پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 154 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 5,833 |
| تعداد مقالات | 64,016 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 106,273,380 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 83,169,102 |
بررسی ابعاد و شاخص‌های مؤثر در سنجش تاب‌آوری بافت‌های تاریخی- تجاری در برابر مخاطرۀ زلزله با نگرش ویژه بر بازارهای سنتی | ||
| مدیریت مخاطرات محیطی | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 7، شماره 3، مهر 1399، صفحه 265-280 اصل مقاله (718.71 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: پژوهشی کاربردی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jhsci.2020.308455.588 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| رضوان مؤدب1؛ کامبد امینی حسینی* 2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری مهندسی عمران- مهندسی زلزله، پژوهشگاه بین‌المللی زلزله‌شناسی و مهندسی زلزله | ||
| 2دانشیار و رئیس پژوهشکدة مدیریت خطرپذیری و بحران، پژوهشگاه بین‌المللی زلزله‌شناسی و مهندسی زلزله | ||
| چکیده | ||
| ارتقای تاب‌آوری بافت‌های تاریخی- تجاری، از اقدامات اساسی برای کاهش خسارات مخاطرات طبیعی نظیر زلزله است. برای این منظور در گام اول باید وضعیت تاب‌آوری این بافت‌ها در برابر مخاطرات طبیعی براساس عوامل مؤثر بر آن ارزیابی شود. در این مقاله شاخص‌های مؤثر در شناخت تاب‌آوری بازارهای سنتی که از ارزش زیادی از نظر اجتماعی، فرهنگی و اقتصادی در کشور برخوردارند، مطالعه شده است. بدین منظور ابعاد فیزیکی، اقتصادی، اجتماعی و سازمانی تاب‌آوری در این بافت‌ها در قالب 42 زیرشاخص شناسایی و دسته‌بندی شده‌اند. جنبه‌های فرهنگی– تاریخی نیز به‌عنوان بُعد جدید معرفی و در هشت زیرشاخص دسته‌بندی شده‌اند. در مجموع 50 زیرشاخص اصلی در هفده شاخص و پنج بُعد بررسی شده است. در گام بعدی، وزن‌های این ابعاد و شاخص‌ها و زیرشاخص‌ها به‌منظور مشخص شدن تأثیر هر یک در تاب‌آوری این بافت‌ها، به روش تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی (AHP) تعیین شده است. نتایج این ارزیابی نشان می‌دهد که بُعد اجتماعی در تاب‌آوری بازارهای سنتی دارای بیشترین ضریب وزنی است و باید برای ارتقای تاب‌آوری در بازارهای سنتی به این بُعد توجهی ویژه مبذول شود. همچنین زیرشاخص‌های دارای بیشترین اهمیت عبارت‌اند از: 1. کاربری بناها؛ 2. ارزش اقتصادی ملک و اجناس داخل مغازه‌ها؛ 3. انطباق‌پذیری و پویایی گروه‌های مختلف برای بازیابی پس از زلزله؛ 4. قابلیت اجرای اقدامات بهسازی؛ 5. تجارب قبلی و آمادگی؛ 6. تمایل برای پرداخت وجه به‌منظور کاهش ریسک؛ 7. درآمد؛ 8. آموزش‌های کسب‌شده در زمینۀ کاهش ریسک؛ 9. آسیب‌پذیری شبکۀ راه‌ها. نتیجۀ این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که تنها توجه به ارتقای یک شاخص یا صرفاً بهبود شاخص‌های فیزیکی (همچون کاهش آسیب‌پذیری ساختمان‌ها)، لزوماً بهترین گزینه برای ارتقای تاب‌آوری بازارهای سنتی نیست. از نتایج این مطالعه می‌توان برای تعیین اولویت‌های بهسازی بخش‌های مختلف بازارهای سنتی پیش از رخداد زلزله استفاده کرده و مؤثرترین مداخلات قابل اجرا را برای ارتقای تاب‌آوری اجرا کرد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| بازار سنتی؛ بافت تاریخی- تجاری؛ زلزله؛ شاخص تاب‌آوری؛ مدیریت مخاطرات | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| An investigation on effective dimensions and indicators in measuring resilience of historic-commercial urban fabrics against earthquake hazards with a special view to traditional Bazaars | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Rezvan Moaddab1؛ Kambod Amini Hosseini2 | ||
| 1Ph.D Student in Earthquake engineering, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology | ||
| 2Associate Professor and Director, Risk Management Research Center, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| INTRODUCTION To determine the status of resilience, a wide range of subjects should be considered and studied. For this purpose, at first, the presented resilience models should be evaluated. Amongst the existing resilience models, in Baseline Resilience Index Conditions (BRIC) model introduced by Cutter et al. in 2010 [1], community resilience is categorized into five dimensions: social, economic, institutional, infrastructural, and community capital. In Climate Disaster Resilience Index (CDRI) model introduced by Shaw et al. in 2009 [6], the five main dimensions of resilience are introduced in as social, economic, institutional, physical, and natural. MCEER report [5] introduced a resilience model named PEOPLES, which evaluates resilience of communities in seven main dimensions of population and demographics, environmental/ecosystem, organized governmental services, physical infrastructures, lifestyle and community competence, economic development, and social/cultural capital. In 2015, Khazaei et al. in 2015 [2] in the Disaster Resilience Index model (DRI), introduced the effective indicators of resilience in five dimensions of legal and institutional, awareness and capacity building, critical, critical services, infrastructure resiliency, development planning regulation, and risk mitigation using Disaster Resilience Index model (DRI). Ostad Taghizadeh Ostadtaghizadeh and Ardalan [4] have also studied the effective indicators in disaster resilience of communities in Tehran in six dimensions: institutional, economic, cultural, social, physical, and environmental. Thus, the main and common fields of resilience are physical, economic, social, and institutional dimensions; which were previously introduced by Bruneau in 2003 [7]. On the other hand, the consequences of destructive earthquakes such as Bam (Iran, 2003), Sumatra (Indonesia, 2004), Tohoku (Japan, 2011), and many other cases have depicted that the occurrence of natural disasters usually affects valuable historical fabrics, including traditional Bazaars. However, the existing models introduced above cannot be utilized to assess the resilience in these historic and cultural urban fabrics. Therefore, due to the special characteristics of traditional Bazaars, it is necessary to develop appropriate models based on specific characteristics of these urban fabrics. In such models, different characteristics of bazaars such as type, age, and importance of buildings from a physical point of view, population density in different hours and delinquency rate from a social perspective, ownership, wealth density, and valuable goods from an economical point of view, and social capital from cultural perspective should be formulated. Besides, historic commercial parameters should be also considered. MATERIAL AND METHOD In this paper, a set of indicators were selected to evaluate the resilience of traditional bazaars. Some of these parameters were chosen from the previous general resilience models and other related indicators. After eliminating duplicated or overlapping items, 136 indicators were selected and classified into five categories. Then a questionnaire was prepared based on this list and was distributed amongst the relevant specialists to evaluate the importance of each indicator. Based on the results, those indicators that the level of agreement for them was 50% or more were chosen for entering into the final list of indicators. At this stage, by removing 50 indicators from 136 indicators, 86 items remained. By merging a number of them according to their similarities, the final number of indicators was reduced to 50 in five dimensions: physical, economic, social, and institutional, historical-cultural aspects. To determine the weight of dimensions, indicators, and sub-indicators, a questionnaire-based survey was conducted. For this purpose, 45 experts in relevant fields were selected. Then, based on the results and by using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), the weight of indicators and sub-indicators were determined, accordingly. WEIGHTS OF SELECTED INDICATORS The social aspects of resilience in Bazaar were introduced as the most important dimension from the perspective of the first group of specialists (university professors) and the physical dimension was selected by the second group (professional experts). The physical and economic dimensions were also chosen as the most important aspects based on the opinion of the third group (graduate students in the relevant fields). By calculating the final weights, it was observed that the social, physical, and economic dimensions are the most important, respectively. In the physical dimension, almost all three groups selected the vulnerability of buildings as the most important index. Therefore, the final weight of 62.2% has been calculated for the vulnerability of the buildings index. Similarly, in the economic dimension, the economic value of the business with a weight of 71.1% has the highest degree of importance among the three economic indicators. Unlike the previous two dimensions, in the institutional dimension, this agreement was not observed among the three groups. Therefore, the strength and diversity of organizational structures index with a final weight of 36.8% has been identified as the most effective index among the four institutional indicators. Among the social indicators, the preparedness level index and the population structure index with the final weights of 37.6% and 31.1% were selected as the most important indices in the model, respectively. In the cultural-historic dimension, the index of cultural values with a final weight of 47.2% was the most effective. Figure 1 shows the final weights of the most effective indices of the resilience in historic-commercial urban fabrics. Prioritization of sub-indices based on their weights shows that the most effective factor in the resilience of these fabrics against earthquakes is the building use indicator with a weight of 11.3%. Indicator of building use is a criterion that shows the type of activity of each unit, including commercial (textiles, bags and shoes, carpets, jewelry, paint and glue, cosmetics, food, home, and industrial equipment and ....), warehouse, school, religious, and residential use. Then sub-indicators such as the economic value of property and goods, adaptability and dynamics for post-earthquake recovery, improvement and retrofitting of buildings in each zone, previous experiences and preparedness, belief and sensitivity to earthquake risk and willingness to pay to earthquake risk reduction, per capita income level compared to the city average, training on risk reduction, the vulnerability of road network have the highest degree of importance in the resilience model. The total weight of the nine indices mentioned above is equal to 0.532, which is more than 50% of the total weight coefficients of the 50 sub-indices introduced in the model. Fig. 1. Ranking of first 13 resilience sub-indicators based on the final weights CONCLUSION This paper presents new indicators for the assessment of the resilience in traditional bazaars, as important historic – commercial urban fabrics. It was depicted that many indicators and sub-indicators should be considered for the resilience assessment of these fabrics; some of them may not be considered in ordinary urban fabrics. The degree of importance of each dimension, indicator, and sub-indicator from the perspective of three different groups of experts was somewhat different, which is mostly due to their attitude to the concept of resilience. Therefore, a combination of different opinions was considered to determine the impact factor and weight of each item. The conducted survey also depicted that the social dimension has the highest weight in the resilience of traditional Bazaars. Therefore, investment in improving social conditions may have the best efficiency in promoting the resilience of these fabrics to natural disasters such as earthquakes. Accordingly, the priorities for interventions in these fabrics can be determined. This may reveal also how to allocate funds to promote resilience in these fabrics, appropriately. The results of this study also showed that focusing solely on improving specific dimensions of resilience or merely focusing on improving physical indicators (such as reducing the vulnerability of buildings) is not necessarily the best option for improving the resilience of traditional Bazaars. Furthermore, it should be considered that the rehabilitation of historical urban fabrics often faces many complexities due to the historical and cultural value of those fabrics that cannot be changed, easily. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Resiliency Index, Historical-Commercial Fabrics, Traditional Bazaars, Hazards Management, Earthquake | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
[1]. اسدزاده تره‌باری، سیمین؛ امینی حسینی، کامبد؛ و حسینی، محمود؛ (1396). «مدل ارزیابی و کاهش خطرپذیری زلزله در بافت‌های تاریخی، مطالعۀ موردی: بازار تاریخی اردبیل»، صفه، جلد 27، شمارۀ 79، ص 91-77. [2]. ابراهیم‌زاده، محسن (1388). پیامدهای جمعیتی زلزله در نواحی روستایی آسیب دیده، نامه انجمن جامعه شناسی، جلد 4، شماره 7، ص 5-34. [3]. ذوالفقاری، محمدرضا (1390). «جایگاه مدلسازی و تخمین خسارات و تلفات سوانح در مدیریت ریسک و بحران سوانح طبیعی»، پژوهشنامۀ زلزله‌شناسی و مهندسی زلزله، جلد 14، شمارۀ 2-1، ص 73-61. [4]. رازقی، علیرضا؛ و درخشانی، نجلا (1396). تاب‌آوری کالبدی و عملکردی در بازار تاریخی تهران، مرمت و معماری ایران (مرمت آثار و بافت‌های تاریخی فرهنگی)، جلد 7، شمارۀ 13، ص 151-135. [5]. رضایی، محمدرضا؛ حسینی، سیدمصطفی؛ و حکیمی، هادی (1391). «برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی مدیریت بحران در بافت تاریخی شهر یزد با استفاده از مدلSWOT»، مدیریت بحران، جلد 1، شمارۀ 1، ص 44-35. [6]. رضایی، محمدرضا (1392). «ارزیابی تاب‌آوری اقتصادی و نهادی جوامع شهری در برابر سوانح طبیعی، مطالعۀ موردی: زلزله محله‌های شهر تهران»، مدیریت بحران، جلد 2، شمارۀ 3، ص 36-25. [7]. زنگی‌‌‌‌آبادی، علی؛ علی‌زاده، جابر؛ و رنجبرنیا، بهزاد (1391). «برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی برای سامان‌دهی بازارهای سنتی ایران (مطالعۀ موردی: بازار سنتی تبریز)»، مطالعات شهر ایرانی اسلامی، جلد 2، شماره 7، ص 26-13. [8]. شادی‌طلب، ژاله (1373). «جامعه‌شناسی فاجعه: تجربۀ زلزلۀ رودبار- منجیل، نامۀ انجمن جامعه‌شناسی، جلد 1، شمارۀ 3، ص 48-31. [9]. صالحی، اسماعیل؛ آقابابایی، محمدتقی؛ سرمدی، هاجر؛ و فرزادبهتاش، محمدرضا (1390). «بررسی میزان تاب آوری محیطی با استفاده از مدل شبکۀ علیت، محیط شناسی»، جلد 37، شمارۀ 59، ص 112-99. [10]. منوریان، عباس؛ امیری، مجتبی؛ و مهری‌کلی، سیمین (1397). «شناسایی مؤلفه‌های اثر گذار بر افزایش میزان تاب‌آوری اجتماعی محلات آسیب‌پذیر و دارای بافت فرسوده در مواجهه با حوادث طبیعی (شهر موردی: تهران)»، مطالعات مدیریت شهری، جلد 10، شمارۀ 34، ص 26-13. [11]. نوریان، علی‌محمد (1381). «بلایای طبیعی و مدیریت ریسک»، همایش علمی- تحقیقی مدیریت امداد و نجات، دورۀ 1. [12]. وهاب‌زاده، میترا (1394). «تحلیلی بر اهمیت مدیریت شهری براساس شاخص‌های مدیریتی بافت تاریخی، نمونۀ موردی: بافت تاریخی شهر تبریز»، کنفرانس بین‌المللی پژوهش‌های نوین در عمران، معماری و شهرسازی، دورۀ 1. [13]. Adger, W. Neil (2000). “Social and ecological resilience: are they related?”, Progress in human geography, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp: 347-364. doi: 10.1191/030913200701540465 [14]. Bhakta Bhandari, Roshan. (2014). “Social capital in disaster risk management; a case study of social capital mobilization following the 1934 Kathmandu Valley earthquake in Nepal”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp: 314-328. doi: 10.1108/DPM-06-2013-0105 [15]. Buckle, Philip; Mars, Graham; & Smale, Syd (2000). “New approaches to assessing vulnerability and resilience”, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp: 8-14. ISSN:1324-1540 [16]. Cutter, Susan L.; Burton, Christopher G.; & Emrich, Christopher T. (2010). “Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions”, Journal of homeland security and emergency management, Volume 7, Issue 1, doi: 10.2202/1547-7355.1732 [17]. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.; & Martin, Jeffrey A. (2000). “Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic management journal, Volume 21, Issue 10-11, 1105-1121. doi: 10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/113.0.CO;2-E [18]. Hosseini, Kambod A.; Hosseini, Maziar; Izadkhah, Yasamin O.; Mansouri, Babak; & Shaw, Tomoko (2014). “Main challenges on community-based approaches in earthquake risk reduction: case study of Tehran, Iran”, International journal of disaster risk reduction, Volume 8, pp: 114-124. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.03.001 [19]. Khazai, Bijan; Bendimerad, Fouad; Cardona, Omar D.; Carreño, Martha L.; Barbat, Alex H.; & Buton, CG (2015). A guide to measuring urban risk resilience: Principles, tools and practice of urban indicators. Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative (EMI), The Philippines, ISBN-978-621-95288-0-1. [20]. Mayunga, Joseph S. (2009). Measuring the measure: A multi-dimensional scale model to measure community disaster resilience in the US Gulf Coast region. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2009-05-769. ISBN:1109330278 [21]. Mili, Robabeh R.; Hosseini, Kambod A.; & Izadkhah, Yasamin O. (2018). “Developing a holistic model for earthquake risk assessment and disaster management interventions in urban fabrics”, International journal of disaster risk reduction, Volume 27, pp: 355-365. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.10.022 [22]. Norris, Fran H.; Stevens, Susan P.; Pfefferbaum, Betty; Wyche, Karen F.; & Pfefferbaum, Rose L. (2008). “Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness”, American journal of community psychology, Volume 41, Issue 1-2, pp: 127-150. doi: 10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6 [23]. Ostadtaghizadeh, Abbas; Ardalan, Ali; Paton, Douglas; Khankeh, Hamidreza; & Jabbari, Hossain (2016). “Community disaster resilience: a qualitative study on Iranian concepts and indicators”, Natural Hazards, Volume 83, Issue 3, pp: 1843-1861. doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2377-y [24]. Pourjafar, Mohammad; Nazhad Ebrahimi, A.; & Ansari, Mojtaba (2013). “Effective factors in structural development of Iranian Historical Bazaars, case study: Tabriz Bazaar”, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp: 272-282. ISSN: 2090-4304 [25]. Renschler, Chris S.; Frazier, Amy E.; Arendt, Lucy A.; Cimellaro, Gian P.; Reinhorn, Andrei M.; & Bruneau, Michel (2010). A framework for defining and measuring resilience at the community scale: The PEOPLES resilience framework: MCEER Technical Report -MCEER-10-006, University at Buffalo. Report number: GCR 10-930. [26]. Shaw, Rajib, Team, IEDM (2009). “Climate disaster resilience: focus on coastal urban cities in Asia”, asian Journal of environment and disaster Management (AJEDM), Volume 1, pp: 101-116. doi: 10.3850/S179392402009000088 [27]. Tierney, Katheleen; & Bruneau, Michel (2007). “Conceptualizing and measuring resilience: A key to disaster loss reduction”, TR news, Issue 250, pp: 14-17. ISSN: 0738-6826. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 380 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 179 |
||