Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 34, Issue 3 (2019)
GeoRes 2019, 34(3): 369-376 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2019/05/20 | Accepted: 2019/08/5 | Published: 2019/09/7
Received: 2019/05/20 | Accepted: 2019/08/5 | Published: 2019/09/7
How to cite this article
Zangiabadi A, Dadbood A. Prioritization of Effective Factors on Vulnerable Areas of Physical Texture of Gorgan City, Iran. GeoRes 2019; 34 (3) :369-376
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-744-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-744-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 Geography & Urban Planning, Faculty of Geographic Sciences & Planning, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2- Department of Geography & Urban Planning, Faculty of Geographic Sciences & Planning, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2- Department of Geography & Urban Planning, Faculty of Geographic Sciences & Planning, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract (3168 Views)
Aims & Backgrounds: Physical indicators of urban texture such as the age of buildings, microstructure, number of floors and type of building materials have a determinant role in the intensity and extent of the cities vulnerability in the face of earthquakes. Many Iranian cities are located on areas with moderate and high risk of earthquakes. Hence, Special attention to the elements qualities and physical indicators of urban spaces can dramatically reduce the incidence of environmental disasters in Iranian cities. The Gorgan city has 360,000 inhabitant’s population and 3,600 hectares’ area in 2016 that is located on earthquake areas with a relatively high risk. Accordingly, the present research, seeks to vulnerable zones determination of Gorgan city texture in terms of physical indicators and prioritization of affecting physical indicators on its vulnerability.
Methodology: The research is applied and method is descriptive-analytical. The method of data collection is documentary. Four categories of criteria were used to determine the physical vulnerability of urban blocks in Gorgan. For each criterion, the indices were evaluated using AHP, ANP and VIKOR models. Finally, using the VIKOR model, the final composition and physical layer of physical vulnerability of Gorgan were calculated.
For this purpose, this study have used models such as AHP, ANP and VIKOR.
Findings: Based on VIKOR model results, the highest degree of physical vulnerability is belonging to the central and somewhat southern regions of the city of Gorgan. Meanwhile, the eastern, western and north parts of the city have a better condition. Based on ANP model results, material, building age, number of classes and micro fracture indices, have the highest impact on urban vulnerability assessment of Gorgan, respectively. However, the value of each of these indicators is 0/422, 0/224, 0/176, and 0/126 respectively.
Conclusion: The center of the city of Gorgan is more vulnerable than its surroundings. This is due to worn-out and old materials of city center. On the other hand, the northern and western texture of Gorgan are in the better situation.
Methodology: The research is applied and method is descriptive-analytical. The method of data collection is documentary. Four categories of criteria were used to determine the physical vulnerability of urban blocks in Gorgan. For each criterion, the indices were evaluated using AHP, ANP and VIKOR models. Finally, using the VIKOR model, the final composition and physical layer of physical vulnerability of Gorgan were calculated.
For this purpose, this study have used models such as AHP, ANP and VIKOR.
Findings: Based on VIKOR model results, the highest degree of physical vulnerability is belonging to the central and somewhat southern regions of the city of Gorgan. Meanwhile, the eastern, western and north parts of the city have a better condition. Based on ANP model results, material, building age, number of classes and micro fracture indices, have the highest impact on urban vulnerability assessment of Gorgan, respectively. However, the value of each of these indicators is 0/422, 0/224, 0/176, and 0/126 respectively.
Conclusion: The center of the city of Gorgan is more vulnerable than its surroundings. This is due to worn-out and old materials of city center. On the other hand, the northern and western texture of Gorgan are in the better situation.
Keywords:
References
1. Alavi SA, Hosseini SM, Bahrami F, Ashourlu M (2017). Urban textures vulnerability assessment using ANP and GIS case study: Semirom City. Quarterly of Geographical Data. 25(100):129-146.
2. Bazi K, Sadeghi N, Shakoii AK, Rezaii H (2017). An analysis of vulnerability indicators of urban settlements against earthquake case study: Gorgan City. Geographical Planning of Space Quarterly Journal. 7(5):73-88. [Persian]
3. Burton I, Kates R W, White G F (1978). The environment as hazard. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Chafe Z (2007). Reducing natural disaster risk in cities, State of The World: Our urban future. New York: Norton.
5. Chuanglin F, Yan W, Jiawen F (2016). A comprehensive assessment of urban vulnerability and its spatial
6. differentiation in China. Journal of Geographical Sciences¬. 26¬(2):153-170.
7. Chambers R (1989). Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, coping and policy. IDS Bulletin. 20(2):1-7. [DOI:10.1111/j.1759-5436.1989.mp20002001.x]
8. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly. 84(2):242-261. [DOI:10.1111/1540-6237.8402002]
9. Ebert A, Kerle N, Stein A (2009). Urban social vulnerability assessment with physical proxies and spatial metrics derived from air- and spaceborne imagery and GIS data. Natural Hazards. 48(2):275-294. [DOI:10.1007/s11069-008-9264-0]
10. Ge Y, Dou W, Zhang H (2017). A new framework for understanding urban social vulnerability from a network perspective. Sustainability. 9(10):1723. [DOI:10.3390/su9101723]
11. Habibi K, Javanmardi K (2015). Analysis of urban textures instability and zoning of earthquake vulnerability using GIS & AHP, case study: Part of the central core of Sanandaj¬. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development journal. 11:293-305.
12. Iran's Statistics Center [Internet]. Tehran: Iran's Statistics Center [Published 2017, 21 December
13. Cited 2019, 28 September]. Available from: https://www.amar.org.ir/english.
14. Janssen MA (2007). An update on the scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Ecology and Society.12(2):9. [DOI:10.5751/ES-02099-120209]
15. Janssena MA, Schoon ML, Ke W, Börner K (2006). Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerabilit and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Global Environmental Change. 16(3):240-252.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.003]
16. Kazeminia A, MirmandiParizi S (2017). Vulnerability zoning of Kerman city buildings against earthquake using GIS. Journal of Surveying Engineering and Spatial Information. 8(3):31-47.
17. Khoshfar G, Bargahi R, Karami S (2015). Social Capital and Urban Sustainability case study: Gorgan city. Urban Studies Journal. 2(8):31-46.
18. Krellenberg K, Welz J, Link F, Barth K (2016). Urban vulnerability and the contribution of socio environmental fragmentation: Theoretical and methodological pathways. Progress in Human Geography: 41(4):408-431. [DOI:10.1177/0309132516645959]
19. Lianxiao A, Morimoto T (2019). Spatial analysis of social vulnerability to floods based on the MOVE framework and information entropy method: Case study of Katsushika Ward, Tokyo. Sustainability. 11(2):529. [DOI:10.3390/su11020529]
20. Liverman DM (1990). Vulnerability to Global environmental change. In: Kasperson RE, editor. Understanding Global Environmental Change. Worcester: Center for Technology, Environment, and Development, Clark University. p. 27-44.
21. Maleki S, Mouvadat A, Firouzi MA (2019). Evaluation and ranking of urban vulnerability against earthquake with Topsis and GIS case study: Yazd City. Quarterly Spatial Planning. 18(3):99-124.
22. Mirkatoli J, Hosseini SMH (2015). Land suitability assessment in Gorgan City for infill development using the combination of AHP and GIS. Urban Studies Journal. 3(9):69-80.
23. Niyongabire E, Rhinane H (2019). Geospatial techniques use for assessment of vulnerability to urban flooding in Bujumbura city. Proceeding of the 5th International Conference on Geoinformation Science - GeoAdvances; 2018, 10-11 October; Casablanca, Morocco. [DOI:10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-4-W12-147-2019]
24. O'Hare G, Rivas S (2005). The landslide hazard and human
25. vulnerability in La Paz City. Bolivia. Geographical Journal. 171(3):239-258.
26. Rufat S, Tate E (2015). Social vulnerability to floods: Review of case studies and implications for measurement. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 14(4):470-486. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.09.013]
27. Rashed T, Weeks J (2003) Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multicriteria analysis of urban areas. International Journal of Geographical Information Scienc. 17(6):547-576. [DOI:10.1080/1365881031000114071]
28. Sayami Q, Taghinejad K, Zahedi Kalaki A (2015). Urban zone seismic pathology using inverse hierarchy analysis (IHWP) and GIS case study of Gorgan City. Journal of Urban Structure and Functional Studies. 3(9):43-63. [Persian]
29. Sen A (1981). Famines and poverty. London: Oxford University Press.
30. Swift J (1989). Why are rural people vulnerable to famine? IDS Bulletin. 20(2):8-15. [DOI:10.1111/j.1759-5436.1989.mp20002002.x]
31. Singh SR, Eghdami MR, Singh S (2014). The concept of social vulnerability: A review from disasters Perspectives.
32. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies.1(6):71-82.
33. Török I (2018). Qualitative assessment of social vulnerability to flood Hazards in Romania. Sustainability. 10( 10):3780. [DOI:10.3390/su10103780]
34. Turner BL, Matsond PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N, et al (2003). Illustrating the coupled human environment system for vulnerability analysis, three case studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 100(14):8080-8085. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1231334100] [PMID] [PMCID]
35. World Bank (WB) (2010). Natural hazards unnatural disasters: The economics of effective prevention. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Washington, DC: The World Bank. [DOI:10.1596/978-0-8213-8050-5]
36. White GF, Haas, J E (1974). Assessment of research on natural hazards. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
37. Younus M (2017). An assessment of vulnerability and adaptation to cyclones through impact assessment guidelines: A bottom-up case study from Bangladesh coast. Natural Hazards. 89(3):1437-1459 [DOI:10.1007/s11069-017-3027-8]
Send email to the article author