Analysis of the Effects of Urban Sprawl on Social Vulnerability (Case Study: Qazvin City Districts)

Subject Areas : urban planning

Esfandiar Zebardast ¹ (Professor of Urban & Regional Planning, Department of Urban Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.)
Hossein Ghanouni ² (PhD., Urban & Regional Planning, Department of Urban Studies, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.)

Received: 2018-10-24 Accepted : 2019-04-22 Published : 2023-04-21

Keywords: Keywords: Urban Sprawl, Regression Analysis, Qazvin, Social Vulnerability, Factor analysis,

Abstract :

Iran is a country prone to earthquakes in which so many cities have experienced earthquakes in far and near past. Although there is a high potential for earthquakes to be destructive, the level of losses and damages of them is not solely dependent on the magnitude and the location of the earthquake, or physical aspects of buildings and urban areas. In the analysis of the impacts of natural hazards, three broad categories have been defined: 1) focus on natural hazard's biophysical impacts because of the place it occurs; 2) focus on hazard's impacts on societies that experience the hazard because of the social characteristics of those societies and 3) an approach that takes into account both of impacts. This article takes the second approach to analyze the effects of natural hazards. In this approach, social characteristics of the communities and societies, in which earthquake happens, come to center stage. Social vulnerability is one of the important aspects of earthquake risks and consequences. In addition, the progress of communication and transportation technologies and an increase in agricultural production surplus because of the Industrial Revolution has caused many rural settlers to migrate to cities. The increasing population raise in cities has led to many economic, social and environmental consequences, of which excessive horizontal and leapfrog development (which is called urban sprawl in scientific literature) is one. In this article urban sprawl is defined as: "unplanned, far-from-center and automobile-accessed growth of cities which has environmental, economic and social effects and is characterized by low density, segregation of land-uses and limited accessibility". In this research, at first theoretical literature of urban sprawl and social vulnerability were reviewed and the indicators for measuring them were chosen (13 for urban sprawl and 7 for social vulnerability) and the relevant data for Qazvin was extracted by using national census data and Geographic Information System (GIS). Then explorative factor analysis for eigenvalues bigger than 1 was conducted by using SPSS software and the indicators for sprawl were categorized into 4 factors: “density”, “configuration”, “land-use” and “accessibility” (70.22% of variance explained), and the indicators for social vulnerability were grouped in 1 factor: social vulnerability (66.9% of variance explained). Then the maps for each factor of sprawl and two main topics (sprawl and social vulnerability) were made. The correlation analysis was conducted on four factors of sprawl, social vulnerability factor (which is representative of social vulnerability altogether) and sprawl as a whole. The results show that from 4 factors of sprawl, just density factor has a significant correlation (0.801) with social vulnerability. Sprawl is also significantly (although weaker) correlated to social vulnerability (0.44). In addition, regression analysis showed that four factors of sprawl can explain 67.6% of the variance of social vulnerability. The relation between social vulnerability and density/sprawl is positive/negative, i.e. by an increase in density/decrease in sprawl, social vulnerability increases. Finally, the maps of sprawl and social vulnerability in Qazvin city districts and the map of potential districts for development are shown based on the correlation of sprawl and social vulnerability. 

References:

1. احدنژاد روشتی، محسن. (1389). ارزیابی آسیب‌پذیری اجتماعی شهرها در برابر زلزله. نمونه موردی: شهر زنجان. مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری و منطقه‌ای. 2 (7)، 90- 71.


2. افتخاری، عبدالرضا؛ قدیری، محمود؛ پرهیزکار، اکبر؛ و شایان، سیاوش. (1388). تحلیلی بر دیدگاه‌های نظری آسیب‌پذیری جامعه نسبت به مخاطرات طبیعی. فصلنامه مدرس علوم انسانی، 13 (1)، 62-29.


3. زارع چاهوکی، محمدعلی. (1389). روش‌های تحلیل چند متغیره در نرم افزار SPSS، تهران: دانشکده منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران.


4. زبردست، اسفندیار. (1390). درسنامه روش‌های برنامه‌ریزی شهری و منطقه‌ای 2، تهران: دانشکده شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران.


5. زبردست، اسفندیار؛ وحبیبی، سارا. (1388). بررسی پدیده پراکنده‌رویی و علل آن در شهر زنجان. هنرهای زیبا، 38، 124- 115.


6. زنگی‌آبادی، علی ؛ و تبریزی، نازنین. (1385). زلزله‌های تهران و ارزیابی آسیب‌پذیری مناطق شهری. پژوهش‌های جغرافیایی، 56، 130- 115.


7. شماعی، علی؛ عظیمی، آزاده؛ و فرجی ملایی، امین. (1390). بررسی و تحلیل سلسله مراتب آسیب‌پذیری محلات شهر بابلسر به منظور کاهش خطرات زلزله. تحقیقات کاربردی علوم جغرافیایی، 20، 128-107.


8. شمس، مجید؛ معصوم‌پور سماکوش، جعفر؛ سعیدی، شهرام؛ و شهبازی، حسین. (1390). بررسی مدیریت بحران زلزله در بافت‌های فرسوده شهر کرمانشاه. مطالعه موردی: محله فیض‌آباد. آمایش محیط، 4 (13)، 66-41.


9. عزیزی، محمدمهدی؛ و اکبری، رضا. (1387). ملاحظات شهرسازی در سنجش آسیب‌پذیری شهرها از زلزله، هنرهای زیبا، 34، 36-25.


10. فرج زاده اصل، منوچهر؛ احدنژاد، محسن؛ و امینی، جمال. (1390). ارزیابی آسیب‌پذیری مساکن شهری در برابر زلزله، مطالعه موردی : منطقه 9 تهران، مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری و منطقه‌ای، 3 (9)، 38-19.


11. قدیری، محمود؛ و رکن‌الدین افتخاری، عبدالرضا (1392). رابطه ساخت اجتماعی شهرها و میزان آسیب‌پذیری در برابر خطر زلزله. مطالعه موردی: محلات کلانشهر تهران. جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی محیطی، 24 (2)، 174-153.


12. قدیری، محمود؛ رکن‌الدین افتخاری، عبدالرضا، شایان، سیاوش؛ و پرهیزکار، اکبر (1391). تبیین تمرکز اجتماعی-فضایی آسیب‌پذیری شهر تهران در برابر زلزله. برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا،16 (3)، 54-31.


13. منزوی، مهشید؛ سلیمانی، محمد؛ تولایی، سیمین؛ و چاووشی، اسماعیل (1389). آسیب پذیری بافت‌های فرسوده بخش مرکزی شهر تهران در برابر زلزله (مورد: منطقه 12)، پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، 42 (73)، 18-1.


14. مهندسین مشاور شهر و برنامه. (1384). طرح توسعه و عمران و حوزه نفوذ شهر قزوین. قزوین.


15. Adger, W.N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268-81.


16. Anderson, M.B. (2000). Vulnerability to Disaster and Sustainable Development: A General Framework for Assessing Vulnerability In R. Jr., Pielke, & R. Sr., Pielke (Eds.), Storms (Vol. 1, pp. 11-25). London: Routledge.


17. Angel, Sh. (2007). Urban Sprawl Metrics: An Analysis of Global Urban Expansion Using GIS. ASPRS Annual Conference, Florida.


18. Bengston, D. N., Potts, R. S., Fan, D. P., & Goetz, E. G. (2005). An analysis of the public discourse about urban sprawl in theUnited States: Monitoring concern about a major threat to forests, Forest Policy and Economics 7, 745-756.


19. Birkmann, J. (2009). New Systemic Risks and High Vulnerability of Megacities: What We Can Learn from Recent Disasters?, United Nations University & University of Bonn Workshop in Taipei.


20. Birkmann, J. (2007). Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environmental Hazards, 7 (1), 20-31.


21. Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters. London: Routledge.


22. Bogart, W. T. (2006). Don’t call it Urban Sprawl: Metropolitan structure in the 21^st century. New York: Cambridge University Press.


23. Borden, K. A., Schmidtlein, M. C., Emrich, C. C., Piegorsch, W. W. & Cutter, S. L. (2007). Vulnerability of U.S. Cities to Environmental Hazards. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 4 (2), 1-21.


24. Burchell, R. W., Shad, N.A., Listokin, D., Phillips, H., Downs, A., Seskin, S., Davis, J.S., Moore, T., Helton, D., & Gall, M. (1998). The Costs of Sprawl-Revisited. Transportation Research Board. Washington D.C: National Academy Press.


25. Burchfield M., Overman, H. G., Puga, D., & Turner, Matthew A. (2006). Causes of Sprawl: A Portrait from Space. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2): 587-633.


26. Cannon, T. (2008). Reducing People’s Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. United Nations University, UNU-WIDER, Research Paper No. 2008/34.


27. Cardona, O.D., Carreno, M., & Barbat A.H. (2007). Urban Seismic Risk Evaluation: A Holistic Approach. Natural Hazards, 40, 137-172.


28. Cardona, O. D. (2005). Indicators of Disaster Risk & Risk Management: Program for Latin America & the Caribbean. Summary Report for WCDR, Manizales – Colombia.


29. Carreno M.L., Cardona, O.D., & Barbat, A.H. (2007). A Disaster Risk Management Performance Index. Natural Hazards, 41(1), 1-20.


30. Cutsinger J., & Galster, G. (2006). There is No Sprawl Syndrome: A New Typology for Metropolitan Land Use Patterns. Urban Geography, 27, 228-252.


31. Cutter, S.L., Mitchell, J.T., & Scott, M.S. (2000). Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown Country, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(4), 713-737.


32. Cutter, S. L., & Emrich, C. T. (2006). Moral Hazard Social Catastrophe: The Changing Face of Vulnerability along the Hurricane Coasts. ANNALS, AAPSS, 604.


33. Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 242-281.


34. Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster Resilience Indicators for Benchmarking Baseline Conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 7 (1), 1-22.


35. Deal, B., & Schunk, D. (2004). Spatial dynamic modeling and urban land use transformation: A simulation approach to assessing the costs of urban sprawl. Ecological Economics, 51(1):79-95.


36. Dunning, M. C. (2009). Social Vulnerability Analysis Methods for Corps Planning. Draft Report.


37. El Nashai, A. S., Jefferson, T., Friedrich, F., Cleveland, L. J., & Gress, T. (2009). Impact of New Madrid Seismic Zone Earthquakes on the Central USA. Mid America Earthquake Center Report No. 09-03.


38. Ewing, R., Brownson, R., & Berrigan D. (2006). Relationship between Urban Sprawl and Weight of U.S. Youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31, 464-474.


39. Ewing, R. H. (1994). Characteristics, Causes, and Effects of Sprawl: A Literature Review. Research for Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Florida, US.


40. Ewing, R., Pendall, R., & Chen, D. (2002). Measuring Sprawl and Its Impacts. Washington D. C.: Smart Growth America Institte.


41. Frenkel, A., & Ashkenazi, M. (2008). The integrated sprawl index: Measuring the urban landscape in Israel. Annals of Regional Science, 42(1), 99-121.


42. Gaillard, J. C., & Cadag, J. D. (2009). From marginality to further marginalization: Experiences from the victims of the July 2000 Payatas trashslide in the Philippines. Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 2(3), 197-215.


43. Galster, G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M.R., Wolman, H., Coleman, S., & Freihage, J. (2001). Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 681-717.


44. Habibi, S., & Asadi N. (2011). Causes, Results and Methods of Controlling Urban Sprawl. International Conference on Green Buildings and Sustainable Cities.


45. Hajibabaee, M., Amini Hosseini, K., & Ghayamghamian, M.R. (2014). Assessing the Risk of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology. Seconnd European Conference on Earhquake Engineering & Seismology. Istanbul, Aug. 25-29.


46. Hall, S. G., & Walker, S. A. (2009). Effects of Urban Sprawl on the Vulnerability to a Significant Tornado Impact in Northeastern Illinois. Natural Hazards Review, ASCE, 209-219.


47. Hewitt, K. (1997). Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters, London: Longman.


48. Jaret, Ch., Ghadge, R., Williams Reid, L., & Adelman, R. M. (2009). The Measurement of Suburban Sprawl: An Evaluation. City & Community, 8(1), 65-84.


49. Kahn, M. E. (2001). Does Sprawl Reduce the black/white Housing Consumption Gap?. Housing Policy Debate, 12(1), 77-86.


50. Khazaei, B., Kilic, O., Basmaei, A., Konukcu, B., Sungay, B., Zeidan, A., & Wenzel, F. (2008). Megacity Indicators System for Disaster Risk Management-Implementation in Istanbul. Megacity Istanbul Project Reports Municipality Disaster Management Center (AKOM), Istanbul, Turkey.


51. Lang, R. E. (2000). Office Sprawl: The Evolving Geography of Business. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.


52. Nechyba, T. J., & Walsh, Randall P. (2004). Urban Sprawl. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(4), 177-200.


53. Newman, P.W.G., & Kenworthy, J.R. (1989). Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook. Aldershot, Uk: Gower.


54. Patacchini, E., & Zenou, Y. (2009). Urban Sprawl in Europe. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs.


55. Schmidtlein, M. C., Deutsch, R. C., Piegorsch, W. W., & Cutter, S. L. (2008). A sensitivity analysis of the social vulnerability index. Risk Analysis ,28 (4), 1099-1114.


56. Tapsell, S., McCarthy, S., Faulkner, H., & Alexander, M. (2010). Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards. CapHaz-Net WP4 Report, Flood Hazard Research Centre – FHRC, Middlesex University, London (available at: http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results/CapHaz-Net_WP4_Social-Vulnerability.pdf).


57. Terzi, F., & Bolen, F. (2009). Urban Sprawl Measurement of Istanbul. European Planning Studies, 17(10), 1559-1570.


58. Torrens, P. M. (2006). Simulating Sprawl. Annals of Association of American Geographers ,96(2), 248-275.


59. Vincent, K., & Cull, T. (2010). A Household Social Vulnerability Index (HSVI) for Evaluating Adaptation Projects in Developing Countries. PEGNet Conference: Policies to foster and sustain equitable development in times of crises, Midrand, 2-3rd September 2010.


60. Zhang, T. (2001). Community features and urban sprawl: the case of the Chicago metropolitan region. Land Use Policy ,18(3), 221-232.