Nedaei, A; Seyednaghavi, M; Firouzfar, M and Zamani, N (2022) A comparative study of urban resilience in coping with the crisis in the metropolises of Tehran and Mashhad. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 13(1), pp. 51-71. ISSN 1759-5916
Abstract
Purpose: In recent years, cities have been facing economic, social and environmental crises that need to be prevented and dealt with. The new subject that has been brought up to improve city resistance to crises is urban resilience. The purpose of this study is to compare the resilience of Tehran and Mashhad to identify the strengths and weaknesses of these two cities for better planning in critical situations. Design/methodology/approach: The research methodology is a comparative survey. The importance of the subject was manifested through a literature review. A questionnaire is designed using “the Rockefeller Foundation and ARUP’s model” and the Delphi method for testing 21 research hypotheses to evaluate resilience in the two cities (12 Delphi questionnaires and 232 urban resilience questionnaires). The data is analyzed using independent samples t-test by SPSS software. Findings: The results show that both the cities are weak in terms of resilience indicators and sub-indicators, but Mashhad is more resilient than Tehran. Originality/value: This paper compares urban resilience in Iran for the first time through a comparative study between two metropolises in the country. The Delphi method also is used for the first time (in Iranian case studies) to obtain the dimensions of urban resilience. By comparing the two cities, we can better understand their strengths and weaknesses.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Delphi; independent-samples t-test; Mashhad; resilience; Tehran; urban resilience |
| Index terms: | methodology, questionnaire, urban resilience, resilience indicator, literature review, survey, comparative study, coping, research methodology, dimension, testing, Delphi method, case study, Tehran |
| Subjects: | research methods, Geography, behavioral psychology, risk assessment, data collection methods, research design and methodology, sustainability and resilience, data analysis and analytics, professional practice, health monitoring assessment and metrics |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here