Volume 34, Issue 4 (2019)
GeoRes 2019, 34(4): 455-469 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2019/02/13 | Accepted: 2019/09/7 | Published: 2019/12/21
Received: 2019/02/13 | Accepted: 2019/09/7 | Published: 2019/12/21
Rights and permissions
1- Department of Urban Planning, Architecture & Urban Design Faculty, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract (2753 Views)
Aims & Backgrounds: The most important consequences of climate change are the occurrence of drought in different parts of the world (especially Iran), which has encountered urban and rural settlements with various crises. One of the ways to deal with this phenomenon is to plan a Disaster (Drought) Risk Reduction plan that is part of a crisis-specific agenda for urban planning and management. The purpose of this study is to identify, measure, and prioritize the effects of drought on habitation in Isfahan; and present strategic planning agendas resulting from compatible and prioritized scenarios derived from the Analysis of Interconnected Decision Area related to reducing the risk of drought crisis.
Methodology: In this descriptive-analytical research, at first, by using delphi technique, the effective factors on habitation activity were identified, and in the next step, these impacts were assessed through social scrolling using a residents’ questionnaire in Isfahan with 384 samples by non-random quota sampling. Twenty impact which have higher mean score, extracted and then by entering into the process of the problematic strategic spatial planning process and applying the Analysis of Interconnected Decision Area techniques, compatible and prioritized scenarios of the program are designed. It should be noted that during the above-mentioned step, the scenarios are prioritized based on the results of semi-quantitative risk assessment.
Findings: The results indicate that the impacts of “river drying and madies”, “the dissatisfaction and distrust between civil society and decision makers”, “life expectancy transformation”, “air quality change” and “increased physical health vulnerability” are highest risk of habitation in Isfahan.
Conclusion: The top scenario among the nine areas of decision-making areas consists of eight areas including “urban design”, “vitality”, “public participation”, “urban management”, “modern technologies”, “physical health” and “lifestyle”.
Methodology: In this descriptive-analytical research, at first, by using delphi technique, the effective factors on habitation activity were identified, and in the next step, these impacts were assessed through social scrolling using a residents’ questionnaire in Isfahan with 384 samples by non-random quota sampling. Twenty impact which have higher mean score, extracted and then by entering into the process of the problematic strategic spatial planning process and applying the Analysis of Interconnected Decision Area techniques, compatible and prioritized scenarios of the program are designed. It should be noted that during the above-mentioned step, the scenarios are prioritized based on the results of semi-quantitative risk assessment.
Findings: The results indicate that the impacts of “river drying and madies”, “the dissatisfaction and distrust between civil society and decision makers”, “life expectancy transformation”, “air quality change” and “increased physical health vulnerability” are highest risk of habitation in Isfahan.
Conclusion: The top scenario among the nine areas of decision-making areas consists of eight areas including “urban design”, “vitality”, “public participation”, “urban management”, “modern technologies”, “physical health” and “lifestyle”.
References
1. Arambepola M, Rahman A, Karunaratne P, Dewi A, Fernando N, Kumar A (2010). Risk Assessment in Cities. Washington, D.C: USAD (United State Agency International Development.)
2. Buurman J, Mens M, Dahm R (2016). Strategies for urban drought risk management: A comparison of 10 large cities. International Journal of Water Resources Development. 33(1):1-21. [DOI:10.1080/07900627.2016.1138398]
3. Barreau T, Conway D, Haught K, Jackson R, Kreutzer R, Lockman A, et al (2017). Physical, mental, and financial impacts from drought in two California counties, 2015. American Journal of Public Healt. 107(5):783-790. [DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303695] [PMID] [PMCID]
4. Christina C (2014). Drought planning in Ingland: A primer. England: Oxford.
5. Daneshpoor Z (2006). An introduction to planning theories with special reference to urban planning theories. Tehran: Shahid Beheshty University.
6. Dumbravă V, Iacob VS (2013). Using probability impact matrix in analysis and risk assessment projects. Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology. Special Issue. 76-96.
7. Fatemi M, Karami E (2010). A case study of the causes and effects of drought. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Promotion and Education. 2(6):77-97.
8. Fu X, Tang Z, Wu J, McMillan K (2013). Drought planning research in the United States: An overview and outlook. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. 4(2):51-58. [DOI:10.1007/s13753-013-0006-x]
9. Ghasemi Nejad S, Soltani S, Soffianian A (2014). Drought risk assessment in Isfahan province. Journal of Water and Soil Science. 18(68):213-226.
10. Hanafi Zadeh P, Arabi SM, Hashemi A (2006). Robuts strategic planning using scenario planning and fuzzy inference system. Journal Management Research in Iran. 10(20):137-170. [Persian]
11. Jensen O (2005). Branding the contemporary city urban branding as regional growth agenda? Plenary paper for Regional Studies Association Conference. 2005, 28-31 May: Aalborg. pp. 1-37.
12. Iglesias A, Cancelliere A, Gabiña D, López-Francos A, Moneo M, Rossi G, editors (2011). Drought management guidelines. European Commission EuropeAid Cooperation Office & Euro-Mediterranean Regional Programme for Local Water Management (MEDA Water) & Mediterranean Drought Preparedness and Mitigation Planning (MEDROPLAN).
13. Isfahan Municipality (2016). Isfahan Statistics Booklet, Land and Climate. Department of Planning, Research and Information Technology. Isfahan: Isfahan Municipality. [Persian]
14. Kavoosi F, Saberi A, Rangzan k, Hosein Zadeh M (2018). Analyzing the level of risk in urban areas for crisis management after earthquake using FAHP method in GIS, case study: 1th district of Ahvaz. Geography and Development Iranian Jounral. 16(50):161-180.
15. Keshavarz M, Karami E, Vanclay F (2012). The social experience of drought in rural Iran. Land Use Policy. 30(1):120-129. [DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.003]
16. Knutson C, Hayes M, Phillips T (1998). How to reduce drought risk. Lincoln, Nebraska: National Drought Mitigation Center.
17. Lange B, Holman L, Bloomfield J (2017). A framework for a joint hydro-meteorological-social analysis of drought. Science of the Total Environment. (578):297-306. [DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.145] [PMID]
18. Memar Emamye M, Barghi H (2016). Drought effects on the rural economy structure case study: Golab village, Kashan. Journal of Rural Planning and Research. 5(1):137-148.
19. Norouzi Khatiri K, Omidvar B, Malek Mohammadi B, Ganjeei S (2013). Multi hazards risk analysis of damage in urban residential areas case study: Earthquakeand flood hazards in Tehran-Iran. Journal of Geography and Environmental Hazards. 2(7):53-68.
20. Pour Mohammadi M (2015). Land use planning. Tehran: SAMT. [Persian]
21. Sayah Mofazali A, Sahfi N (2010). The methodology of risk management model within crisis management of municipal area the case study: Evaluation of semi_quantitive risk and radar model in determination of risk earthquake amounts, in Tehran 13th municipality. Journal of Urban Management Studies. 2(2):43-69.
22. Tadesse T, Wardlow B, Brown J, Svoboda M, Hayes M, Fuchs B, et al (2015). Assessing the vegetation condition impacts of the 2011 drought across the U.S. southern Great Plains using the vegetation drought response Index (VegDRI). Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. 54:153-170. [DOI:10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0048.1]
23. UNISDR (2007). Drought risk reduction framework and practices: Contributing to the implementation of the Hyogo framework for Action. Geneva: United Nations secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR).
24. UNISDR (2014). Urban Risk Reduction and Resilience. Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
25. UNISDR & NDMC (2009). Drought risk reduction framework and practices: Contributing to the implementation of the Hyogo framework for Action. Geneva, Switzerland, Nebraska: United Nations secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) in partnership.
26. Wilhite D, Svoboda M, Hayes M (2007). Understanding the complex impacts of drought: A key to enhancing drought mitigation and preparedness. Water Resources Management. 21(5):763-774. [DOI:10.1007/s11269-006-9076-5]
27. Working Group (2005). Disaster risk reduction tools and methods for climate change adaptation. Inter-Agency Task Force on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction.
28. Zaheri M, Talebifard R, Khaleghi A (2016). Semi-quantitative risk assessment of drought risk management model, case study: Village Dolatabad city of Jirofrt. Arid Regions Geographic Studies. 6(21):30-49.
29. Zarafshani K, Sharafi L, Azadi H, Passel S (2016). Vulnerability assessment models to drought: Toward a conceptual framework. Sustainability. 8(6):588. [DOI:10.3390/su8060588]