بررسی تطبیقی عوامل تبیین‌کننده‌ی تاب‌آوری در بافت‌های جدید و قدیم شهری (مطالعه موردی: کلان‌شهر تبریز)

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی، کاربردی، تحلیلی‌ ـ ‌توصیفی، پیمایشی

نویسندگان

• رضا بشارتی ¹
• ایرج تیموری ²
• حسن محمودزاده ³

¹ دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، پردیس خودگردان دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران.

² استادیار گروه جغرافیا، دانشکده جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی محیطی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران.

³ دانشیار گروه جغرافیا، دانشکده جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی محیطی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران.

https://doi.org/10.22067/jgusd.2022.74678.1161

چکیده

با توجه به وجود مستمر بحران‌ها و مخاطرات و افزایش آسیب‌های ناشی از آنها بر شهرها، در عصر حاضر مفهوم تاب‌آوری شهری به یک اجماع جهانی برای دستیابی به توسعه‌ی پایدار شهری تبدیل شده است. در این راستا، به‌منظور برنامه‌ریزی و تحقق شهر تاب‌آور، اولین قدم شناسایی وضعیت ابعاد و مؤلفه‌های این رویکرد در فضاها و بافت‌های مختلف شهری محسوب می‌گردد. با توجه به اهمیت موضوع، هدف از پژوهش حاضر شناسایی عوامل تبیین‌کننده‌ی تاب‌آوری و بررسی میزان مطلوبیت ابعاد مختلف آن در بافت جدید و قدیم کلان‌شهر تبریز می‌باشد. بنابراین، روش تحقیق از نظر هدف کاربردی و از منظر ماهیت اکتشافی-تطبیقی بوده که برای تجزیه و تحلیل اطلاعات از مدل‌سازی معادلات ساختاری در نرم‌افزار Amos استفاده شده است. جامعه‌ی آماری تحقیق نیز شامل شهروندان بافت جدید و قدیم شهر تبریز بوده که بر مبنای فرمول کوکران 384 نفر به‌عنوان حجم نمونه تعیین گردیده است. یافته‌های تحقیق حاکی از آن است که مهمترین عوامل تبیین‌کننده‌ی تاب‌آوری در بافت قدیم شهر تبریز عوامل فردی، اجتماعی و مدیریتی-نهادی به ترتیب با ارزش 63/0، 61/0 و 54/0 و در بافت جدید شهر عوامل کالبدی-زیست‌محیطی، اقتصادی و مدیریتی-نهادی به ترتیب با ارزش 77/0، 72/0 و 69/0 می‌باشد. همچنین نتایج نشان می‌دهد که بافت جدید شهری از منظر استحکام سازه‌ای و کالبد در وضعیت مطلوب‌تری قرار داشته، درحالی‌که بافت قدیمی دارای سرمایه‌های انسانی و اجتماعی مناسب‌تری می‌باشد. این موضوع ناشی از نظام مدیریتی حاکم یعنی تکنوکرات‌گرا بوده که اثرات مختلفی بر روی بافت‌های قدیم و جدید شهر داشته است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• تاب‌آوری
• بافت قدیم
• بافت جدید
• معادلات ساختاری
• کلان‌شهر تبریز

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative Study of Explanatory Factors of Resilience in New and Old Urban Textures (Case Study: Tabriz Metropolis)

نویسندگان [English]

• Reza Besharati ¹
• iraj teymuri ²
• Hasan Mahmoudzadeh ³

¹ Ph.D. Student of Architecture, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Tabriz University Autonomous Campus, Tabriz, Iran.

² Assistant Professor, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran.

³ Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract

Introduction

Due to the continuous existence of crises and dangers and the increasing pressures and damages caused by them on cities, in the present era, the concept of urban resilience has become a global consensus to achieve sustainable urban development. In this regard, in order to plan and realize a resilient city, the first step is to identify the dimensions and components of this approach in different urban spaces and contexts. Therefore, considering the importance of planning resilient cities in the present era and the need to recognize and assess the current situation, this study tried to identify the factors explaining the resilience and the desirability of its various dimensions in the new and old texture of Tabriz metropolis. It can be said that currently we are witnessing the polarization of most cities in the form of new and old textures. The old texture of today’s cities, due to the low value of investment and the shift of economic values to other areas of the city, has suffered a decline in environmental quality in various dimensions. On the other hand, the spatial changes of recent years in the spatial structure of cities have caused the new urban textures to be in a more favorable condition in terms of economic, physical, and infrastructure indicators. This can also be seen in the resilience of cities.  

Method

The applied study is of exploratory-comparative nature. The structural equation modeling in Amos software was used for the data analysis. The statistical population of this study included citizens of the new and old textures of Tabriz metropolis, out of whom 384 people were selected as members of the sample based on the Cochran's formula.

Results and discsussion

The results showed that the most significant factors explaining resilience in the old texture of Tabriz are individual, social and managerial-institutional factors. The coefficients extracted from the structural model for each factor is 0.63, 0.61 and 0.54, respectively. Moreover, among the sub-variables, the most explanatory factors of resilience are related to the variables of the importance of the place of residence and the sense of belonging, sense of social responsibility in the face of crisis and the importance of health and safety of others in society, as well as helping neighbors and other citizens, necessary and positive thinking about problems, and the ability to create different solutions with a value of 0.73, 0.71 and 0.65, respectively. Unlike the old texture, the most important factors explaining resilience in the new texture of Tabriz are physical-environmental, economic and managerial-institutional factors The coefficients derived from the structural model for each is 0.77, 0.72 and 0.69, respectively. Also, among the sub-variables, the most explanatory factors for resilience in the new texture are related to the variables of the strength of buildings and infrastructure, elasticity of passages, income and its continuity and permanence with values 0.91, 0.85 and 0.82, respectively.

Conclusion

The results on three old neighborhoods of Tabriz (Rasteh Koocheh, Nobar and Koocheh-Bagh neighborhoods) and three new neighborhoods of the city (Yaghchian, Marzdaran and Roshdieh neighborhoods) showed that the construction of new neighborhoods are plan-based. Previously, these neighborhoods have been in a favorable condition in terms of physical resilience. In these neighborhoods, access to rescue services, structural strength, etc., has made their physical resilience in a more favorable situation than the old parts of the city with the deterioration of buildings, infrastructure, lack of elasticity of roads, etc. In terms of social and individual resilience, the old texture is in a better condition than the new texture, and this is due to the high level of sense of belonging as well as social relations and interactions in the these neighborhoods. In terms of economic resilience, the new textures are in a better condition than the old textures in terms of land value, residents' incomes and the flow of investments. Finally, in the dimension of managerial-institutional resilience, we see unfavorableness in all levels of the city and different regions.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Resilience
• Old Texture
• New Texture
• Structural Equation
• Tabriz Metropolis

مراجع

1. باستانی، م.، و حنایی، ت. (1399). مطالعه‌ی تطبیقی تاب­آوری اجتماعی در راستای اهداف بازآفرینی شهری نمونه موردی: محلات ایران، فیلیپین و مالزی. شهر ایمن، 3(9)، 71-1.
2. پاشاپور، ح.، و پوراکرمی، م. (1396). سنجش ابعاد کالبدی تاب‌آوری شهری در برابر مخاطرات طبیعی (زلزله) (مطالعه موردی منطقه 12 شهر تهران). مطالعات برنامه‌ریزی سکونتگاه‌های انسانی، 12(41)، 1002-985.
3. ضرغامی، س.،تیموری، ا.، محمدیان، ح.،  و شماعی، ع. (1395). سنجش و ارزیابی میزان تاب‌آوری محله‌های شهری در برابر زلزله موردپژوهی: (بخش مرکزی شهر زنجان). پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 7(27)، 92-77.
4. غلامی، ح.، پناهی، ع.، و احمدزاده، ح. (1399). آینده‌پژوهی تاب‌آوری سکونتگاه‌های شهری در برابر مخاطرات محیطی با تأکید بر پاندمی کرونا (مطالعه موردی: شهر تبریز). مخاطرات محیطی، 7(36)، 199-179.

 

5. Acuti, D., Bellucci, M., & Manetti, G. (2020). Company disclosures concerning the resilience of cities from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) perspective. Cities, 99, 1-11.
6. Anderies, J.M., Folke, C., Walker, B., & Ostrom, E. (2013). Aligning key concepts for global change policy: robustness, resilience, and sustainability. Soc, 18, 1-8.
7. Batty, M. (2009). Cities as complex systems: scaling, interaction, networks, dynamics and urban morphologies. Berlin: Meyers, R.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, Springer.
8. Bene, C., Mehta, L., McGranahan, G., Cannon, T., Gupte, J., & Tanner, T. (2018). Resilience as a policy narrative: potentials and limits in the context of urban planning. Climate and Development, 10(2), 116–133.
9. Boschma, R. (2015). Towards an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience. Stud., 49(5), 733–751.
10. Botequilha-Leit˜ao, A., & Díaz-Varela, E. R. (2020). Performance based planning of complex urban social-ecological systems: The quest for sustainability through the promotion of resilience. Sustainable Cities and Society, 56, 1-14.
11. Bueno, S., Banulas, V.A., & Gallego, M.D. (2021). Is urban resilience a phenomenon on the rise? A systematic literature review for the years 2019 and 2020 using textometry. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 66, 1-14.
12. Campanella, T. J. (2006). Urban resilience and the recovery of New Orleans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(2), 141–146.
13. Chen, Y., Zhu, M., Zhou, Q., & Qiao, Y. (2021). Research on spatiotemporal differentiation and influence mechanism of urban resilience in China based on MGWR model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (3), 1–27.
14. Coaffee, J., Therrien, M.-C., Chelleri, L., Henstra, D., Aldrich, D. P., Mitchell, C. L., Rigaud, E., & et al. (2018). Urban resilience implementation: A policy challenge and research agenda for the 21st century. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(3), 403–410.
15. Croese, S., Green, C., & Morgan, G. (2020). Localizing the sustainable development goals through the lens of urban resilience: Lessons and learnings from 100 resilient cities and Cape Town. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2, 12-25.
16. Dong, X., Shi, T., Zhang, W., & Zhou, Q. (2020). Temporal and spatial differences in the resilience of smart cities and their influencing factors: Evidence from non-provincial cities in china. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(4), 1-13.
17. Frantzeskaki, N. (2016). Urban Resilincer, A concept for co-creating cities of the future. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands.
18. Fu, X., Hopton, M. E., & Wang, X. (2021). Assessment of green infrastructure performance through an urban resilience lens. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 1-11.
19. Gallopin, G, C. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16 (3), 293–303.
20. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23.
21. Huang, G., Li, D., Zhu, X., Zhu, J. (2021). Influencing factors and their influencing mechanisms on urban resilience in China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 74, 1-11.
22. Ingalls, M.L., & Stedman, R.C. (2016). The power problematic: exploring the uncertain terrains of political ecology and the resilience framework. Soc., 21, 1-11.
23. Jabareen, Y. (2013). Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. Cities, 31, 220–229.
24. Klein, R, J., Nicholls, R, J., & Thomalla, F. (2003). Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept? Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 5 (1–2), 35–45.
25. Li, G.J., Kou, C.H., Wen, F.H. (2021). The dynamic development process of urban resilience: From the perspective of interaction and feedback. Cities, 114, 1-20.
26. Ma, F., Wang, Z., Sun, Q., Yuen, K. F., Zhang, Y., & Xue, H. (2020). Spatial – Temporal evolution of urban resilience and its influencing factors: Evidence from the Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration. Sustainability, 12(7), 1-17.
27. MacKinnon, D., & Derickson, K, D. (2012). From resilience to resourcefulness: A critique of resilience policy and activism. Progress in Human Geography, 37(2), 253–270.
28. Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Landscape and urban planning defining urban resilience: A review. Urban Plan, 147, 38–49.
29. Mera, A. P., & Balijepalli, C. (2020). Towards improving resilience of cities: An optimisation approach to minimising vulnerability to disruption due to natural disasters under budgetary constraints. In Transportation, 47, 1-17.
30. Moloney, S., & Doyon, A. (2021). The Resilient Melbourne experiment: Analyzing the conditions for transformative urban resilience implementation. Cities, 110, 1-13.
31. Muller, M. (2007). Adapting to climate change: Water management for urban resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 99–113.
32. Porter, L., & Davoudi, S. (2012). The politics of resilience: A cautionary note. Planning Theory and Practice, 13(2), 329–333.
33. Ribeiro, P. J. G., Gonçalves, Pena Jardim, & L., A (2019). Urban resilience: A conceptual framework. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 1-14.
34. Roberts, D., Douwes, J., Sutherland, C., & Sim, V. (2020). Durban’s 100 resilient cities journey: Governing resilience from within. Environment and Urbanization, 32(2), 547–568.
35. Sajjad, M., Chan, J. C. L., & Chopra, S. S. (2021). Rethinking disaster resilience in high-density cities: Towards an urban resilience knowledge system. Sustainable Cities and Society, 69, 1-13.
36. Seeliger, L., & Turok, I. (2013). Towards sustainable cities: extending resilience with insights from vulnerability and transition theory. Sustain, 5, 2108–2128.
37. Shao, W., Su, X., Lu, J., Liu, J., Yang, Z., Mei, C., et al. (2021). Urban resilience of Shenzhen city under climate change. Atmosphere, 12(5), 1–21.
38. Spaans, M., & Waterhout, B. (2017). Building up resilience in cities worldwide—Rotterdam as participant in the 100 Resilient Cities Programme. Cities, 61, 109–116.
39. Sun, H. Zhen, F. Lobsang, T. Li, Z. (2019). Spatial characteristics of urban life resilience from the perspective of supply and demand: A case study of Nanjing, China. Habitat International, 88, 1-10.
40. Taylor, M. (2014). The political ecology of climate change adaptation: Livelihoods, agrarian change and the conflicts of development, first ed. London: Routledge.
41. Tobin, G. A. (1999). Sustainability and community resilience: The holy grail of hazards planning? Environmental Hazards, 1(1), 13–25.
42. (2012). How to make cities more resilient. In United Nations. Retrieved from papers2://publication/uuid/B373630D-8F1B-498A-AE60-0EF0E2D509E8.
43. Vale, L. J. (2014). The politics of resilient cities: Whose resilience and whose city? Res. Inf., 42(2), 191–201.
44. Wardekker, A., Wilk, B., Brown, V., Uittenbroek, C., Mees, H., Driessen, P., et al. (2020). A diagnostic tool for supporting policymaking on urban resilience. Cities, 101, 1-19.
45. Weichselgartner, J., & Kelman, L. (2014). Geographies of resilience: Challenges and opportunities of a descriptive concept, Progress in Human Geography. London: SAGE Publications.
46. Wu, Xia, Zhang, J., Geng, X., Wang, T., Wang, K., & Liu, S. (2020). Increasing green infrastructure-based ecological resilience in urban systems: A perspective from locating ecological and disturbance sources in a resource-based city. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61, 1-13.
47. Xun, X., & Yuan, Y. (2020). Research on the urban resilience evaluation with hybrid multiple attribute TOPSIS method: An example in China. Natural Hazards, 103(1), 557–577.
48. Yao, F., & Wang, Y. (2020). Towards resilient and smart cities: A real-time urban analytical and geo-visual system for social media streaming data. Sustainable Cities and Society, 63, 1-17.