Introduction
Urban resilience is a new concept in urban studies and urban geography (Jabarian, 2014), though its use in psychology and engineering is very high (Kiss et al., 2018). Resilience is a property of the system and stability or the probability of system loss is its result (Hinzlef et al., 2020). The main goal of resilience is to reduce the effects of disruption. This concept has similar definitions in different studies (Meerow & Newell, 2019). Considering the assumptions that are raised about urban resilience, such as improving the quality of life, infrastructure, community-orientedness, and physical fabric, the role of people and bottom-up planning cannot be neglected. According to studies, urban resilience has different social, economic, institutional and physical dimensions (Ghasemi et al., 2019). These dimensions can be examined based on objective aspects (the reality on the ground and the opinion of experts) and subjective aspects (satisfaction of the residents). Urban resilience has mostly been examined from the physical, institutional, social, and economic aspects (objective aspects), and the role of residents’ satisfaction has not been considered, and the level of resilience in different urban fabrics is not known.

Methods
In this study, the indicators were identified based on a library method and brainstorming of educated experts. Then, using a questionnaire and performing confirmatory factor analysis, the relationship between the variables and the indicators was determined. In the next step, in the institutional, economic, and social dimensions (objective aspects), the status of indicators in each of the moderate, old, and new urban fabrics was measured with a multi-choice questionnaire and analyzed by analytical tests. The spatial dimension was measured by a field survey of three urban fabrics using a combination of hierarchical analysis, fuzzy logic, and GIS spatial analysis. For the subjective aspect assessment, the sample size was first calculated using Cochran’s formula, proportional to the population size. The statistical sample size was determined 384 for the population of 402,746 in Qazvin City. Then, another questionnaire was prepared to measure the satisfaction of the participants. Finally, using the Spearman correlation test, the relationship between subjective and objective variables was measured.

Results

Institutional dimension 
According to the results of Kruskal-Wallis test, the mean score of Qazvin’s new urban fabric was higher than in other fabrics in the indicators of institutional context (271.73) and institutional relations (304.21). The results of examining the relationship between reality and expectations (residents’ satisfaction) related to the Institutional dimension are presented in Table 1.



Economic dimension
According to the results of Kruskal-Wallis test, the mean score of Qazvin’s new urban fabric was higher than that of old and moderate fabrics in the indicators of damage rate (251.32) and ability to compensate (296.36). The results of examining the relationship between reality and expectations (residents’ satisfaction) related to economic dimension are presented in Table 2.



Social dimensions
According to the results of Kruskal-Wallis test, the mean score of Qazvin’s new urban fabric was higher than that of old and moderate fabrics in the indicators of living conditions (260.83) and awareness (266.36). The results of examining the relationship between reality and expectations (residents’ satisfaction) related to social dimension are presented in Table 3.



Spatial dimension
The results of examining the relationship between reality and expectations (residents’ satisfaction) related to spatial dimension are presented in Table 4.



Conclusion
There was a significant difference between the urban fabrics of Qazvin regarding the dimensions of urban resilience, where the old fabric had more problems than the new and moderate fabrics of the city. In all objective and subjective indicators of the dimensions of urban resilience, there was a significant relationship between residents’ satisfaction (expectations) and the reality on the ground. Hesarakizad and MohammadKhan (2023) also used some indicators of institutional, economic, and spatial dimensions of urban resilience used in our study, but the relationship between objective and subjective dimensions was not examined; they only investigated the objective indicators. Chen et al. (2020) investigated the residents’ satisfaction with spatial, economic and institutional indicators in several cities of Thailand. Contrary to our results, they concluded that there is no relationship between reality and expectations in the field of urban resilience.
The important advantage of this study is that, in addition to examining the relationship between current situation and perceptions regarding urban resilience, it examined the difference in urban resilience of old, new, and moderate urban fabrics. This study was a step towards reducing the gap between the theoretical knowledge and practical realities in the field of urban resilience of Qazvin City by identifying the measurement indicators.

Ethical Considerations

Funding
This article is extracted from the PhD dissertation of Nasser Anjerani, approved by Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture & Urbanism, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University. 

Authors' contributions
All authors equally contribute to preparing all parts of the research.

Conflicts of interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.



ReferencesReferences
Anjerani, N., Bigdeli Rad, V., & Pakzad, S. (2022). [Analysis of the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity in urban resilience from a physical perspective in region one of Qazvin (Persian)]. Disaster Prevention and Management Knowledge (quarterly), 12(2), 217-228. [Link]
Chen, L., Zhang, T., Ge, M., Liu, Y., Xing, Y., & Liu, L., et al. (2020). The Nrf2-Keap1 pathway: A secret weapon against pesticide persecution in Drosophila Kc cells. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 164, 47–57. [DOI:10.1016/j.pestbp.2019.12.008] [PMID]
Eskandari Nodeh, M., Gholipoor, Y., Fallah Heydari, F., & Ahmadpour, A. (2019). [Identifying resilience dimensions and its impact on urban sustainability of Rasht City (Persian)]. Geography and Environmental Sustainability, 9(3), 63-77. [Link]
Ghasemi, R., Omidvar, B., &Behzadfar, M. (2020). [Study of the effectiveness of "Technical-Physical" and "Socio-Economic" strategies in improving urban resilience against earthquakes (Persian)]. Geographical Urban Planning Research, 8(1), 99-114. [Link]
Govindarajulu, U. S., & D'Agostino Sr, R. B. (2020). Review of current advances in survival analysis and frailty models. WIREs, 12(6), e1504. [DOI:10.1002/wics.1504]
Heinzlef, C., Robert, B., Hémond, Y., & Serre, D. J. (2020). Operating urban resilience strategies to face climate change and associated risks: Some advances from theory to application in Canada and France. Cities, 104, 102762. [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102762]
Hesarakizad, A., & Mohamadkhan, Sh. (2023). [Strategies to improve Tehran's resilience against natural hazards (Persian)]. Geographical Sciences (Applied Geography), 18(41), 45-59. [Link]
Hosseinzade Delir, K., & Khodabakhah Charkhaloo, M. (2015). [The study of efficiency of street networks in earthquake (Case Study of Zones 1 and 5 of Tabriz Detailed Pland). (Persian)] Geography and Planning, 18(50), 153-174. [Link]
Jabareen, Y. (2014). Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. Cities, 31, 220-229. [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2012.05.004]
Kiss, T., & Miklos Kiss, V. (2018). Ecology-related resilience in urban planning - A complex approach for Pécs (Hungary). Ecological Economics, 144, 160-170. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.004]
Ma, F., Wang, Z., Sun, Q., Yuen, K. F., Zhang, Y., & Xue, H., et al. (2020). Spatial- Temporal evolution of urban resilience and its influencing factors: Evidence from the Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration. Sustainability, 12(7), 2593. [DOI:10.3390/su12072593]
Maleki, S., & Bigdeli Rad, V. (2017). Social sustainability measures for rural areas in Iran. Space Ontology International Journal, 6(1), 79-84. [Link]
Martin, R. (2012). Regional economic resilience, hysteresis and recessionary shocks. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(1), 1-32. [DOI:10.1093/jeg/lbr019]
Mayunga, J. S. (2017). Understanding and applying the concept of commu nity disaster resilience: A capital-based approach. Summer Academy for Social Vulnerability and Resilience Building, 1(1), 1-16. [Link]
Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2021). Urban resilience for whom, what, when, where, and why? In: V. K. Turner, & D. H. Kaplan (Eds.), Geographic perspectives on urban sustainability. London: Routledge. [Link]
Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38-49.[DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011]
Meriläinen, E. (2020). The dual discourse of urban resilience: Robust city and self-organised neighbourhoods. Disasters, 44(1), 125–151. [DOI:10.1111/disa.12367] [PMID]
Zhang, X. (2018). Urban resilience and urban sustainability: What we know and what do not know? Cities, 72, 141-148. [Link]
Mohammadi, M., & Ahad, M. (2016). [The evaluation of the urban fabric resiliency against earthquake risk Case Study: Zanjan (Persian)]. Journal of Spatial Analysis Environmental Hazards, 3 (1), 103-114. [Link]
Nasr, T. (2023). [The significance of futurology in resilience scenarios of urban spatial structure against earthquakes (Case Study: Shiraz City) (Persian)]. Urban Management, 21(68), 7-22. [Link]
Pourahmad, A., Ziyari, K., Abdali, A., & Allah Golipour Kaharalani, S. (2019). [Analysis of resiliency criteria in the urbanized texture of District 10 of Tehran Municipality against Earthquake with Emphasis on Physical Radiation (Persian)]. Research and Urban Plannin, 10(6), 1-21. [Link]
Rad, V. B., Najafpour, H., Ngah, I., Shieh, E., Rashvand, P., & Rad, H. B. (2015). What are the safety factors associating with physical activity in urban neighborhoods? (A systematic review). Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 5(3), 259-266. [Link]
Rao, F., & Summers, R. J. (2016). Planning for retail resilience: Comparing Edmonton and Portland. Cities, 58, 97-106. [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.002]
Ribeiro, P. J., & Pena Jardim Gonçalves, L. A. (2019). Urban resilience: A conceptual framework. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101625. [DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101625]
Spaans, M., & Waterhout, B. (2017). Building up resilience in cities worldwide Rotterdam as participant in the 100 resilient cities programme. Cities, 61, 109-116. [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.011]
Zhang, X., & Li, H. (2018). Urban resilience and urban sustainability: What we know and what do. Cities, 72, 141-148. [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2017.08.009]
Ziyari, K., Pourahmad, A., Farhodi, R., & Memarzadeh, M. R. (2020). [Evaluating and assessing the physical resilience of urban areas against accidents, a case study of Kish Island (Persian)]. Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR), 8(2), 259-278. [Link]