Quarterly Journals of Urban and Regional Development Planning

Abstract 1. Introduction Urban governance scholarship increasingly treats transparency as a cornerstone of legitimate, accountable local government, yet its relationship with power has rarely been examined systematically. Policy discourse often frames transparency as a neutral technical instrument for enhancing public trust and administrative accountability. This study argues that such framing overlooks how the design, institutionalization, and implementation of transparency mechanisms are embedded in the power relations among the diverse actors populating urban governance—the state, local institutions, the private sector, civil society, and elites. Governance, understood as a process through which state and non-state actors implement policies within, and are shaped by, formal and informal rules of power, situates transparency within contested boundaries between disclosure and concealment rather than in a vacuum. Given persistent ambiguity about the real effectiveness of transparency initiatives in producing accountability, reducing corruption, and improving services, and the absence of a systematic account of how power imbalances distort participatory transparency efforts, this study asks the following questions: Research Questions 1. How does formal power shape the design, institutionalization, and implementation of transparency mechanisms in urban governance? 2. What role does informal power play in strengthening or weakening these mechanisms? 2. Literature Review Transparency requires legal legitimacy and social acceptance, both constituted within power relations; classical accounts frame it as a check on power, while recent work shows it can itself be absorbed into power relations (Flyverbom, 2015; Wood & Aronczyk, 2020). Power is defined as “the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape actors’ capacities to determine their circumstances and fate” (Barnett & Duvall, 2005, p. 4), spanning both agency-centered “power over” (Lukes, 2005) and diffuse, Foucauldian “power to” (Foucault, 2003; Flyverbom et al., 2015b). 2.1. Formal and Informal Power in Urban Governance Formal power derives legitimacy from law and bureaucratic institutions (Gordon et al., 2009), while informal power rests on social networks and interpersonal ties that often parallel formal structures (Ud Din Ahmed et al., 2020). Classic studies (Hunter, 1953; Dahl, 1961; Flyvbjerg, 2002) show how elite and informal relations shape urban outcomes despite formal rules, situating transparency at the intersection of both forms of power (Ayres, 2020). 2.2. The Concept of Transparency Transparency, rooted in the ideal of open governance, is widely framed as an antidote to illegitimate concealment (Henriques, 2007; Oliver, 2004) and a power resource in public-sphere interactions (Meijer, 2013), yet it is never fully neutral (Valentinov et al., 2019) and requires contextual, “sociological” analysis (Pozen, 2020). Existing systematic reviews (Buijze, 2013; Cucciniello et al., 2017) have not examined how formal and informal power jointly shape transparency in urban governance, the gap this study addresses. 3. Methodology The study employed a systematic review complemented by a qualitative meta-analysis, constructing an evidence-based, cross-contextual picture rather than relying on isolated case studies. Literature was retrieved from Scopus on 3 November 2025 using a Boolean combination of three keyword clusters (transparency, power, and urban governance) with no geographic restriction, limited to English-language research or review articles in the social sciences published between 2005 and 2025. Study selection followed the PRISMA protocol: an initial pool of 8,909 records was reduced to 3,416 after eligibility screening, then to 53 following title, abstract, and keyword review, and finally to 36 studies retained for meta-analysis after removing duplicates and irrelevant studies. VOSviewer was applied to the broader corpus of 3,416 records to map keyword co-occurrence, publication trends, and geographic distribution, offering contextual background rather than testing the power–transparency relationship directly. The 36 selected studies were then re-examined through open, axial, and selective coding to identify categories describing how power shapes transparency. 4. Results Bibliometric analysis showed accelerating publication growth since the mid-2010s, particularly after 2017, alongside a discursive shift from treating transparency as a technical anti-corruption tool toward analyzing it as a field of power. Research remained concentrated in Europe (43%), Asia (22%), and North America (20%), led by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and China, while South America (2%) and Africa (7%) remained marginal—reflecting a knowledge–power relationship in which the dominant discourse and metrics of transparency were formulated primarily from developed-country experience. Qualitative meta-analysis of the 36 studies identified three pathways through which formal power shaped transparency: resistance and concealment (39%), including classifying information, using technical language, or shifting decisions to closed meetings; control and surveillance (33.3%), whereby transparency monitored citizens rather than empowering them; and reproduction and consolidation of power (33.3%), where selective disclosure served incumbent interests. Informal power operated through three roles: social pressure and civic movements (25%), acting as catalysts for accountability; brokerage and informal networks (25%), which mediated information yet could also obscure decision-making; and lobbying and behind-the-scenes relations (14%), moving decisions into unobservable arenas. 5. Conclusion The success or failure of transparency initiatives depends on more than the existence of formal rules. Policymakers should distinguish procedural transparency (access to information about processes) from substantive transparency, the genuine disclosure of decisions and underlying interests. Unilateral reforms detached from their institutional ecosystem seldom achieve their intended effects, and civil society and local media require strengthened capacity to interpret and transmit information, since transparency without independent interpreters remains undigested data. Transparency should thus be understood as a “field of contestation” among the state, local institutions, civic networks, and stakeholders competing to define visibility, accountability, and meaning, shaped simultaneously by legal structures, institutional capacity, legitimating logics, and informal networks.

Abstract 1. Introduction
Migration to cities has created economic and cultural challenges for both host and migrant communities. Migrants face job insecurity, high living costs, social isolation, and difficulties in preserving their cultural identity. In Iran, drought, legal pressures on migrants, and labor market discrimination further exacerbate these issues. Neighborhood community gardens are small green spaces collectively managed by residents, including both migrants and locals, and can reduce vulnerability while strengthening local economies. These spaces have productive and participatory functions and are often established on vacant lots or private courtyards. Research shows that such gardens contribute to resilience in two ways: economic (reducing market dependence, saving costs, generating supplementary income) and cultural (preserving traditional foods, transmitting knowledge, enhancing a sense of belonging). Most existing studies are single-site, and direct comparisons between the Global North and South remain rare. In the North, gardens tend to be formal, institutional, and education-oriented; in the South, they are more informal, survival-based, and livelihood-focused. This study compared two contrasting cases: Fahadan in Yazd (informal model) and CERES in Melbourne (formal model).
The novelty of this research lay in three aspects: first, it presented the first comparative study between Iran and Australia on community gardens and migrant resilience; second, it integrated economic and cultural dimensions within a single analytical framework; and third, it offered a locally tailored policy model for application in Iran’s historic and migrant-receptive neighborhoods.

Research Question
What roles and context-specific mechanisms did neighborhood community gardens play in enhancing the cultural and economic resilience of native and migrant communities in two distinct contexts: Fahadan in Yazd (informal) and CERES in Melbourne (formal-institutional)?

2. Literature Review
Resilience is defined as the capacity of social-ecological systems to withstand disturbances and adapt. In migration studies, it encompasses two key dimensions: economic resilience (reducing livelihood vulnerability, diversifying income sources, saving) and cultural resilience (preserving identity, transmitting knowledge, strengthening place attachment). Social capital, particularly bonding and bridging capital, links these two dimensions. Theories of participation and spatial justice emphasize equal access to urban resources such as land and water for migrant groups. In developed countries, formal gardens focus on sustainability education and mental health; in the Global South, they are mostly survival-oriented and adaptive. In Iran, while the role of traditional gardens in historic contexts has been emphasized, urban planning has largely overlooked community gardens as a community-centered strategy.

3. Methodology
This applied research adopted a mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) approach. Data were collected from 101 users (54 from Yazd, 47 from Melbourne) in December 2025 using an online questionnaire (five-point Likert scale for resilience dimensions, WHO-5 for psychological well-being, plus two open-ended questions). Validity was confirmed by four experts (CVI = 0.88). Reliability was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha (resilience = 0.86; WHO-5 = 0.91). Quantitative analysis included descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and regression. Qualitative analysis followed thematic analysis in six stages, with peer debriefing yielding 87% agreement.

4. Results
Mean resilience scores were high in both sites (Yazd: 4.48; Melbourne: 4.46), though differences were observed. In Yazd, items “access to traditional food” (4.65) and “improved food security” (4.61) scored higher. In Melbourne, “participation despite barriers” (4.43), “impact of barriers” (4.36), and psychological well-being (20.8 vs. 18.2) were more prominent. Regression identified well-being as the strongest predictor of resilience. Factor analysis extracted three factors (sociocultural, economic, mental health), explaining 68.4% of the variance. Thematic analysis revealed four themes: economic survival (42% in Yazd), preservation of traditional identity (31% in Yazd), sustainability learning and intercultural integration (38% in Melbourne), and reduced isolation (29% in both).

5. Discussion
Community gardens enhanced resilience in both contexts, but mechanisms were context-dependent. In Yazd, the survival-based, adaptive function operated through food provision, cost reduction, and reproduction of local knowledge (bonding capital). In Melbourne, the formal structure transformed gardens into spaces for organized learning, intercultural exchange, and psychological well-being (bridging capital). Differences in well-being and participation indicated that institutional support and removal of legal-financial barriers directly affected resilience quality. The predominance of internal migration in Yazd versus international migration in Melbourne suggested that policies should be differentiated according to migration patterns. Results aligned with the study’s multilevel model emphasizing feedback loops across macro, meso, and micro levels.

6. Conclusion
Community gardens were effective yet context-sensitive tools for strengthening resilience in local and migrant communities. For policymaking in Iran, three key implications emerged: (1) removing participation barriers through urban agriculture facilitation offices, (2) focusing on psychological well-being through regular group activities, and (3) differentiating policies based on migration patterns (e.g., in cities with internal migration, strengthening bonding capital and indigenous knowledge). Future longitudinal and comparative studies with other Global South countries would further validate and refine this model.

Acknowledgments
This article is derived from a postdoctoral project at Imam Khomeini International University (Contract No. 270599/1/D). The authors sincerely thank all participants who completed the questionnaires.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abstract 1. Introduction Urban governance scholarship increasingly treats transparency as a cornerstone of legitimate, accountable local government, yet its relationship with power has rarely been examined systematically. Policy discourse often frames transparency as a neutral technical instrument for enhancing public trust and administrative accountability. This study argues that such framing overlooks how the design, institutionalization, and implementation of transparency mechanisms are embedded in the power relations among the diverse actors populating urban governance—the state, local institutions, the private sector, civil society, and elites. Governance, understood as a process through which state and non-state actors implement policies within, and are shaped by, formal and informal rules of power, situates transparency within contested boundaries between disclosure and concealment rather than in a vacuum. Given persistent ambiguity about the real effectiveness of transparency initiatives in producing accountability, reducing corruption, and improving services, and the absence of a systematic account of how power imbalances distort participatory transparency efforts, this study asks the following questions: Research Questions 1. How does formal power shape the design, institutionalization, and implementation of transparency mechanisms in urban governance? 2. What role does informal power play in strengthening or weakening these mechanisms? 2. Literature Review Transparency requires legal legitimacy and social acceptance, both constituted within power relations; classical accounts frame it as a check on power, while recent work shows it can itself be absorbed into power relations (Flyverbom, 2015; Wood & Aronczyk, 2020). Power is defined as “the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape actors’ capacities to determine their circumstances and fate” (Barnett & Duvall, 2005, p. 4), spanning both agency-centered “power over” (Lukes, 2005) and diffuse, Foucauldian “power to” (Foucault, 2003; Flyverbom et al., 2015b). 2.1. Formal and Informal Power in Urban Governance Formal power derives legitimacy from law and bureaucratic institutions (Gordon et al., 2009), while informal power rests on social networks and interpersonal ties that often parallel formal structures (Ud Din Ahmed et al., 2020). Classic studies (Hunter, 1953; Dahl, 1961; Flyvbjerg, 2002) show how elite and informal relations shape urban outcomes despite formal rules, situating transparency at the intersection of both forms of power (Ayres, 2020). 2.2. The Concept of Transparency Transparency, rooted in the ideal of open governance, is widely framed as an antidote to illegitimate concealment (Henriques, 2007; Oliver, 2004) and a power resource in public-sphere interactions (Meijer, 2013), yet it is never fully neutral (Valentinov et al., 2019) and requires contextual, “sociological” analysis (Pozen, 2020). Existing systematic reviews (Buijze, 2013; Cucciniello et al., 2017) have not examined how formal and informal power jointly shape transparency in urban governance, the gap this study addresses. 3. Methodology The study employed a systematic review complemented by a qualitative meta-analysis, constructing an evidence-based, cross-contextual picture rather than relying on isolated case studies. Literature was retrieved from Scopus on 3 November 2025 using a Boolean combination of three keyword clusters (transparency, power, and urban governance) with no geographic restriction, limited to English-language research or review articles in the social sciences published between 2005 and 2025. Study selection followed the PRISMA protocol: an initial pool of 8,909 records was reduced to 3,416 after eligibility screening, then to 53 following title, abstract, and keyword review, and finally to 36 studies retained for meta-analysis after removing duplicates and irrelevant studies. VOSviewer was applied to the broader corpus of 3,416 records to map keyword co-occurrence, publication trends, and geographic distribution, offering contextual background rather than testing the power–transparency relationship directly. The 36 selected studies were then re-examined through open, axial, and selective coding to identify categories describing how power shapes transparency. 4. Results Bibliometric analysis showed accelerating publication growth since the mid-2010s, particularly after 2017, alongside a discursive shift from treating transparency as a technical anti-corruption tool toward analyzing it as a field of power. Research remained concentrated in Europe (43%), Asia (22%), and North America (20%), led by the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and China, while South America (2%) and Africa (7%) remained marginal—reflecting a knowledge–power relationship in which the dominant discourse and metrics of transparency were formulated primarily from developed-country experience. Qualitative meta-analysis of the 36 studies identified three pathways through which formal power shaped transparency: resistance and concealment (39%), including classifying information, using technical language, or shifting decisions to closed meetings; control and surveillance (33.3%), whereby transparency monitored citizens rather than empowering them; and reproduction and consolidation of power (33.3%), where selective disclosure served incumbent interests. Informal power operated through three roles: social pressure and civic movements (25%), acting as catalysts for accountability; brokerage and informal networks (25%), which mediated information yet could also obscure decision-making; and lobbying and behind-the-scenes relations (14%), moving decisions into unobservable arenas. 5. Conclusion The success or failure of transparency initiatives depends on more than the existence of formal rules. Policymakers should distinguish procedural transparency (access to information about processes) from substantive transparency, the genuine disclosure of decisions and underlying interests. Unilateral reforms detached from their institutional ecosystem seldom achieve their intended effects, and civil society and local media require strengthened capacity to interpret and transmit information, since transparency without independent interpreters remains undigested data. Transparency should thus be understood as a “field of contestation” among the state, local institutions, civic networks, and stakeholders competing to define visibility, accountability, and meaning, shaped simultaneously by legal structures, institutional capacity, legitimating logics, and informal networks.

Abstract 1. Introduction
In contemporary urbanism, human-centric approaches prioritize public space regeneration as a critical strategy for enhancing quality of life. The “Path of Sarzendegi” project in Tehran’s District 2 exemplifies this shift, creating a 47-kilometer pedestrian-oriented corridor connecting four major parks via two bridges to restore spatial coherence and foster collective life. This study systematically evaluated its socio-cultural impacts from diverse stakeholder perspectives, addressing a critical gap in Iranian urban regeneration practice where physical interventions often proceed without comprehensive socio-cultural assessment.
The theoretical framework integrates Social Capital Theory (Putnam, 2000), emphasizing trust and civic participation, with Sense of Place Theory (Relph, 1976; Lewicka, 2011), focusing on emotional and perceptual dimensions of human–environment relationships. This integration yielded analytical dimensions: social cohesion, neighborhood interactions, perceived safety, distributive justice, place attachment, neighborhood identity, spatial legibility, and collective memory.
2. Methodology
Employing a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017), the study combined semi-structured in-depth interviews (n = 25–30) with purposive maximum-variation sampling, focus groups, a researcher-designed questionnaire (n = 200, quota random sampling, Cochran’s formula), and systematic observation checklists. Data collection occurred during winter 2025 within the project’s geographical boundaries. Questionnaire validity was confirmed through expert review and pilot testing; reliability was established via Cronbach’s alpha (0.78–0.92 across dimensions). Qualitative data underwent thematic analysis; quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and one-sample t-tests. Integration followed Fetters et al.’s (2013) framework.

3. Results and Conclusion
Quantitative results revealed notable successes: identity formation and spatial legibility achieved the highest mean (4.25/5), followed by dynamism and vitality (4.19), place attachment and belonging (4.17), social interactions and collective participation (4.08), and intergenerational interaction enhancement (4.00). However, critical deficiencies emerged: nighttime safety and equitable amenity distribution both scored lowest (3.25/5), alongside weak collective memory preservation (3.79) and local culture reflection (3.71). Negative perceptions included increased traffic and congestion (2.80), alienation among long-term residents (2.10), and prioritization of tourists over residents (2.30).
Qualitative findings corroborated these patterns, revealing formation of neighborly interactions and improved perceived nighttime safety due to integrated lighting, alongside emergence of cultural gathering spaces. However, long-term residents expressed significant alienation, perceiving imported consumer culture, loss of unique local characteristics, and diminished collective memory. A critical perceptual gap emerged between long-term residents and other stakeholder groups regarding collective memory preservation and local culture reflection.
Correlation analysis demonstrated that legibility and place attachment were strongly positively correlated among new users, suggesting physical quality directly enhances emotional attachment. Conversely, daily interactions and nighttime safety showed weak or inverse correlation; increased daytime vibrancy did not translate to perceived safety after dark. Most significantly, new visual identity and collective memory were negatively correlated, indicating modern aesthetic elements failed to connect with older residents’ memories. Spatial inequity correlated strongly with dissatisfaction among long-term residents and local businesses.
These dual findings, simultaneous success in physical indicators and failure in subjective participatory indicators, reveal fundamental tensions. The theoretical contribution lies in identifying a systematic gap between physical design and symbolic capital translation, introducing the mediating concept of “spatial-narrative justice,” the right of different groups to participate in space narratability and representation of multiple identities. This demonstrates that socio-cultural impact assessment cannot be limited to quantitative satisfaction measurement but requires context-sensitive mixed methodology capable of amplifying marginalized voices.
Practical recommendations, structured within “remedial” (addressing deficiencies) and “compensatory” (redressing harm) frameworks, include: nighttime safety enhancement through expert lighting audits with community patrols and solar-powered installations; equitable amenity redistribution based on needs assessment with vulnerable group representation; collective memory revival through “Neighborhood Memory Atlas” development with oral histories and indigenous names; conflict reduction through regular “Neighborhood Days” and local craft markets; symbolic compensation for long-term residents through cultural budget allocation and naming ceremonies; institutionalization of participatory mechanisms via “Neighborhood Advisory Councils” with binding decision-making authority; mandatory socio-cultural impact assessment protocols for all regeneration projects; and continuous monitoring with monthly transparency reports.
This experience offers a potential operational model for participatory socio-cultural impact assessment in Iranian urban regeneration. However, the study demonstrates that physical regeneration alone, however impressive, cannot guarantee socio-cultural sustainability. Future projects must systematically integrate social and cultural considerations from feasibility through implementation, ensuring equitable benefit distribution, collective memory preservation, and genuine stakeholder participation. This requires fundamental institutional reform—shifting from top-down physical interventions toward collaborative, socially responsive regeneration processes that recognize regeneration as inherently socio-cultural transformation.

Abstract 1. Introduction
Rapid urbanization and persistent dilapidated fabric in seismically active cities require risk and spatial resilience to be evaluated jointly, since disaster severity depends on the interaction between built-environment vulnerability, population distribution, and urban response capacity. Seismic vulnerability assessment, urban risk analysis, shelter siting, and resilience measurement have nonetheless developed largely as separate research streams. Consequently, no integrated framework has quantified both the potential demand generated by earthquake-induced displacement and a city’s spatial response capacity in a single measure. This gap is especially consequential for historic Iranian cities with dense cores and narrow street networks. Kerman, located in a high seismic-hazard zone with an extensive dilapidated historic core, exemplifies this category, yet no prior study has jointly analyzed its vulnerability, exposure, and response capacity within a unified spatial framework.

2. Research Questions
1. What is the spatial pattern of seismic vulnerability, spatial risk, and spatial resilience in Kerman city?
2. How does the relationship between the spatial distribution of risk and emergency shelter capacity shape Kerman’s spatial resilience?
2. Literature Review
Contemporary scholarship frames risk as the interaction of vulnerability, exposure, and response capacity (Alexander, 2012; Blaikie et al., 2014; UNDRR, 2017, 2022), rooted in the Pressure-and-Release model, although this framework translates poorly into measurable neighborhood-scale spatial patterns (Wilder, 2018). Composite indices also frequently rely on arbitrarily weighted variables without sensitivity testing (Beccari, 2016; Wehbe & Baroud, 2024). Shelter-accessibility studies commonly assume an intact post-earthquake road network despite evidence that seismic events can disable access routes (Hosseini et al., 2024; Liu & Guo, 2025). The closest precedent is Wei et al.’s (2024) identification of a “spatial incongruity between disaster resilience and risk” in Chengdu. Iranian studies confirm concentrated vulnerability in historic cores but continue to treat risk analysis and shelter siting as separate research streams (Amrei et al., 2024; Kamranzad et al., 2020). These gaps motivate the integrated Spatial Resilience Index (SRI) developed in this study.

3. Methodology
This applied study used spatial multi-criteria analysis in a GIS environment on a 30×30 m raster grid covering Kerman (population 527,650; 2016 census), with population dasymetrically mapped onto cells. Dilapidated fabric was identified using structural instability, parcel fragmentation, and street impermeability. Seismic vulnerability was assessed through the Karmania Hazard Model (KHM), combining six criteria weighted by AHP (15 experts; consistency ratio = 0.04), and applied to an MMI-IX scenario using JICA (2000) fragility curves. Validation against an independent dilapidated-fabric layer yielded AUC = 0.83 and Cohen’s κ = 0.62. Population exposure combined vulnerability and population layers into a Population Exposure Index (PEI = Ph/Pt). Shelter capacity was assessed for immediate shelter (500 m buffer, 2 m²/person) and transitional shelter (>10,000 m², 9.5 m²/person), yielding a Shelter Capacity Index (SCI = Cs/Ds) and Spatial Resilience Gap (Ds − Cs). Spatial risk was calculated as R = V × E. Fuzzy AHP weighted spatial risk and shelter capacity to parameterize the SRI: SRI = Wr(1−R) + Wc(C), classified into five levels. Robustness was tested through OAT weight perturbation, alternative normalization/aggregation methods, and 1,000-iteration Monte Carlo simulation.

4. Results
The KHM identified vulnerability hotspots in the central, eastern, northern, southeastern, and southwestern districts, coinciding with the historic core; high-to-complete damage classes covered 31.7 km² (24.4% of the city). Population exposure analysis showed that 257,780 residents (48.9%) lived in high-to-complete vulnerability zones (PEI = 0.489), indicating the importance of population concentration in shaping risk. The highest spatial risk occurred in the central core and eastern/southeastern districts, where vulnerability and population density reinforced one another. Shelter assessment identified 483 immediate-shelter sites and 497 transitional-shelter candidates. Twelve principal transitional sites (2,057,467 m²) provided potential capacity for 216,576 people against a demand of 257,780 (SCI = 0.84), producing a citywide Spatial Resilience Gap of 41,204 people. Fuzzy AHP assigned weights of 0.62 to spatial risk and 0.38 to shelter capacity. The SRI showed a clear center–periphery structure: 30.8% of the city fell within very low/low resilience, concentrated in the historic core; 45.6% fell within high/very high resilience in peripheral areas; and 23.6% showed medium resilience. Sensitivity analysis confirmed robustness: ±20% OAT weight perturbations shifted critical low-resilience areas by no more than ±7.2 percentage points; alternative methods correlated above 0.94 with the baseline; and Monte Carlo results showed CV < 0.15 in 85% of cells, with the center–periphery pattern stable across all iterations.

5. Discussion
The findings situate Kerman within a broader pattern of structural risk accumulation in historic Iranian urban cores, consistent with Tehran’s historic fabric (Amrei et al., 2024). Critically, spatial resilience is not simply risk’s inverse: adequate shelter access can elevate resilience even under moderate risk, demonstrating that response infrastructure independently moderates the risk–resilience relationship. This parallels Wei et al.’s (2024) Chengdu findings and suggests that such spatial incongruities may be characteristic of historic-core cities. A key limitation is the assumption of an intact road network. Because shelter-access shortfalls concentrate in fine-grained, dilapidated fabric prone to post-earthquake blockage, the actual supply–demand gap may exceed the static estimate of 41,204 people. The SRI’s stability under weight perturbation, a validation step often absent from composite-index studies (Beccari, 2016), strengthens confidence that the observed spatial structure reflects underlying conditions rather than expert judgment alone.

6. Conclusion
Kerman’s spatial resilience follows a pronounced center–periphery pattern: the historic core, characterized by dilapidated fabric, high seismic vulnerability, dense population, and limited shelter access, occupies the lowest resilience tiers, whereas peripheral areas perform comparatively well. The main theoretical contribution is demonstrating that spatial resilience emerges from the balance between risk and response capacity rather than constituting risk’s simple inverse. Methodologically, the integrated, sensitivity-tested SRI provides a decision-support tool for prioritizing risk-reduction interventions, urban regeneration, and emergency resource allocation in historic, seismically active cities. Its limitations include the static road-network assumption, exclusion of social and institutional resilience dimensions, and the cross-sectional nature of the data.

Abstract 1. Introduction Urban happiness has increasingly become an interdisciplinary concern in urban design and environmental psychology. This study therefore examined how urban-design components relate to happiness in two structurally different neighborhoods of Qom, Iran: Bajak II, a gradually developed and semi-traditional neighborhood, and Pardisan, a newer, planned, and peripheral neighborhood. The study examined which urban-design components are more strongly associated with happiness in each neighborhood; how the relative importance and structural weight of these components differ; and how differences in the physical and social characteristics of the two contexts correspond to these patterns. 2. Literature Review The study conceptualized happiness as a multidimensional outcome produced through the interaction of three systems: physical design, social interaction, and environmental perception. Ten urban-design components were selected: mobility, transportation and accessibility; security and safety; environmental quality and green space; walkability and cycling; functional diversity and neighborhood services; social interaction and civic participation; third places and happiness-making spaces; presence and spatial dynamism; environmental perception and aesthetics; and sense of belonging and neighborhood satisfaction. The framework emphasized that these components should not be understood as isolated predictors. Rather, happiness was associated with their effective overlap and interaction at the neighborhood scale. 3. Methodology The research was applied in purpose and quantitative in approach, using a comparative-analytical survey design. Based on Cochran’s formula, 400 respondents were selected from each neighborhood, yielding a total sample of 800. A combination of cluster and simple random sampling was used. Data were collected through a researcher-developed questionnaire containing demographic questions and 30 items, with three items assigned to each of the ten components, measured on a five-point Likert scale. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, with coefficients of 0.891 for Bajak II and 0.749 for Pardisan. Spearman correlation analysis was used to assess the strength and direction of associations between the ten components and happiness. Exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation identified the underlying structure of the indicators, while separate multiple regression models estimated the relative contribution of each component to happiness. 4. Results & Discussion The Spearman results revealed substantially different association patterns. In Bajak II, presence and spatial dynamism had the strongest correlation with happiness (r = 0.826), followed by functional diversity and neighborhood services (r = 0.814), and walkability and cycling (r = 0.810). Environmental perception and aesthetics (r = 0.760), social interaction and civic participation (r = 0.762), third places and happiness-making spaces (r = 0.748), belonging and neighborhood satisfaction (r = 0.759), security and safety (r = 0.713), and environmental quality and green space (r = 0.639) showed positive associations. Mobility, transportation and accessibility had the weakest association (r = 0.273). In Pardisan, security and safety had the strongest correlation (r = 0.630), followed by social interaction and civic participation (r = 0.585), whereas belonging and neighborhood satisfaction had the weakest correlation (r = 0.352). Exploratory factor analysis further demonstrated different structural configurations. Bajak II produced six factors explaining 59.263% of total variance. The first factor combined social relations, neighborhood services, vitality, presence, satisfaction, belonging, and related everyday environmental qualities, indicating a relatively integrated social-functional structure. Pardisan produced ten factors explaining 59.592% of total variance. The first factor emphasized social interaction, women’s security, children’s play safety, participation, neighborhood happiness, child presence, and satisfaction, while other factors grouped lighting and green-space conditions, third-place spaces, daily services and aesthetics, mobility and parking, children’s recreation, neighborhood support and vitality, walkability, pavement quality, and furniture, green space, and nighttime safety. Two items (satisfaction with the quantity and quality of public transportation and neighborhood cleanliness) did not achieve acceptable factor loadings in Pardisan. Regression results showed a different hierarchy. In Bajak II, the highest standardized beta coefficients were environmental perception and aesthetics (β = 0.178), environmental quality and green space (β = 0.156), and walkability and cycling (β = 0.151); the lowest were belonging and neighborhood satisfaction (β = 0.124) and mobility, transportation and accessibility (β = 0.102). In Pardisan, the highest coefficients were environmental quality and green space (β = 0.198), walkability and cycling (β = 0.193), and presence and spatial dynamism (β = 0.192), while the lowest were functional diversity and neighborhood services (β = 0.163) and belonging and neighborhood satisfaction (β = 0.131). 5. Conclusion The findings demonstrated that the relationship between urban design and happiness is context-dependent rather than uniform. These findings provided a context-sensitive basis for neighborhood design. Bajak II exhibited a predominantly social-functional pattern and a more integrated factor structure, in which everyday services, social relations, vitality, and environmental qualities are closely interconnected. Pardisan showed a security-social pattern, together with a more differentiated factor structure in which physical and social needs appear as more distinct dimensions. The regression findings additionally indicated that aesthetic and environmental qualities have greater weight in Bajak II, whereas green-space quality and walkability have greater weight in Pardisan. Accordingly, urban-design interventions should be context-sensitive: in Pardisan, priority should be given to improving green-space quality, pedestrian continuity, lighting, perceived security, and small semi-public or third-place spaces that can support interaction. In Bajak II, priority should be given to preserving and improving environmental aesthetics, upgrading minor physical infrastructure, and maintaining functional diversity and social vitality. Overall, happiness cannot be explained by a single universal combination of urban-design factors; rather, its spatial determinants are shaped by the specific physical and social logic of each neighborhood.