واکاوی انتقادی مفهوم تاب آوری شهری از دیدگاه مناسبات قدرت نهادی

نوع مقاله : مقالات نظری و بنیادی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 استاد گروه شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

3 دانشیار گروه شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

بیان مساله: مفهوم تاب آوری یکی از مفاهیم تقریبا جدید در عرصه برنامه ریزی شهری می باشد که از بستر علوم اکولوژیکی وارد این عرصه شده است. غلبه رویکرد توصیفی در تحلیل این موضوع که ناشی از ذات محافظه کارانه و غیرسیاسی مفاهیم با پیش زمینه اکولوژیکی می باشد، مساله اصلی در کاربرد آن در سیستم های مختلط اجتماعی و اکولوژیکی مانند نواحی شهری می باشد.
هدف : هدف مقاله ارائه تحلیلی مفهوم تاب آوری شهری از دریچه روابط و مناسبات قدرت نهادی است تا از این طریق بتوان به چالش های مفهومی آن از بعد سیاسی دست یافته و دیدگاه کامل تری از آن را که تناسب بیشتری با خصوصیات نواحی شهری داشته باشد، ارائه کرد.
روش: روش پژوهش حاضر به صورت تحلیلی محتوا و بر مبنای داده های ماخذوه از اسناد کتابخانه ای می باشد.
یافته ها: اصلی ترین یافته تحقیق، تبیین ابعاد مختلف تحلیل سیاستی تاب آوری شهری و استخراج جهتگیری های سیاسی این مفهوم می باشد. در این راستا ارتباط متقابل بین تاثیر اهداف تاب آوری بر روی سیاست های قدرت نهادی از یک سو و تاثیر جریان سیاست گذاری های عمومی بر اهداف مذکور در نظر گرفته شده و مجموعه ای از معیارها و شاخص های تحلیل سیاستی تاب آوری ارائه شده است.
نتیجه گیری: انتخاب دیدگاه اجتماعی به عنوان راه حلی در راستای تضعیف چالش های ناشی از تسلط رویکرد وحدت گرایانه موجود در تعاریف تاب آوری است. در این راستا و با انتخاب روابط و مناسبات قدرت نهادی به عنوان دیدگاه اجتماعی منتخب مقاله، چارچوب تحلیل سیاستی تاب آوری ارائه شده است.
نکات برجسته: انتخاب دیدگاه روابط و مناسبات قدرت نهادی به عنوان مرجع اصلی سیاست گذاری در نواحی شهری، با هدف جلوگیری از تقلیل گرایی موضوع و غیرسیاسی کردن مفهوم تاب آوری شهری به عنوان نکته اصلی این مقاله محسوب میشود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Critical exploration of urban resilience concept from institutional power relations point of view

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahsa Fallahi 1
  • Behnaz Aminzadeh 2
  • Esfandiar zebardast 2
  • Farshad Noorian 3
1 PhD student of urban planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor of the Urban Planning department, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor of the Urban Planning department, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background:
Urban resilience is one of the contemporary concepts in the urban planning realm which originates in the ecological science. Applying The ecological definition of resilience and following the descriptive approach, in context of multilayer and complex social-ecological systems like urban areas, can cause domination of depoliticizing inherently political concepts, which stemmed from natural sciences.
Objectives:
The main purpose of this article is analyzing the concept of urban resilience from institutional power relations point of view. Due to the arising conceptual challenges and criticism around urban resilience application, exploring the political dimension which is almost attached to concepts in social perspectives can be as a solution. Consequently, it can be exposed to multilayered character of urban areas in a more compatible trajectory.
Method:
To achieve the purpose, content analyze has been chosen as the fundamental method, based on theoretical literature review for extracting essential and original data.
Result:
The main result of this article is exploring different dimensions of urban resilience policy analysis in order to induce the political orientation for it. Concerning this, the interdependence between resilience goals in one hand and policies made by institutional power in the other hand have been considered. Accordingly the analysis of existing institutional power policies on the urban resilience practice is intended..
Conclusion:
The choice of social perspective would be as a reliable path to weaken the challenges arising from unificationism approach in the definition of social-ecological resilience. In this regard, by proposing the institutional power relations as the social perspective in this article, three layers, which unfold main policy orientation, can be defined as: institutional and organizational capacity, development model in urban plans and legal rules and codes. It can be translated as a basic framework for policy analysis.
Highlights:
Focusing on the institutional power relations as the main policy – maker in urban areas in order to prevent the reductionism and depoliticizing the concept of urban resilience is the main point of this article.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Social-ecological resilience
  • policy making
  • power relation
  • pluralist approach
براهیم نیا، وحیده و عبدی دانشپور، زهره. )1397(. برنامه ریزی بخشی ملی در برابر برنامهریزی فضایی بزرگ شهری در تهران. صفه، فصلنامه
علمی-پژوهشی معماری و شهرسازی، 28)2(، .84-65
صرافی، مظفر؛ توکلی نیا، جمیله و چمنی مقدم، مهدی. )1394(. جایگاه برنامهریز در فرایند برنامه ریزی شهری ایران. مطالعات شهری، 3)12(،
 .32-19
عبداهلل زاده ملکی، شهرام؛ خانلو، نسیم؛ زیاری، کرامت اله و شالی امینی، وحید. )1398(. اولویت سنجی عوامل موثر بر تاب آوری اجتماعی در
برابر مخاطرات طبیعی با تاکید بر زلزله. هویت شهر، 13)1(، .58-45
علی احمدی، علیرضا و میرعابدینی، زهره. )1398(. واکاوی فرایند سیاستگذاری عمومی در مدیریت شهری تهران )1397-1393(. فصلنامه
علمی-پژوهشی سیاست گذاری عمومی، 5)1(، .98-75
کاظمیان، غالمرضا و میرعابدینی، زهره. )1390(. آسیب شناسی مدیریت یکپارچه شهری در تهران از منظر سیاست گذاری و تصمیم گیری
شهری. نشریه هنرهای زیبا-معماری و شهرسازی، 3)46(، .38-27
مظلوم، منصوره سادات، رجبی، آزیتا، اقبالی، ناصر، )1398(. مشارکت در تاب آوری اجتماعی محالت شهری )مطالعه موردی محله اوین شهر
تهران(. فصلنامه جغرافیا )برنامه ریزی منطقهای(، 10)2-1(، .740-729
نجاتی، ناصر، صرافی، مظفر و نجف زاده، رضا. )1399(. تبیین نقش قدرت-دانش در برنامه ریزی فضایی با تاکید بر قدرت انضباطی و زیست
– قدرت. دانش شهرسازی، 5)2(، .151-133
 
Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268-281.
Ali ahmadi, A., & Mirabedini, Z. (2019). Examining the Public Policy Making Process in Tehran's Urban
Management (2012-2018). Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 5(1), 75-98. (in Persian)
Avelino, F. (2017). Power in sustainability transitions: Analysing power and (dis) empowerment in
transformative change towards sustainability. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(6), 505-520.
Cariolet, J. M., Vuillet, M., & Diab, Y. (2019). Mapping urban resilience to disaster- review. Sustainable
cities and society, 51, 101746.
Chelleri, L., Waters, J. J., Olazabal, M., & Minucci, G. (2015). Resilience trade-offs: addressing multiple
scales and temporal aspects of urban resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 27(1), 181-198.
Chun, H., Chi, S., & Hwang, B. G. (2017). A spatial disaster assessment model of social resilience based on
geographically weighted regression. Sustainability, 9(12), 2222.
Cimellaro, G. P. (2016). Urban resilience for emergency response and recovery; Fundamental Concepts
and Applications. Springer.
Coaffee, J. (2013). Towards next-generation urban resilience in planning practice: From securitization to
integrated place making. Planning Practice & Research, 28(3), 323-339.
Coaffee, J., & Clarke, J. (2015). On securing the generational challenge of urban resilience. Town
Planning Review, 86(3), 249-256.
Cooper, M. (2011). Complexity theory after the financial crisis: The death of neoliberalism or the
triumph of Hayek?. Journal of Cultural Economy, 4(4), 371-385.
Cote, M., & Nightingale, A. J. (2012). Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in
socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in human geography, 36(4), 475-489.
Cumming, G. S., Cumming, D. H., & Redman, C. L. (2006). Scale mismatches in social-ecological
systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and society, 11(1).
Davoudi, S., Brooks, E., & Mehmood, A. (2013). Evolutionary resilience and strategies for climate
adaptation. Planning Practice & Research, 28(3), 307-322.
Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L. J., Quinlan, A. E., Peterson, G. D., Wilkinson, C., McEvoy, D., Porter,
L., & Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: a bridging concept or a dead end?“Reframing” resilience:
challenges for planning theory and practice interacting traps: resilience assessment of a pasture
management system in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience: what does it mean in planning practice?
Resilience as a useful concept for climate change adaptation? The politics of resilience for planning: a
cautionary note: edited by Simin Davoudi and Libby Porter. Planning theory & practice, 13(2), 299-
333.
Daw, T. M., Hicks, C. C., Brown, K., Chaigneau, T., Januchowski-Hartley, F. A., Cheung, W. W. L.,
Rosendo, S., Crona, B., Coulthard, S., Sandbrook, C., Perry, C., Bandeira, S., Muthiga, N. A., SchulteHerbrüggen, B., Bosire, J., & McClanahan, T. R. (2016). Elasticity in ecosystem services: exploring the
variable relationship between ecosystems and human well-being. Ecology and Society, 21(2).
Ebadollahzadeh maleki, S., Khanloo, N., Ziyari, K., & Shali amini, V. (2019). Prioritization of factors
influencing social resilience against natural hazards with an emphasis on earthquakes. Hoviatshahr, 13(1),
45-58. (in Persian)
Ebrahimnia, V., & Abdi Daneshpour, Z. (2018). Sectoral Versus Metropolitan Spatial Planning in Tehran.
Soffeh, 28(2), 65-84. (in Persian)
Eraydin, A. (2013). “Resilience thinking” for planning. In Resilience thinking in urban planning (pp. 17-
37). Springer.
Evans, J. P. (2011). Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Transactions of the
institute of British Geographers, 36(2), 223-237.
Fainstein, S. (2015). Resilience and Justice. International journal of urban and regional research, 39(1),
157-167.
Fleischhauer, M. (2008). The role of spatial planning in strengthening urban resilience. In Resilience of
Cities to Terrorist and other Threats (pp. 273-298). Springer.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses.
Global environmental change, 16(3), 253-267.
Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences: Dramas of mediating public disputes. Oxford University
Press.
Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative
negotiations. Planning theory, 12(1), 5-22.
Friedmann, J. (2008). The uses of planning theory: A bibliographic essay. Journal of planning education
and research, 28(2), 247-257.
Ghouchani, M., Taji, M., Yaghoubi Roshan, A., & Seifi Chehr, M. (2021). Identification and assessment of
hidden capacities of urban resilience. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(3), 3966-3993.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and
natural systems. Island press.
Harrison, E. (2013). Bouncing back? Recession, resilience and everyday lives. Critical Social Policy, 33(1),
97-113.
Hatuka, T., Rosen-Zvi, I., Birnhack, M., Toch, E., & Zur, H. (2018). The political premises of
contemporary urban concepts: The global city, the sustainable city, the resilient city, the creative city, and
the smart city. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(2), 160-179.
Hay, C. (2002). Political analysis: a critical introduction. Palgrave.
Healey, P. (2012). Readings in planning theory. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(2), 342-343.
Hillier, J. (2009). Shadows of power: an allegory of prudence in land-use planning. Routledge.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 4, 1-23.
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic. Human Ecology, 4(5), 390-405.
Hornborg, A. (2017). How to turn an ocean liner: a proposal for voluntary degrowth by redesigning money
for sustainability, justice, and resilience. Journal of Political Ecology, 24(1), 623-632.
Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in
planning theory. Journal of planning education and research, 19(4), 333-342.
Jabareen, Y. (2013). Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and
environmental risk. Cities, 31, 220-229.
Kazemian, G., & Mirabedini, Z. (2011). Pathology of Integrated Urban Management for Tehran in view of
Policy and Decision Making. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memary Va Shahrsazi, 3(46), 27-38. (in Persian)
Larner, W., & Moreton, S. (2012). Regeneration, resistance, or resilience: The Co-exist Project. In Against
and Beyond Neoliberalism Conference, University of Glasgow.
Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., & Wilson, J. (2006).
Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and
society, 11(1).
Manyena, S. B. (2006). The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30(4), 434-450.
Matin, N., Forrester, J., & Ensor, J. (2018). What is equitable resilience?. World development, 109, 197-
205.
Mazloom, M., Rajabi, A., & Eghbali, N. (2020). Participation in the social resilience of urban
neighborhoods (Case Study: Evin Neighborhood of Tehran). Geography (Regional Planning), 10(1-2),
729-740. (in Persian)
Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and urban
planning, 147, 38-49.
Meerow, S., Pajouhesh, P., & Miller, T. R. (2019). Social equity in urban resilience planning. Local
Environment, 24(9), 793-808.
Moghadas, M., Asadzadeh, A., Vafeidis, A., Fekete, A., & Kötter, T. (2019). A multi-criteria approach for
assessing urban flood resilience in Tehran, Iran. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 35,
101069.
Nejati, N., Sarrafi, M., & Najafzadeh, R. (2021). Explanation of the Role of Power-knowledge in the Spatial
Planning with Emphasis on Disciplinary Power and Bio-Power. Urban Planning Knowledge, 5(2), 133-
151. (in Persian)
Obermeister, N. (2017). From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers
to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments. Environmental Science &
Policy, 68, 80-86.
Olsson, L., & Jerneck, A. (2018). Social fields and natural systems. Ecology and Society, 23(3).
Olsson, L., Jerneck, A., Thoren, H., Persson, J., & O’Byrne, D. (2015). Why resilience is unappealing to
social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Science
advances, 1(4), e1400217.
Pickett, S. T., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for
integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and urban planning, 69(4),
369-384.
Pizzo, B. (2015). Problematizing resilience: Implications for planning theory and practice. Cities, 43, 133-
140.
Ploger, J. (2004). Strife: Urban Planning and Agonism. Planning Theory, 3(1), 71-92.
Sarafi, M., Tawaklinia, J., & Chamani Moghadam, M. (2014). Planners’ Position in the Iranian Urban
Planning Process. Motaleate Shahri, 3(12), 19-32. (in Persian)
Schlör, H., Venghaus, S., & Hake, J. F. (2018). The FEW-Nexus city index–Measuring urban resilience.
Applied energy, 210, 382-392.
Schoeman, I. M. (2018). An approach to resilience in transportation planning. International journal of
sustainable development and planning, 13(8), 1061-1071.
Swanstrom, T. (2008). Regional resilience: a critical examination of the ecological framework (No. 2008,
07). working paper.
Taşan-Kok, T., & Baeten, G. (Eds.). (2011). Contradictions of neoliberal planning: Cities, policies, and
politics. Springer.
The Rockefeller foundation. (2019). From: http://www.100ewsilientcities.org
Thorén, H. (2014). Resilience as a unifying concept. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science,
28(3), 303-324.
Thorén, H., & Olsson, L. (2018). Is resilience a normative concept?. Resilience, 6(2), 112-128.
Tierney, K. (2015). Resilience and the neoliberal project: Discourses, critiques, practices—and Katrina.
American behavioral scientist, 59(10), 1327-1342.
Tierney, K. J. (2009). Informing Decisions in a Changing Climate. Report of the National Academy of
Sciences.National Research Council Panel on Strategies and Methods for Climate-Related Decision
Support. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Vale, L. J. (2014). The politics of resilient cities: whose resilience and whose city?. Building Research &
Information, 42(2), 191-201.
Van Kerkhoff, L. E., & Lebel, L. (2015). Coproductive capacities: rethinking science-governance relations
in a diverse world. Ecology and Society, 20(1).
Wagenaar, H., & Wilkinson, C. (2015). Enacting resilience: A performative account of governing for urban
resilience. Urban studies, 52(7), 1265-1284.
Walker, B. H., Anderies, J. M., Kinzig, A. P., & Ryan, P. (2006). Exploring resilience in social-ecological
systems through comparative studies and theory development: introduction to the special issue. Ecology
and society, 11(1).
Wardekker, A., Wilk, B., Brown, V., Uittenbroek, C., Mees, H., Driessen, P., Wassen, M., Molenaar, A.,
Walda, J., & Runhaar, H. (2020). A diagnostic tool for supporting policymaking on urban resilience.
Cities, 101, 102691.
Wardekker, J. A., Wilk, B., & Brown, V. (2017). Assessing urban resilience in Rotterdam using resilience
principles: Workshop report.
Wilkinson, C. (2012). Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory. Planning theory,
11(2), 148-169.
Wilkinson, C., Porter, L., & Colding, J. (2010). Metropolitan planning and resilience thinking: A
practitioner’s perspective. Critical Planning, 17(17), 2-20.
Yamagata, Y., & Sharifi, A. (2018). Resilience-Oriented urban planning, Theoretical and empirical
insights. Springer.
Yumagulova, L., & Vertinsky, I. (2019). Moving beyond engineering supremacy: Knowledge systems for
urban resilience in Canada’s Metro Vancouver region. Environmental Science & Policy, 100, 66-73.