Open Access
Reza Ghasemi
Rahman Dosti
Aref Rostami
- Master Student Engineering and Water Resources Management of Shushtar Azad University Iran
- Master Student Islamic Azad University Khorramabad Branch Iran
- Master Student Mohaghegh Ardabili University Iran
Abstract
Choosing a suitable place to build a new city, including an underground city, is a very sensitive task because if you do not pay enough attention to your studies, it can have very dangerous financial and human consequences. In this study, the ANP method was used to select a suitable location for the structure of an underground city in Bandar Abbas City of Hormozgan Province in southern Iran. For this issue, 12 factors include the distance from cities, distance from villages, distance from rivers, distance from dams, distance from flood risk areas, land use, distance from the fault, hazard classmap, climatic classification, distance from forested areas were considered, and a safe distance from roadways and avalanche regions. The ANP method’s results revealed that the two requirements of distance from the fault and distance from the landslide were both met with 11.87% and 10.64%, respectively which were the most important factors for selecting the location of the underground city. Criteria map was prepared in GIS, and combined according to the weight of each layer, and the land suitability map of underground cities was prepared. According to the results, only 6% of the area was suitable for the construction of an underground city, of which three areas in the northeast, east, and south of the city can be proposed for the construction of an underground city.
Keywords: ANP, Bandar Abbas, hazards, underground city, zoning
[This article belongs to International Journal of Construction Engineering and Planning(ijcep)]
Browse Figures
References
1. Montazerolhodjah M, Sharifnejad M, Omidi A. Cultural development assessment of Yazd townships from 2002 to 2011. Quarterly Journal of Socio-Cultural Development Studies. 2014; 3(2): 167−183.
2. Godard JP. Urban underground space and benefits of going underground. World Tunnel Congress 2004 and 30th ITA General Assembly. Singapore. 2004, May 22−27.
3. Maire P, Blunier P. Underground planning and optimisation of the underground resources combination looking for sustainable development in urban areas. Proc. Workshop Going Underground: Excavating the Subterranean City. Manchester, UK. 2006, Sept. 21−22.
4. O’Sullivan A, Sheffrin SM. Microeconomics: Principles, Applications, and Tools. Pearson Education; 2008.
5. Nasr Esfahani R, Safari B, Bashiri M. Determining the optimal use of urban underground space (Selected streets of Isfahan City). Journal of Urban Economics and Management. June 2018; 6(22): 241−257.
6. Bobylev N. Underground space in the Alexanderplatz area, Berlin: Research into the quantification of urban underground space use. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 2010; 25(5): 495−507.
7. Fallahi A. Documentation of the underground Cu Chi tunnels as rural Vietnamese resistant, from a passive defense perspective. Quarterly Journal of Housing and Rural Environment. 2014; 33(147): 51−64.
8. Sterling RL. Urban underground space use planning: a growing dilemma. Urban Planning International. 6(004). 2007.
9. Admiraal JBM. A bottom-up approach to the planning of underground space. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. May 2006; 21(3): 464−465.
10. Working Group Number 13, ITA. Underground or aboveground? Making the choice for urban mass transit systems a report by the International Tunnelling Association (ITA). Prepared by Working Group Number 13 (WG13). Direct and indirect advantages of underground structures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research. 2004; 19(1): 3−28.
11. Bobylev N. Strategic environmental assessment of urban underground infrastructure development policies. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. May 2006; 21(3): 469.
12. Bobylev N, Sterling R. Urban underground space: A growing imperative. Perspectives and current research in planning and design for underground space use. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 2016; 55: 1−4. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2016.02.022.
13. Qanavati E, Barzegar S, Jan-Babanjadaduri MH. Evaluation of location of new cities in Iran (Case study: New city of thought). Journal of Geography and Urban Planning Zagros Perspective. 2010; 5: 147−163 .
14. Kavousi I Asadian, F, Shahpari S. Locating schools using geographic information system (GIS). Urban Management Studies Journal. 2009; 2: 59−66.
15. Nohehgar A, Khorani A, Tamaski A. Climatic analysis of suspended dust in Sarpol-e-Zahab meteorological station (1986−2009). Journal of Geography and Environmental Hazards. 2013; 6: 102−189.
16. Neshat AR, Dadras M, Safarpour S. Study of sensitivity of urban worn-out tissue using comparison of statistical methods and GIS (Study area: Bandar Abbas). Journal of Geomatics Science and Technology. 2018; 22: 217−233.
17. Momeni M, Sharifi Salim A. Models and multi-index decision making software. Tehran: Authors Publishing; 2011 .
International Journal of Construction Engineering and Planning
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Received | February 23, 2021 |
| Accepted | March 20, 2021 |
| Published | March 20, 2023 |