نقش طراحی شهری سازگار با سیل از منظر بهبود ادراک خطرپذیری (یک مرور نظام‌مند بین‌رشته‌ای)

نوع مقاله : مقالۀ مروری

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه طراحی شهری، دانشکدۀ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

2 استاد گروه طراحی شهری، دانشکدۀ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

3 استاد گروه سوانح و بازسازی، دانشکدۀ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

پیرو کانال‌کشی نهرها و به‌‌کارگیری زیرساخت‌های کنترل سیل، ادراک افراد از پویایی اکولوژیکی رودخانه‌ها و ایمنی محیط دچار اختلالات گسترده‌ای شده است که این عدم درک صحیح از خطرپذیری سیل، در زمان وقوع جریان‌های شدید سیل می‌تواند به تلفات عدیده‌ای منجر شود. لذا در راستای تاب‌آوری در برابر سیل، علاوه‌ بر معیارهای سازه‌ای، نحوۀ بهبود معیارهای غیرسازه‌ای همانند درک خطرپذیری در راستای ارتقاء سازگاری و آمادگی جوامع در برابر سیل، از جمله مباحث پراهمیت محسوب می‌شود. امروزه با وجود گذار مدیریت رودخانه‌ها از رویکردهای تماماً سازه‌ای به رویکردهای یکپارچه و تأکید بر مشارکت رشته‌های مرتبط در راستای تلفیق معیارهای سازه‌ای و غیرسازه‌ای در زمینۀ تاب‌آوری در برابر سیل، نقش طراحی شهری در فرایند مذکور هم‌چنان در هاله‌ای از ابهام است. لذا، با توجه به توانایی طراحی شهری در بسط تجربۀ ادراکی افراد در محیط، این پژوهش درصدد است با انجام یک مرور نظام‌مند بین‌رشته‌ای، نحوۀ ورود و تلاقی طراحی شهری در بحث ادراک خطرپذیری سیل را مورد بررسی قرار دهد. این پژوهش با بسط مدل اجتماعی-اکولوژیکی پژوهش سه دیدگاه نظری روان‌شناسی محیط، جغرافیای انسانی و حفاظت از طبیعت را به‌عنوان نقطه‌های آغازین این پژوهش بین‌رشته‌ای برمی‌گزیند، سپس با انجام یک مرور نظام‌مند در پایگاه دادۀ اسکوپوس در شش مرحله، نقش طراحی شهری در بهبود درک خطرپذیری سیل را واکاوی می‌کند. طراحی شهری در هریک از حوزه‌های روان‌شناسی محیط، جغرافیای انسانی و حفاظت از طبیعت می‌تواند از طریق کیفیت‌های زیبایی‌شناختی و ادراکی محیط، حس مکان و تنظیم خدمات اکوسیستمی نقش مهمی در بسط تجربۀ ادراکی افراد از رودخانه‌ها و متعاقباً بهبود ادراک خطرپذیری سیل ایفا کند، اما در هریک از حوزه‌های مذکور با چالش‌های متعددی مواجه است و نخست باید نحوۀ سازگاری و ایجاد توازن با عوامل مداخله‌گر مربوطه را دریابد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Role of Flood-adaptive Urban Design from the Perspective of Improving Risk Perception (An Interdisciplinary Systematic Review)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Alaleh Toossi Ardekani 1
  • Koroush Golkar 2
  • Alireza Fallahi 3
1 Ph.D. Candidate in Urban Design Department, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Professor, Urban Design Department, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Professor, Disasters and Reconstruction Department, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Following the culverting of rivers and the implementation of flood control infrastructure on riverbeds, people’s perceptions regarding the ecological dynamics of rivers, as well as environmental safety have been widely disturbed. This lack of accurate flood risk perception can potentially lead to many casualties and damages during severe flood events. Therefore, to achieve flood resilience, in addition to structural criteria, the improvement of non-structural criteria such as risk perception to enhance adaptation and preparedness of communities against floods, is considered a challenging topic. Considering the transition of river management from structural approaches to integrated approaches, which emphasize the participation of related disciplines, and the capability of urban design to enhance people’s perceptive experience of the environment, this study aims to conduct an interdisciplinary systematic review to investigate how urban design enters and integrates into the discussion of flood risk perception. By expanding the social-ecological model (SEM) of the study at different individual and environmental levels, three theoretical perspectives of environmental psychology, human geography, and nature conservation were selected as the foundation of the interdisciplinary study. Subsequently, by conducting a systematic review in the Scopus database in six steps, the role of urban design in improving flood risk perception was investigated. Urban design in the fields of environmental psychology, human geography, and nature conservation can play a critical role in expanding the perceptive experience of rivers and improving flood risk perception through perceived and aesthetic qualities, sense of place, and regulating ecosystem services, nevertheless urban design is facing many challenges in the mentioned fields. Therefore, as an initial step, urban design must determine how to adapt to these intervening factors and establish a balance with them.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Integrated Flood Management
  • Flood Risk
  • Environmental Perception
  • Social-ecological Model (SEM)
همتی، مرتضی. (1394). سازگاری: رویکرد طراحی در محیط آشوبناک. منظر، 7(32)، 74-81.
Adger, W. N., Hughes, T. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., & Rockstrom, J. (2005). Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science, 309(5737), 1036-1039.
Agyeman, J., Devine-Wright, P., & Prange, J. (2009). Close to the edge, down by the river? Joining up managed retreat and place attachment in a climate changed world. Environment and Planning A, 41(3), 509-513.
Anacio, D. B., Hilvano, N. F., Burias, I. C., Pine, C., Nelson, G. L. M., & Ancog, R. C. (2016). Dwelling structures in a flood-prone area in the Philippines: Sense of place and its functions for mitigating flood experiences. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 15, 108-115.
Andersen, T. K., & Shepherd, J. M. (2013). Floods in a changing climate. Geography Compass, 7(2), 95-115.
Anderson, C. C., Renaud, F. G., Hanscomb, S., & Gonzalez-Ollauri, A. (2022). Green, hybrid, or grey disaster risk reduction measures: What shapes public preferences for nature-based solutions? Journal of Environmental Management, 310, 114727.
Anderson, C. C., & Renaud, F. G. (2021). A review of public acceptance of nature-based solutions: The ‘why’, ‘when’, and ‘how ‘of success for disaster risk reduction measures. Ambio, 50(8), 1552-1573.
Appleyard, D. (1976). Planning a pluralist city: Conflicting realities in Ciudad Guayana. MIT Press.
Armas, I. (2006). Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1223-1234.
Barton, H., & Grant, M. (2006). A health map for the local human habitat. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 126(6), 252-253.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press.
Bernardo, F. (2013). Impact of place attachment on risk perception: Exploring the multidimensionality of risk and its magnitude. Estudios de Psicología, 34(3), 323-329.
Boland, A., Cherry, G., & Dickson, R. (2017). Doing a systematic review: A student’s guide. SAGE.
Bonaiuto, M., De Dominicis, S., Fornara, F., Ganucci Cancellieri, U., & Mosco, B. (2011). Flood risk: the role of neighborhood attachment. In G. Zenz, & R. Hornich (Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium UFRIM. Urban flood risk managementApproaches to enhance resilience of communities. Verlag der Technischen Universitat Graz.
Botzen, W. J., Aerts, J. C. J. H., & Van Den Bergh, J. C. (2009). Dependence of flood risk perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors. Water Resources Research, 45(10).
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Buijs, A. E. (2009). Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents’ support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(8), 2680-2689.
Burgers, C., Brugman, B. C., & Boeynaems, A. (2019). Systematic literature reviews: Four applications for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 102-109.
Busscher, T., Van Den Brink, M., & Verweij, S. (2019). Strategies for integrating water management and spatial planning: Organising for spatial quality in the Dutch “Room for the River” program. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 12(1), 12448.
Buttimer, A., & Seamon, D. (2015). The human experience of space and place. Routledge.
Chou, R. J. (2013). Exploring the quasi-naturalistic landscaping design of a Taiwanese culverted urban stream. Landscape Research, 38(3), 347-367.
Chou, R. J. (2016). Achieving successful river restoration in dense urban areas: Lessons from Taiwan. Sustainability, 8(11), 1159.
Dahlgren, G., & Whitehead, M. (1991). Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health. Background document to WHO-Strategy paper for Europe (No. 2007: 14). Institute for Futures Studies.
Davenport, M. A., & Anderson, D. H. (2005). Getting from sense of place to place-based management: An interpretive investigation of place meanings and perceptions of landscape change. Society and Natural Resources, 18(7), 625-641.
Davoudi, S., Brooks, E., & Mehmood, A. (2013). Evolutionary resilience and strategies for climate adaptation. Planning Practice & Research, 28(3), 307-322.
De Dominicis, S., Fornara, F., Cancellieri, U. G., Twigger-Ross, C., & Bonaiuto, M. (2015). We are at risk, and so what? Place attachment, environmental risk perceptions and preventive coping behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 66-78.
De Groot, M. (2012). Exploring the relationship between public environmental ethics and river flood policies in Western Europe. Journal of Environmental Management, 93(1), 1-9.
De Groot, M., & De Groot, W. T. (2009). “Room for river” measures and public visions in the Netherlands: A survey on river perceptions among riverside residents. Water Resources Research, 45(7).
De Groot, W. T., & Van Den Born, R. J. (2003). Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(3), 127-138.
Dewan, A. (2013). Floods in a megacity: Geospatial techniques in assessing hazards, risk and vulnerability. Springer.
Dufour, S., & Piegay, H. (2009). From the myth of a lost paradise to targeted river restoration: forget natural references and focus on human benefits. River Research and Applications, 25(5), 568-581.
Eden, S., Tunstall, S. M., & Tapsell, S. M. (2000). Translating nature: river restoration as nature-culture. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18(2), 258-273.
Eden, S., & Tunstall, S. (2006). Ecological versus social restoration? How urban river restoration challenges but also fails to challenge the science–policy nexus in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24(5), 661-680.
Esteves, L. S., & Thomas, K. (2014). Managed realignment in practice in the UK: results from two independent surveys. Journal of Coastal Research, (70 (10070)) 407-413.
Everard, M., & Moggridge, H. L. (2012). Rediscovering the value of urban rivers. Urban Ecosystems, 15(2), 293-314.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253-267.
Garcia, X., Benages-Albert, M., Buchecker, M., & Vall-Casas, P. (2020). River rehabilitation: Preference factors and public participation implications. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(9), 1528-1549.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press.
Jacobs, M. H., & Buijs, A. E. (2011). Understanding stakeholders’ attitudes toward water management interventions: Role of place meanings. Water Resources Research, 47(1).
Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. SAGE Publications.
Junker, B., & Buchecker, M. (2008). Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(3-4), 141-154.
Junker, B., Buchecker, M., & Müller‐Böker, U. (2007). Objectives of public participation: which actors should be involved in the decision making for river restorations? Water Resources Research, 43(10).
Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., & Bonn, A. (2016). Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society, 21(2).
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and identity‐protective cognition: Explaining the white‐male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 465-505.
Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (2009). Creating a larger role for environmental psychology: The Reasonable Person Model as an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 329-339.
Kellens, W., Terpstra, T., & De Maeyer, P. (2013). Perception and communication of flood risks: A systematic review of empirical research. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 33(1), 24-49.
Kim, T. G., & Petrolia, D. R. (2013). Public perceptions of wetland restoration benefits in Louisiana. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70(5), 1045-1054.
Klein, R. J., Nicholls, R. J., & Thomalla, F. (2003). Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept? Environmental Hazards, 5(1), 35-45.
Klijn, F., Merz, B., Penning-Rowsell, E. C., & Kundzewicz, Z. W. (2015). Preface: climate change proof flood risk management. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 20(6), 837-843.
Liao, K. H., Le, T. A., & Van Nguyen, K. (2016). Urban design principles for flood resilience: Learning from the ecological wisdom of living with floods in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Landscape and Urban Planning, 155, 69-78.
Liao, K. H. (2014). From flood control to flood adaptation: a case study on the Lower Green River Valley and the City of Kent in King County, Washington. Natural Hazards, 71(1), 723-750.
Liao, K. H. (2012). A theory on urban resilience to floods-a basis for alternative planning practices. Ecology and Society, 17(4).
Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012). The protective action decision model: Theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 32(4), 616-632.
Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2003). Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities. Sage Publications.
Ludy, J., & Kondolf, G. M. (2012). Flood risk perception in lands “protected” by 100-year levees. Natural Hazards, 61(2), 829-842.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city.  MIT Press.
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351-377.
Mitchell, J. K. (2003). European river floods in a changing world. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 23(3), 567-574.
Moosavi, S., Browne, G. R., & Bush, J. (2021). Perceptions of nature-based solutions for Urban Water challenges: Insights from Australian researchers and practitioners. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 57, 126937.
Nasar, J. L. (1990). The evaluative image of the city. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(1), 41-53.
Nasar, J. L. (1989). Perception, Cognition, and Evaluation of Urban Places. In I. Altman & E. H. Zube (Eds.), Public Places and Spaces. Human Behavior and Environment (Advances in Theory and Research). Springer.
Nillesen, A. L. (2019). Spatial Quality as a decisive criterion in flood risk strategies: an integrated approach for flood risk management strategy development, with spatial quality as an ex-ante criterion. A+ BE| Architecture and the Built Environment, (1), 1-200.
Naylor, L. A., Kippen, H., Coombes, M. A., Horton, B., MacArthur, M., & Jackson, N. (2017). Greening the Grey: a framework for integrated green grey infrastructure (IGGI). Technical Report. University of Glasgow.
O’Neill, E., Brereton, F., Shahumyan, H., & Clinch, J. P. (2016). The impact of perceived flood exposure on flood‐risk perception: The role of distance. Risk Analysis, 36(11), 2158-2186.
Parsons, R. (1995). Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics: Conundrum, canard or curiosity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32(3), 227-244.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906.
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.
Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. Pion.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114.
Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. (2015). Ecological models of health behavior. In K. Glanz, B. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice. Jossey-Bass.
Santoro, S., Pluchinotta, I., Pagano, A., Pengal, P., Cokan, B., & Giordano, R. (2019). Assessing stakeholders’ risk perception to promote Nature Based Solutions as flood protection strategies: The case of the Glinšcica River (Slovenia). Science of the Total Environment, 655, 188-201.
Seamon, D. (2014). Place attachment and phenomenology: The Synergistic Dynamism of Place. In L. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place Attachment. Routledge.
Seidl, R., & Stauffacher, M. (2013). Evaluation of river restoration by local residents. Water Resources Research, 49(10), 7077-7087.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285.
Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 322-325.
Smith, K. (2013). Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster (6th ed.). Routledge.
Soga, M., Gaston, K. J., Koyanagi, T. F., Kurisu, K., & Hanaki, K. (2016). Urban residents’ perceptions of neighborhood nature: Does the extinction of experience matter? Biological Conservation, 203, 143-150.
Stancu, A., Ariccio, S., De Dominicis, S., Cancellieri, U. G., Petruccelli, I., Ilin, C., & Bonaiuto, M. (2020). The better the bond, the better we cope. The effects of place attachment intensity and place attachment styles on the link between perception of risk and emotional and behavioral coping. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 51, 101771.
Stokols, D., Grzywacz, J. G., McMahan, S., & Phillips, K. (2003). Increasing the health promotive capacity of human environments. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18(1), 4-13.
Sutton-Grier, A. E., Wowk, K., & Bamford, H. (2015). Future of our coasts: The potential for natural and hybrid infrastructure to enhance the resilience of our coastal communities, economies and ecosystems. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 137-148.
Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. University of Minnesota Press.
Van Den Berg, A. E., & Vlek, C. A. (1998). The influence of planned-change context on the evaluation of natural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43(1-3), 1-10.
Van Den Born, R. J., Lenders, R. H., De Groot, W. T., & Huijsman, E. (2001). The new biophilia: an exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environmental Conservation, 28(1), 65-75.
Van Der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2005). The transition in Dutch water management. Regional Environmental Change, 5(4), 164-176.
Van Heel, B. F., & Van Den Born, R. J. (2020). Studying residents’ flood risk perceptions and sense of place to inform public participation in a Dutch river restoration project. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 17(1), 35-55.
Venkataramanan, V., Lopez, D., McCuskey, D. J., Kiefus, D., McDonald, R. I., Miller, W. M., & Young, S. L. (2020). Knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behavior related to green infrastructure for flood management: A systematic literature review. Science of the Total Environment, 720, 137606.
Verbrugge, L., & Van Den Born, R. (2018). The role of place attachment in public perceptions of a re-landscaping intervention in the river Waal (The Netherlands). Landscape and Urban Planning, 177, 241-250.
Weinstein, N. D., Rothman, A. J., & Nicolich, M. (1998). Use of correlational data to examine the effects of risk perceptions on precautionary behavior. Psychology and Health, 13(3), 479-501.
Westling, E. L., Surridge, B. W., Sharp, L., & Lerner, D. N. (2014). Making sense of landscape change: Long-term perceptions among local residents following river restoration. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 2613-2623.
Wiering, M. A., & Arts, B. J. M. (2006). Discursive shifts in Dutch river management: deep institutional change or adaptation strategy? In Living Rivers: Trends and Challenges in Science and Management (pp. 327-338). Springer.
Williams, K. J., & Cary, J. (2002). Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior, 34(2), 257-274.
Zevenbergen, C., & Gersonius, B. (2007). Challenges in urban flood management. In R. Ashley, S. Garvin, E. Pasche, A. Vassilopoulos, & C. Zevenbergen (Eds.), Advances in Urban Flood Management. Taylor & Francis.
Zhang, Y., Hwang, S. N., & Lindell, M. K. (2010). Hazard proximity or risk perception? Evaluating effects of natural and technological hazards on housing values. Environment and Behavior, 42(5), 597-624.