Multi-faceted and multi-scale characteristics of disaster resilience in Tehran

This is because that the northern areas have appropriate conditions in terms of quality of buildings and social conditions. But southern and central areas have many difficulties regarding these issues. As stated in Chapter 3, most of urban deteriorated textures are located at the central and southern parts of the city. These areas are known with three specific characteristics including fine - grained textures, hard accessibility, and instable buildings that have made them high vulnerable and less resilient.

Equally, regarding the social dynamic conditions, northern areas are better than southern.

5.2.2 Urban land use & dependent population

The second dimension of disaster resilience within the study area is “urban land use and dependent population”. On contrary to the first dimension, the northern regions are less resilient than southern and western in terms of this composite indicator (Figure 5-6). The main reason for this perspective is the environmental attractiveness and high demand for lands in these areas. During the last three decades, the most of urban vertical developments and therefore, population increasing have been happened in these areas. Obviously, these trends have caused to over population and high building density which made them less resilient and high vulnerable against earthquake hazard. Figure 5-7 is the representation of this dimension on the scale of urban sub-regions.

Figure 5-5Built environment & social dynamic dimension of disaster resileince in urban sub-regions

Figure 5-6 Urban land use and dependent population dimension of disaster resilience in urban regions

Figure 5-7 Urban land use and dependent population dimension of disaster resilience in urban sub-regions

5.2.3 Socio-cultural capacity

The socio-cultural capacity dimension (Figure 5-8) shows the higher levels of resilience in the east and the least level in the west regions. However, is tis obvious that the northern and also the eastern regions have better conditions rather than western and southern regions.

The difference is mostly based on the distribution of the adaptive capacity indicators as well as religious & cultural land use, the ratio of large to small businesses, and recreational & entertainment land use. The results clearly depict a different pattern of disaster resilience within the study area and demonstrate that socio-cultural capacities such as those considered in this dimension have undeniable role in enhancing or decreasing of disaster resilience level within social communities.

Figure 5-9 also represents the level of this disaster resilience dimension on the scale of urban sub-regions. Those sub-regions located in the northwest, southwest, and partially sought have the least inherent resilience, while sub-regions in the north, east, and partially center contain the most resilience.

Figure 5-8 Socio-cultural capacity dimension of disaster resilience in urban regions

5.2.4 Life quality

Considering the life quality dimension of resilience (Figure 5-10), the northern regions have also better condition comparing with the southern regions. Although the term life quality is applied by various disciplinarians, in urban studies is used to describe the relationship, and the dynamics that exist between residents and those physical features. The explanatory indictors of this dimension include level of neighborhood relationship, belonging sense to the neighborhood, per capita household income, and the number of critical resistant infrastructures.

The spatial distributions of disaster resilience of this dimension is close to the first dimension (built environment and socio dynamics). There is no high resilient urban region and the regions of 9 and 19 are the less resilient regions. Figure 5-11 also represents the level of this disaster resilience dimension on the scale of urban sub-regions. Sub-regions in the center, and southwest have the least inherent resilience, while those located in the north, and northeast have the most resilience.

Figure 5-9 Socio-cultural capacity dimension of disaster resilience in urban sub-regions

Figure 5-10 Life quality dimension of disaster resilience in urban regions

Figure 5-11 Life quality dimension of disaster resilience in urban sub-regions

5.2.5 Open space

The open space dimension shows the highest levels in the west and the lowest levels in the south and center of the city (Figure 5-12). The regions 21 and 22 are the latest developed regions in Tehran and therefore, the percent of non-built-up-areas are more than the other regions. None-built-up areas in this study include urban green spaces as well as parks, unused lands, and high ways. Number of schools is the other individual indicators of this dimension that has better condition in the north and west parts of the city.

In total, the lowest levels of disaster resilience in this dimension belong to the regions 6, 20, 12, 15, and 16. Figure 5-13 also represents the level of this disaster resilience dimension in the scale of urban regions. Sub-regions in the sought east, and center have the least inherent resilience, while sub-regions in the west, and sought west show the most resilience.

Figure 5-12 Open space dimension of disaster resilience in urban regions

5.2.6 Social capital

A different patterns of disaster resilience in Tehran comes from the social capital dimension. While the southern regions show low level of resilience in the spatial distribution of disaster resilience and also most of its underlying dimensions, they have reflected an unexpected pattern regarding this dimension. The individual indicators of this dimension include satisfaction level of neighborhood’s residents from local council, and the ratio of social trust. This is because that there is a negative and inverse relationship between education level, social class, and social trust (Musai, et al., 2014). As mentioned in Section 5.2.1, the social dynamic shows highest levels in the northern areas and the difference between the northern and southern parts of the city is noticeable.

It is also discussed that that basic trust among young people is high than elders (Zebardast, et al., 2013). The Figure 5-5 showed that the percent of elderly (+65) populations in the northern regions are more than the southern, and therefore, the highest levels of this dimension is seen in the southern region of the city. However, as the Figure 5-14 indicates, the regions 20 is the more resilient region and the regions of 6 and 10 are the less resilient. Figure 5-15also represents the level of this disaster resilience dimension in the scale of urban sub-regions. Urban areas in the north, and center show the least inherent resilience, while sub-regions in the sought, and mid-west contain the most resilience.

Figure 5-13Open space dimension of disaster resilience in urban sub-regions

Figure 5-14 Social capital dimension of disaster resilience in urban regions

Figure 5-15 Social capital dimension of disaster resilience in urban-sub-regions

5.2.7 Emergency infrastructure

The individual indicators of this dimension include accessibility to police stations, fire stations, and existing emergency response plan. The results for the region scales show that there is just one low resilient region in this dimension and most of the urban regions are classified as moderate and relatively resilient areas (Figure 5-16).

Figure 5-17 also presents the level of disaster resilience in this dimension on the scale of sub-regions.

In total, sub-regions do not follow any special pattern. Those areas that are located in the east, north, and southwest reflect the least inherent resilience, while sub-regions in the northeast, and mid-west show the most resilience (Figure 5-17).

Figure 5-16 Emergency infrastructure dimension of disaster resilience in urban regions

5.2.8 Economic structure

In terms of the economic structure dimension of disaster resilience (Figure 5-18), nearly 50 % of regions are moderate resilient and the northern regions have relatively better conditions. However, the spatial distribution of this dimension does not follow a similar pattern as others. The lowest levels of economic resilience are found in the region 22 and the highest levels in region 7.

Figure 5-19 is also the distribution pattern of this dimension on the sub-regions scale. The results indicated that sub-regions in the northwest contain the least inherent resilience, while those located in the center, mid-west, northeast show the most resilience.

Figure 5-17 Emergency infrastructure dimension of resilience in urban sub-regions

Figure 5-18 Economic dimension of disaster resilience in urban regions

Figure 5-19 Economic structure of disaster resilience in urban sub-regions