [Bosetti et al., 2016], shortage of essential urban services [Collier, 2019], income inequality [De Boer, 2015], sudden price shocks [Eskandari et al., 2021], and exposure to natural disasters [Commins, 2011] were categorized as independent (autonomous) parameters, characterized by strong influence and weak dependence. These parameters were nearly detached from the system but possessed high penetration power and low interdependence.
Meanwhile, parameters such as unemployment rate [Beall, 2007], concentrated poverty [Abhyankar et al., 2013], lack of public participation [Chawla, 2017], social insecurity [Consultancy WC, 2020], and urban violence [Carment et al., 2010] were identified as key parameters of urban fragility in Iran. These parameters had a significant impact on fragility, characterized by high influence and low dependence. Generally, parameters with high influence are referred to as key parameters, typically found within either the independent or linkage groups.
The parameter economic insecurity [Cattaneo & Peri, 2016] was classified as a linkage parameter, demonstrating both high influence and high dependence. In essence, any change in this parameter would trigger alterations in other parameters within the system.
One of the limitations encountered in the research process was the possibility of divergent interpretations and analyses among respondents with varying capabilities and worldviews. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic reduced participation willingness among some respondents. Another limitation was the lack of domestic references due to the novelty of the topic, which necessitated extensive time for translating foreign sources.
Given that urban fragility is a relatively new concept in the field of urban management and that addressing it is crucial for implementing effective measures to reduce city vulnerability, the following recommendations are proposed:
Conclusion
Social and gender inequality, followed by political instability and sanctions, are the key factors contributing to the increased fragility of Iranian cities.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the experts who participated in completing the questionnaires, as well as to the Department of Urban Planning at the Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, for their valuable cooperation and support.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: No conflicts of interest were declared by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Eskandari N (First Author), Principal Researcher/Introduction Writer (34%); Saeideh Zarabadi ZS (Second Author), Methodologist/Statistical Analyst (33%); Habib F (Third Author), Discussion Writer (33%)
Funding: This article is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author, supervised by the second author and advised by the third author, at the Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran. The study was conducted with the authors’ personal funding.
Cities are constantly growing and developing; however, this growth is often accompanied by challenges and problems that drive them toward fragility. Unlike the past, when urbanization was associated with job opportunities and improved access to essential services, today’s urbanization exposes residents to greater risks [Nogueira, 2017]. Challenges such as migration, poverty, inequality in the face of pandemics, and violence have increasingly put cities under pressure, while only a limited number of them are equipped with the necessary tools to confront these threats [De Boer et al., 2016].
Muggah argues that the acceleration of urbanization in the coming decade will not occur in America or Europe, but rather across Africa, the Arab world, and throughout Asia [Muggah, 2013]. This is an alarming signal for the cities in these regions, as such challenges contribute to urban fragility [Bosetti et al., 2016] and, given the central role of cities in national economies, may even push entire countries toward collapse [Muggah, 2016]. Accordingly, the rapid pace of urbanization and the resulting emergence of new issues and crises create major challenges for policymakers, marking the onset of fragility within cities [De Boer, 2015].
Urban fragility encompasses a set of unresolved problems that diminish a city’s functional capacity, especially during crises. Every city experiences some level of fragility depending on its ability to address such problems. It is noteworthy that the degree of urban fragility largely depends on governmental performance in managing emerging issues [Selby & Desouza, 2019]. Cities become fragile when their institutions lose legitimacy, authority, and sufficient capacity to fulfill their fundamental duties, such as ensuring citizens’ safety and security, protecting property and infrastructure, providing access to water, electricity, and healthcare, and upholding basic norms and rights [Foreign Affairs, 2015].
Fragility, whether at the national or urban scale, results from the accumulation of multiple risks and can manifest either abruptly or gradually [Global Agenda Council, 2016]. Since the causes of urban fragility differ across contexts, identifying these drivers is essential, as it enables researchers to consider the unique conditions of each city [Selby & Desouza, 2019] and recognize that responses to urban fragility vary across time and space [Muggah & Jutersonke, 2012]. Importantly, urban fragility can be viewed both as a cause and a consequence of urban management and spatial organization processes. To reduce fragility, key risks that may render a city dysfunctional and hinder its ability to perform essential functions must be assessed and prioritized [De Boer et al., 2016].
Under fragile conditions, a city or community faces excessive pressures and threats, each requiring distinct responses. Therefore, understanding fragility, identifying its drivers, and prioritizing strategies to mitigate them are critical for reducing urban vulnerability, an imperative that is increasingly recognized in urban development planning.
A review of the theoretical foundations reveals that numerous scholars, including Beall, McLoughlin, De Boer, Plegata, Miklos, Paoliello, Nogueira, Muggah, Mosaic, Villanueva, Selby, Desouza, and Okeke have emphasized the necessity of identifying and addressing urban fragility. Among them, Muggah and De Boer are pioneers in this field, having conducted the most extensive body of research on the subject. Between 2012 and 2017, Muggah carried out several studies on fragile cities and emphasized that urban fragility is not a permanent condition [Muggah, 2014; Muggah, 2016]. Similarly, De Boer has asserted that a city cannot be categorized as entirely fragile or entirely resilient; rather, it represents a mixture of both states to varying degrees [De Boer, 2016].
Miklos and Paoliello have demonstrated that the concept of the “fragile city” not only provides a novel analytical framework for understanding contemporary urban violence and inequality but also offers a foundation for new international humanitarian interventions [Miklos & Paoliello, 2017]. Subsequently, Collier argued that fragility is a set of interrelated characteristics, fragmented identities, lack of governmental legitimacy and capacity, insecurity, absence of formal enterprises, and susceptibility to shocks that reinforce one another and challenge conventional solutions. In this regard, local institutions and the private sector can play an important role in mitigating fragility [Collier, 2019].
Selby and Desouza examined how developed cities, located in relatively stable countries, may nonetheless become fragile. They proposed a conceptual framework for understanding the nature of fragile cities in the developed world [Selby & Desouza, 2019]. Okeke and colleagues, by reviewing existing literature and focusing on three Nigerian cities, have identified the causes of urban fragility and discussed it as a major obstacle to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals [Okeke et al., 2020].
Furthermore, in his most recent study, De Boer examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cities worldwide, highlighting the deep inequalities that exist within them. He pointes to the digital divide as one such inequality revealed by the pandemic, which has caused hardship and suffering for hundreds of millions of people. This study evaluated the sources of urban fragility and explored approaches that could help cities develop more resilient urban systems and continue progressing even in times of crisis [De Boer, 2022].
In another study on urban fragility, twenty key factors influencing the fragility of Iranian cities were identified through a structural analysis approach. These factors included rapid urbanization, concentrated poverty, widespread corruption, social and gender inequality, unemployment rate, political instability, pandemics, informal settlements, urban violence, economic security, civic participation, insufficient urban services, exposure to natural disasters, social safety, income inequality, uneven distribution of security and development capacities, sanctions, global economic shocks, insecurity, and sudden price fluctuations [Eskandari et al., 2021].
According to this definition, urban fragility refers to a city’s breakdown under the cumulative impact of multiple risks across different dimensions of economic, social, institutional, environmental, socio-political, and international. It is an inevitable yet reversible condition [Eskandari et al., 2021], and its occurrence is at least somewhat probable in any city.
Given the rapid pace of urban growth and development in Iran, and the accompanying emergence of multifaceted challenges within urban spatial structures, this study aims to prioritize the key drivers influencing the fragility of Iranian cities, with the ultimate goal of preventing and reducing urban fragility.
Methodology
The present study is a descriptive–analytical research based on the pragmatist paradigm, conducted through a mixed qualitative–quantitative approach. It employed the Delphi technique and the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) method to prioritize the drivers of urban fragility according to their degree of influence. The study was carried out in Tehran between 2019 and 2022.
The main data collection tool was a binary questionnaire. To assess and verify the validity of the questionnaire, face validity criteria were applied. Since the purpose of the study was not to generalize the results, a purposive sampling method was used to select both the Delphi panel and the ISM expert group. The selection criteria for experts included theoretical expertise, practical experience, willingness and ability to participate, and accessibility. Ensuring the comprehensiveness of expert perspectives was a key consideration in determining the sample size. Ultimately, 14 experts, including specialists and university professors in the fields of urban planning and urban management, were selected to participate in the research process.
Initially, based on a review of the theoretical literature, 91 drivers were identified as preliminary indicators of urban fragility. These 91 drivers were then evaluated using a Likert-scale questionnaire, and based on the Delphi experts’ consensus, 51 drivers with lower agreement levels were removed, leaving 40 key drivers. Subsequently, with expert input, the ISM matrices were developed.
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) is a technique designed to manage the complex interrelationships among parameters. It is interpretive, as it relies on expert judgment to determine whether a relationship exists between parameters, and structural, as it derives a comprehensive hierarchical model from a complex system of interrelated elements [Firouzjaian et al., 2012].
The ISM-based framework was developed through the following steps:
- Identification of relevant parameters: This step involved reviewing previous studies and obtaining expert opinions to identify the key parameters related to the research problem.
- Development of the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM): At this stage, parameters were compared pairwise to establish their relationships.
- Formation of the initial reachability matrix: The SSIM was converted into a binary matrix, producing the initial reachability matrix.
- Development of the final reachability matrix: By applying the principle of transitivity to the relationships among parameters, the final reachability matrix was derived.
- Level partitioning of the factors: The parameters were then arranged hierarchically according to their levels of influence and dependency.
- Analysis of driving power and dependence (MICMAC analysis): Based on the driving power and dependence of parameters, a coordinate system was established and divided into four categories:
- Quadrant I – Autonomous parameters: low driving power and low dependence.
- Quadrant II – Dependent parameters: weak driving power but high dependence.
- Quadrant III – Linkage parameters: both strong driving power and high dependence.
- Quadrant IV – Independent (key) parameters: high driving power and low dependence.
The driving and dependence power of each parameter was determined by summing the entries (1s) across rows and columns of the final reachability matrix.
Findings
Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM)
After identifying the dimensions and indicators of urban fragility, these factors were incorporated into the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM). In this matrix, the 20 selected factors were listed across the rows and columns, and the experts were asked to determine the pairwise relationships between the factors. The SSIM was developed using four types of conceptual relationships and completed through expert evaluation and validation.
Reachability Matrix
The initial reachability matrix was obtained by converting the SSIM into a binary (0–1) matrix. To derive the reachability matrix, the symbols V and X in the SSIM were replaced with the value 1, and A and O were replaced with 0. The conversion of all rows resulted in the formation of the initial reachability matrix.
Subsequently, the transitive relationships among the dimensions and indicators were examined. A transitive relationship occurs when, for example, dimension J leads to I, and I leads to K—therefore, J is also considered to lead to K. By converting the symbolic relationships in the SSIM into binary values, the initial reachability matrix was constructed.
In the next step, all secondary (transitive) relationships among parameters were reviewed, and each parameter’s driving power and dependence were identified.
- Driving power refers to the total number of parameters (including itself) that a given parameter can influence.
- Dependence represents the total number of parameters that influence the given parameter.
The drivers of fragility whose sets of reachability and intersection elements were identical were placed at the highest level of the ISM hierarchy. The 20 key factors influencing urban fragility in Iran were classified into 11 hierarchical levels.
The final diagram was drawn based on these hierarchical levels and the results of the final reachability matrix. The criteria located at the higher levels of the hierarchy exhibited lower driving power and, consequently, less influence compared to those positioned at the lower levels.
Clustering of Factors Influencing Urban Fragility in Iran
At this stage, the MICMAC analysis was applied to categorize parameters based on their driving power and dependence. After determining the strength of each factor’s influence and dependency, all the parameters contributing to the concept of urban fragility in Iran were classified into one of the four clusters defined by the MICMAC matrix of parameter effects.
Discussion
This study was conducted with the aim of ranking urban fragility drivers in order to prioritize actions and reduce urban fragility. Numerous factors contribute to the increasing fragility of Iranian cities, and recognizing these drivers is of crucial importance for adopting appropriate policies and strategies. Accordingly, identifying the drivers that lead to urban fragility and classifying them based on their level of influence is considered one of the most essential steps in urban management.
In this research, 20 drivers including rapid urbanization, concentrated poverty, widespread corruption, social and gender inequality, unemployment rate, political instability, pandemics, informal settlements, urban violence, economic insecurity, public participation rate, shortage of essential urban services, exposure to natural disasters, social insecurity, income inequality, uneven distribution of developmental–security capacities, sanctions, global economic shocks, real insecurity, and sudden price shocks were ranked according to their degree of influence on urban fragility in Iranian cities [Eskandari et al., 2021].
The results indicated that social and gender inequality, followed by political instability and sanctions, were identified as the most influential factors triggering fragility in Iranian cities. These parameters had the highest level of penetration and functioned as the foundational pillars of the model. Therefore, in addressing urban fragility in Iran, particular attention should first be paid to these key factors. These findings are consistent with the results of several previous studies [Nogueira, 2017; Chawla, 2017; Muggah, 2016; Muggah, 2017; De Boer et al., 2016; American Planning Association, 2018; Ganson & Wennmann, 2016; Raleigh, 2015; Mcloughlin, 2016; Climate-diplomacy, 2019; Okeke et al., 2020; Selby & Desouza, 2019].
Cluster analysis of the factors influencing urban fragility in Iran revealed that social and gender inequality [Arimah, 2010], political instability [Beall et al., 2013], rapid urbanization [Abel et al., 2016], unequal distribution of developmental–security capacities [De Boer, 2016], sanctions [De Boer et al., 2016], widespread corruption [Archer & Dodman, 2017], and informal settlements [Call, 2011] were largely influenced by other parameters and, from a systemic perspective, belonged to the category of dependent and affected elements. In other words, many factors contributed to the formation of these parameters, while they themselves had limited capacity to generate other parameters.
Parameters such as global economic shocks [De Boer, 2022], pandemics [Bosetti et al., 2016], shortage of essential urban services [Collier, 2019], income inequality [De Boer, 2015], sudden price shocks [Eskandari et al., 2021], and exposure to natural disasters [Commins, 2011] were categorized as independent (autonomous) parameters, characterized by strong influence and weak dependence. These parameters were nearly detached from the system but possessed high penetration power and low interdependence.
Meanwhile, parameters such as unemployment rate [Beall, 2007], concentrated poverty [Abhyankar et al., 2013], lack of public participation [Chawla, 2017], social insecurity [Consultancy WC, 2020], and urban violence [Carment et al., 2010] were identified as key parameters of urban fragility in Iran. These parameters had a significant impact on fragility, characterized by high influence and low dependence. Generally, parameters with high influence are referred to as key parameters, typically found within either the independent or linkage groups.
The parameter economic insecurity [Cattaneo & Peri, 2016] was classified as a linkage parameter, demonstrating both high influence and high dependence. In essence, any change in this parameter would trigger alterations in other parameters within the system.
One of the limitations encountered in the research process was the possibility of divergent interpretations and analyses among respondents with varying capabilities and worldviews. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic reduced participation willingness among some respondents. Another limitation was the lack of domestic references due to the novelty of the topic, which necessitated extensive time for translating foreign sources.
Given that urban fragility is a relatively new concept in the field of urban management and that addressing it is crucial for implementing effective measures to reduce city vulnerability, the following recommendations are proposed:
- Completing and enhancing the research outputs and modeling of factors affecting urban fragility using advanced analytical methods;
- Assessing the threshold of fragility in Iranian cities to promote preventive and early intervention strategies;
- Producing a fragility map of Iranian cities and developing localized solutions for each;
- Investigating fragile spaces at the neighborhood level;
- Learning from successful experiences of fragile cities around the world and adapting those strategies locally;
- Holding annual meetings of mayors to share both positive and negative experiences related to mitigating urban fragility;
- Establishing institutions dedicated to identifying urban fragility drivers;
- Reforming the conceptual and operational structure of urban management by employing knowledgeable, local, and field-educated professionals to achieve a deeper understanding of urban issues and to identify fragility drivers in a timely manner.
Conclusion
Social and gender inequality, followed by political instability and sanctions, are the key factors contributing to the increased fragility of Iranian cities.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the experts who participated in completing the questionnaires, as well as to the Department of Urban Planning at the Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, for their valuable cooperation and support.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues were reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: No conflicts of interest were declared by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Eskandari N (First Author), Principal Researcher/Introduction Writer (34%); Saeideh Zarabadi ZS (Second Author), Methodologist/Statistical Analyst (33%); Habib F (Third Author), Discussion Writer (33%)
Funding: This article is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author, supervised by the second author and advised by the third author, at the Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran. The study was conducted with the authors’ personal funding.
References
1. Abel A, Hammond D, Hyslop D, Lahidji R, Mandrella DF (2016). The OECD fragility framework. In: OECD, editor. States of Fragility 2016: Understanding Violence. Paris: OECD Publishing. pp. 69-84. [Link] [DOI:10.1787/9789264267213-7-en]
2. Abhyankar AA, Paliwal M, Patwardhan A, Inamdar AB (2013). Identification of vulnerable areas in municipal corporation of Greater Mumbai due to extreme events based on socio economic indicators. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences. 42(7):907-914. [Link]
3. Archer D, Dodman D (2017). Editorial: The urbanization of humanitarian crises. Environment and Urbanization. 29(2):339-348. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0956247817722731]
4. Arimah BC (2010). The face of urban poverty: Explaining the prevalence of slums in developing countries (Working paper No: 2010/30). Helsinki: World Institute for Development Economics Research. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590148.003.0008]
5. Beall J (2007). Cities, terrorism and urban wars of the 21st century (Working paper No: 9, Series 2). London: Crisis States Research Center. [Link]
6. Beall J, Goodfellow T, Rodgers D (2013). Cities and conflict in fragile states in the developing world. Urban Studies. 50(15):3065-3083. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0042098013487775]
7. Bosetti L, Ivanovic A, Munshey M (2016). Fragility, risk, and resilience: A review of existing frameworks (Background Paper). New York: United Nations University Centre for Policy Research. [Link]
8. Call CT (2010). Beyond the 'Failed State': Toward conceptual alternatives. European Journal of International Relations. 17(2):303-326. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1354066109353137]
9. Carment D, Prest S, Samy Y (2010). Security, development and the fragile state: Bridging the gap between theory and policy. 1st Edition. London: Routledge. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9780203873977]
10. Cattaneo C, Peri G (2016). The Migration response to increasing temperatures. Journal of Development Economics. 122:127-146. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2016.05.004]
11. Chawla A (2017). Climate-induced migration and instability: The role of city governments (Research Discussion Paper). Vienna: One Earth Future Research. [Link] [DOI:10.18289/OEF.2017.016]
12. Collier P (2019). A new approach to state fragility. In: Coulibaly BS, editor. Foresight Africa (Top priorities for the continent in 2019). Washington DC: Brookings Institution. pp. 60-61. [Link]
13. Commins SK (2011). Urban fragility and security in Africa (Africa security brief No: 12). Washington DC: Africa Center for Strategic Studies. [Link]
14. De Boer J (2015). Can cities drive sustainable development in fragile and conflict-affected states?. Tokyo: United Nations University Center for Policy Research. Available from: http://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:3238#viewMetadata. [Link]
15. De Boer J (2016). Risk, resilience, and the fragile city. In: Sanderson D, Kayden J, Leis J, editors. Urban disaster resilience: New dimensions from international practice in the built environment. 1st Edition. London: Routledge. [Link]
16. De Boer J, Muggah R, Patel R (2016). Conceptualizing city fragility and resilience (Working report No: 5). New York: United Nations University Center for Policy Research. [Link]
17. De Boer J (2022). The fragile city. In: Powell M, editor. The climate city. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 279-288. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/9781119746294.ch17]
18. Devex (2016) [Internet]. Development specialists must get to grips with fragile cities [Cited 2023, 17 April]. Available from: https://www.devex.com/news/development-specialists-must-get-to-grips-with-fragile-cities-87538 [Link]
19. DFID (2005). Why we need to work more effectively in fragile states. London: Department for International Development. [Link]
20. Eskandari N, Zarabadi ZSS, Habib F (2021). A Systematic review of the fragile city concept. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development. 11(4):29-40. [Link]
21. Eskandari N, Zarabadi ZSS, Habib F (2023). Explaining the stimuli affecting the fragility of metropolises with the approach of structural analysis (Case Study: The Metropolitan City of Tehran). Journal of Geography and Environmental Hazards. In Press. [Persian] [Link]
22. Firouzjaian AA, Firouzjaian M, Petroudi Hashemi SH, Gholamrezazadeh F (2012). Application of interpretive structural modeling technique in tourism studies (analysis with pathological approach). Journal of Tourism Planning and Development. 2(6):129-159. [Persian] [Link]
23. FSI (2017). Fragile states index and CAST framework methodology. Washington DC: Fund for Peace. [Link]
24. Ganson B, Wennmann A (2016). Business and conflict in fragile states: The case for pragmatic solutions. 1st Edition. London: Routledge. [Link]
25. Global Agenda Council on Fragility, Violence & Conflict (2016). Responsible investment in fragile contexts. Geneva: World economic forum. [Link]
26. Grävingholt J, Ziaja S, Kreibaum M (2015). Disaggregating state fragility: A method to establish a multidimensional empirical typology. Third World Quarterly. 36(7):1281-1298. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/01436597.2015.1038340]
27. Independent Commission on Multilateralism(ICM) and International Peace Institute(IPI) (2015). Fragile states and fragile cities (independent commission on multilateralism). Discussion paper. [Link]
28. internetworldsstats (2022) [Internet]. Information Communications Technologies [cited: 2023 April 7]. Available from: https://www.internetworldstats.com/links10.htm [Link]
29. Climate-diplomacy (2019) [Internet]. SDG11 on cities- what can its role be in foreign policy and sustaining peace? [cited: 2023 April 7]. Available from: https://www.climate-diplomacy.org/news/sdg11-%E2%80%93-what-role-it-foreign-policy-and-sustaining-peace [Link]
30. Landry C, Burke T (2014). The fragile city & the risk nexus. Gloucestershire: Comedia. [Link]
31. Laniran TJ (2018). Capital flows and economic growth: Does the role of state fragility really matter for sustainability? In: fobi UR, Asongu S, editors. Financing sustainable development in Africa. London: Palgrave Macmillan Cham. 145-173. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-78843-2_7]
32. McAuliffe M, Ruhs M, editors (2018). World migration report 2018. Geneva: International Organization for Migration (IOM). [Link] [DOI:10.1002/wom3.1]
33. Mcloughlin C (2009). Topic guide on fragile states. Birmingham: Governance and Social Development Resource Centre. [Link]
34. Miklos M, Paoliello T (2017). Fragile cities: a critical perspective on the repertoire for new urban humanitarian interventions. Contexto Internacional. 39(3):545-568. [Link] [DOI:10.1590/s0102-8529.2017390300005]
35. American Planning Association (2018) [Internet]. why cities? from fear-based interventions to sustainable solutions [Cited 2023, 10 May]. Available from: https://apapase.org/oct-17-why-cities-from-fear-based-interventions-to-sustainable-solutions/ [Link]
36. Muggah R, Jutersonke O (2012). Rethinking stabilization and humanitarian action in fragile cities. In: Perrin B, editor. Modern warefare (Armed groups, private militaries, humanitarian organizations and the law). Toronto: UBC Press. pp:311-327. [Link]
37. Muggah R (2013). The fragile city arrives. E-International Relations. Unknown Volume, issue, and pages. []
38. Muggah R (2014) .Deconstructing the fragile city: exploring insecurity, violence, and resilience. Environment and Urbanization. 26(2):345-358. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0956247814533627]
39. Foreign Affairs (2015) [Internet]. Fixing fragile cities: Solutions for urban violence and poverty [Cited 2023, 17 April]. Available from: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/africa/2015-01-15/fixing-fragile-cities [Link]
40. Muggah R (2017). These are the most fragile cities in the world-and this is what we've learned from them. Canada: Canadian Global Affairs Institute. [Link]
41. Newgeography (2020) [Internet]. Demographia world urban areas, 2020: Tokyo lead diminishing. California: Delore Zimmerman [cited 2023, 17 April]. Available from: https://www.newgeography.com/content/006693-demographia-world-urban-areas-2020-tokyo-lead-diminishing#:~:text=For%20the%20first%20time%20in,38.0%20million%20(Figure%201) [Link]
42. Nogueira JP (2017). From failed states to fragile cities: redefining spaces of humanitarian practice. Third World Quarterly. 38(7):1437-1453. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/01436597.2017.1282814]
43. OECD (2010). Conflict and fragility: Monitoring the principles for good international engagement in fragile states and situations. Country Report 4: Haiti. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Link]
44. OECD (2012). Redefining urban: A new way to measure metropolitan areas. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1787/9789264174108-en]
45. Okeke FO, Eziyi IO, Udeh CA, Ezema EC (2020). City as habitat: Assembling the fragile city. Civil Engineering Journal. 6(6):1143-1154. [Link] [DOI:10.28991/cej-2020-03091536]
46. Raleigh C (2015). Urban violence patterns across African states. International Studies Review. 17(1):90-106. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/misr.12206]
47. Rice SE, Patrick S (2008). Index of state weakness in the developing world. Washington DC: Foreign Policy at Brookings Institution. [Link]
48. Rodgers D (2010). Urban violence is not (necessarily) a way of life: towards a political economy of conflict in cities. Working Paper No: 20. Helsinki: World Institute for Development Economics Research. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590148.003.0013]
49. Rotberg RI, editor (2003). When states fail: causes and consequences. New Jeresy: Princeton University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1515/9781400835799]
50. Rüttinger L, Smith D, Stang G, Tänzler D, Vivekananda J et al. (2015). A new climate for peace - taking action on climate and fragility risks. Berlin/London/Washington/Paris: adelphi, International Alert, The Wilson Center, EUISS. [Link]
51. Safran P, Sugiyarto G (2014). Fragility index for a differentiated approach. Metro Manila: Asian Development Bank Publication. [Link]
52. Selby JD, Desouza KC (2019). Fragile cities in the developed world: A conceptual framework. Cities. 91:180-192. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2018.11.018]
53. Siegle J (2011). Stabilising fragile states. Global Dialogue. 13(1): Unknown pages. [Link]
54. Stewart F, Brown G (2010). Fragile states: CRISE Overview 3. Oxford: Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity (CRISE). [Link]
55. Toly N, Tabory S (2016). 100 Top economies: Urban influence and the position of cities in an evolving world order.Chicago: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. [Link]
56. UN Habitat (2016). Urbanization and development: emerging futures. World cities report. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme (Un-Habitat). [Link]
57. USAID (2005). Fragile states strategy. In: USAID, Washington DC. 2005 [Link]
58. Vivekananda J (2020). The fragility of cities. United Nations Association-UK (UNA-UK). 2020 [Link]