Urban development criteria with a focus on resilience to pandemics: a case study of Corona Virus (Covid-19)

Urban resilience to Corona Virus and its globalization has become a major concern for cities these days. The spread of the Corona Virus (Covid-19) pandemic began in early 2020 and gradually spread throughout the world. This pandemic affected all aspects of the individual and social life of the inhabitants of the planet. Our country also has not been safe from the destructive effects of this virus in social, welfare, economic, physical, governance, and management dimensions;and according to official statistics, hundreds of thousands of people in Iran have been infected with this virus and tens of thousands have died so far. Therefore, to measure urban resilience to this pandemic, some criteria and sub-criteria were developed based on the authors’ documentary and field studies, and their significance or weights were determined using analytical-comparative research method using a questionnaire of paired or L-hour comparisons from the viewpoint of experts in urban sciences and urban development using AHP hierarchical analysis in EXPERT CHOICE software. Then, designing a questionnaire with a five-point Likert scale, the satisfaction of Tehran residents with the extracted criteria and sub-criteria was measured and the correlation between the important criteria in each dimension was assessed using correlation tests in SPSS16 software. According to the obtained results of AHP analysis and the scores of each sub-criterion, the weight of all criteria was normal. In the next stage, according to the pairwise correlation tests between the important criteria in each dimension from the viewpoint of urban science experts and Tehran residents, it was concluded that the reliability of the correlation between the criteria is 99%. In all the cases, the P-value or the same significance level was less than 0.05, which indicated the significance of the pairwise relations between the variables.


Introduction
In recent decades, the increase in the world population especially in urban areas as an important phenomenon has created many complexities and problems in various elds. Meanwhile, the eld of risks is one of the most important issues in the area of urban planning and design for crisis and risk management, reducing risks and injuries, increasing safety, and quality of life.
The city is very important as the scene of events. Therefore, planning, recognizing urban spaces, and their proper design are ways to meet various needs of citizens in the three dimensions of prevention, response, and post-crisis measures. So, when dealing with crises in urban planning and design, paying attention to the principle of exibility as one of the factors in creating high quality and resilient urban space enables the space to provide several options at any time to deal with and reduce risks and effects of the crisis for the citizens (Fallah et al.: 2014(Fallah et al.: : 1354. This uncontrolled and rapid population growth has made urbanization one of the main risk factors. Also, given that cities are centers of diverse economic and social activities, they are very vulnerable to natural hazards (Parvin et al., 2016: 21). Therefore, one of the major problems faced by most of the world's metropolises is natural hazards that always threaten human settlements and lives, and in a short time can cause extensive damage and loss (Sasanpour and Musavand, 2010: 29).
Accordingly, today's urban societies, especially developing societies, face a complex range of social, environmental, economic, etc. challenges against natural hazards. In many of these communities, new approaches are needed to cope with these challenges (Grimmond, 2007: 84).
Cities and settlements have been created or built in places that are prone to various natural disasters or man-made disasters due to technological advances. The approach to disaster management and urban management so far has been mostly a confrontation and risk reduction approach. Meanwhile, the concept of resilience is a new concept that is mostly used in the face of unknowns and uncertainties (Farzad Behtash et al., 2013: 33).

Materials And Methods
The present study seeks to answer two basic questions: what are the criteria and sub-criteria affecting the realization of urban resilience to Covid-19 in Tehran and how much is the signi cance and weight of each of these cases from the perspective of urban science experts such as urban designers and planners and citizens? How is the correlation between these criteria? So, the following steps have been taken to answer the above questions: First, through documentary studies, while reviewing the literature on the subject, using the analytical-comparative method, the signi cance of the 12 criteria and 36 sub-criteria extracted according to the theories of various urban intellectuals and experts was measured. The selected experts were urban managers, consulting engineers, contractors, and university professors who were experienced and knowledgeable about urban projects in the eld of urban planning and design in Tehran. The selection of these experts was based on purposeful sampling and nally, 16 experts were selected to complete the pairwise comparison (Lhour) questionnaire. The results of experts' opinions using the AHP hierarchical analysis method in EXPERT CHOICE software have been used to score the criteria and sub-criteria in the study, the result of which can be seen in the score column in Table 5. It should be noted that the sum of scores of the sub-criteria of each criterion was equal to one which indicates the normality of the weight of the sub-criteria to continue studies in the eld.
In the next step, to prioritize and measure the signi cance of the criteria and sub-criteria from the viewpoint of Tehran citizens, a questionnaire including questions related to the extracted criteria was prepared and valued using a ve-point Likert scale. This questionnaire was completed based on purposeful sampling by 120 people who were selected completely randomly.
Finally, by analyzing the data obtained from the questionnaires, using the pairwise correlation test in SPSS 16 software, the correlation between the criteria of each dimension was measured.

Theory (Concepts And Theoretical Foundations)
3. 1. Resilience The concept of resilience means the ability to resist or adapt to various shocks, pressures, and stresses, which has been widely used in urban studies (Vanolo, 2015: 1).
The term resilience has a very long history and its use dates back to at least a century before Christ (Alexander, 2013(Alexander, : 2708. But the concept of resilience in the modern era (the 1970s) goes back to the General System Theory and rst began by Crawford Stanley Holling. Holling (1973) de nes resilience as an indicator of system continuity and its ability to absorb change and maintain the relationship between groups of society in different ecological systems. Since then, the term has been used and applied in almost all disciplines, languages, institutions, as well as in different cities and regions (Garschagen, 2013: 27). Today, the concept of resilience has entered the eld of planning with different orientations (social, economic, physical, managerial, etc.), although most of its attention is still focused on environmental issues and a large part of its discoveries is about the management of environmental hazards such as earthquakes, oods, hurricanes, and global warming (Pizzo, 2015: 134).
The concept of resilience has been de ned in various ways, and several conceptual circles have been formed from it. However, there is a comprehensive conceptual agreement on this issue. According to Alberti et al., whose de nition of resilience has been widely cited in scienti c studies, resilience is "the degree to which a system can absorb risks and reorganize itself". Accordingly, resilience is a combination of "disorder absorption and achieving equilibrium", "self-reorganization" and "increasing learning and adaptation capacity" (Alberti, et al., 2003).
Numerous de nitions of resilience have been proposed so far, but due to its widespread use in various sciences, a comprehensive de nition of resilience has not yet been provided. Table 1 shows some of the de nitions of resilience and Table  2 shows the de nitions of resilience in different sciences.  (1999) Resilience means that the community can withstand severe natural disasters without facing major damages, injuries, cessation of production, or reduced quality of life and without receiving much help from outside the community.

Adger (2000)
It is the power of groups and communities to adapt to external pressures and the destructions that result from social, political, and other changes.

Pelling (2003)
The ability of a social agent to cope with or adapt to risky tensions. Paton et al. (2001) Resilience is an active process of self-correction, conscious provision of resources, and growth; the ability to create psychological structures to a level beyond the expected individual ability and past experiences.
Timmerman (1981) Resilience is the capacity of a system or part of it to absorb and recover after a hazardous event. Buckle et al. (2000) The quality of people, communities, agencies, and infrastructures reduces vulnerability. It is not only the lack of vulnerability but also the capacity to prevent and reduce damages and then, in the second place, in the event of damage, to maintain ideal conditions in the community as much as possible, and then in the third place to recover from the effects.
Source: (Rezaei, 2010: 27) A clear example of urban resilience characteristics is the sample developed as part of the United Nations City Resilience Pro ling Tool (CRPT, 2018) and is a general guide to a variety of inconsistencies and events. In conceptualizing their framework, the team in the UN-Habitat (ibid.: 21) uses 10 important factors in creating resilience in the city. These important factors are known as holistic measures to include a wide range of considerations (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 49).
The rst factor is that the urban resilience framework should be "measurable" and show the "tangible and intangible realities" that can be converted into qualitative and quantitative data. The second factor is "urban systems", which are de ned as complex parts of integrated and complex systems, consisting of parts, people, and risks, and are managed through effective mechanisms. The third factor is considering "residents"; all people who live, work, visit, or travel to the city just as we as institutions, organizations, businesses, etc., life or have relations with each other. The fourth factor is the importance of "cohesion", including maintaining support and services, nancial ows, and structures, to save people's lives (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 49).
The fth factor is known as a response to pressures and overcoming "shocks and stresses". These are identi ed as situations with hazards for the city and those that may be "sudden and slowly destructive, natural or man-made, rare and orderly, predictable or unpredictable". The sixth factor is the major focus on "transformation", which refers more to examples of "taking an active and forward-looking attitude that turns challenges into opportunities for growth". This means methods of progress in transformations that can change the situation by creating incremental transformations and support. The seventh factor is recognition of "sustainability" and its methods including a wide range of factors of community development, innovations, economic production, and service support. The seventh factor is the importance of access, which refers to what ultimately creates a wide range of actions, guidelines, and recommendations; practically applicable cases. Finally, these eight factors lead to two important factors: "planning" and "action". Using appropriate planning methods, we can create effective strategies and strengthen the city to deal with a wide range of vulnerabilities and strengthen the capacity for effective and e cient performance; and through actions, we can provide reliable and constructive assessments to support strategic planning and respond to the situation (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 50).

Urban resilience
In the most recent de nition of urban resilience in recent studies, it refers to the capabilities of an urban system and all its constituting socio-ecological and socio-technical networks at temporal and spatial scales that in the face of disruptions maintain desirable performances or return to them quickly; a system that is adaptable to change, and if the system limits the capacity to adapt to current or future changes, it is rapidly changed and transformed by the resilience feature (Meerow, Newell, & Stults, 2016).

Sciences
De nitions Ecological Measurement of the system's ability to absorb changes; the speed at which a system returns to its original state; the capacity of a system to absorb turbulence and reorganize; the ability of a system to withstand pressure; the amount of turbulence that a system can absorb and remain in the same state.

Socioecological
Learning to live despite changes and uncertainties; diversity increases the ability to learn from disasters; combining different types of knowledge to learn; creating opportunities for self-organization.

Social
The ability of groups or communities to adapt to external tensions and turmoil; the ability of social units to reduce risks; conducting recovery activities to reduce social disruption; the ability to take advantage of opportunities.

Economics
The inherent response and adaptation of individuals and communities to hazards enable them to reduce the losses of potential harms resulting from hazards.

Psychology
The ability of an individual to walk away and retreat in the face of disasters and accidents; the capacity for successful adaptation; positive performance following prolonged and severe shocks.

Basic science
The ability to store the pressure's energy and elasticity under a load that bends without breaking or deforming; the speed at which a system returns to equilibrium after displacement regardless of the required uctuation.
Source: (Ra eian et al., 2011: 23) Urban resilience is a relatively new concept that still lacks a clear de nition (Jabareen, 2012). The de nition of urban resilience generally refers to the ability of a city or urban systems to withstand a wide range of shocks and stresses (Agudelo-vero et al., 2012). This shows that urban resilience ensures not only a system of returning to the past state of equilibrium but also the possibility of adapting to changes and further survival of the city in the future (Folke, Carpenter, et al., 2010).
Are (2011) argues that different areas of the city show different spectra of resistance to changes. In cities, these changes are often caused by economic, cultural, and technological conditions (Are , 2014).
One of the bene ts of planning for urban resilience is that there is no need to focus on a speci c pattern of urban form or urban development. This exibility allows for responsiveness and adaptability given the unique circumstances of cities and development plans. This leads to intellectual creativity to think about different ways of achieving resilience without being limited to a speci c framework (Turner, 2013).
The Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (SDR, 2005) describes the characteristics of resilient cities as follows: Appropriate and relevant hazards are identi ed and understood.
Resilient cities know when danger is imminent.
People are safe from hazards.
Resilient societies experience minimal disruption in the course of their lives and economies after disasters (Solecki, Leichenko, et al., 2011).

Dimensions of urban resilience
To measure the resilience of cities against risks such as pandemics, rst, the dimensions and components of urban resilience should be recognized.
The ecological resilience perspective has been adopted from a wide range of elds including anthropology, environmental psychology, cultural theory, economics, management, and organizational sociology (Folke, 2006: 255). This model of resilience focuses on the stability of conditions despite changes and unpredictability (King, 2008: 114).
Among the dimensions of resilience, the economic dimension is one of the most important. According to recent topics in engineering and economics, measurement of economic structures is possible through the identi cation of weaknesses of the economic system to increase economic resilience caused by human and natural disasters (Martinelli et al., 2014: 961). Therefore, economic resilience is evaluated based on the severity and extent of the damage, the capacity or ability to compensate the damages and the ability to return to appropriate employment and income conditions, the amount of household capital and incomes convertible into capital and employment, housing status, access to nancial services, insurance, allowances and the ability to revive economic activities of households after an accident. This dimension of resilience increases or reduces economic stability, especially livelihood stability in the community (Rezaei, 2014, 27).
In different studies, different descriptions of the concept of social resilience have been obtained and the de nitions of it have been relatively personal and free (Kulig, 2000: 375). But in general, social resilience has been de ned as the ability of a social institution (a group or society) to leap backward or respond positively to hardships and disasters (Almedom, 2005: 253).
The concept of organizational resilience is de ned as the ability of an institution or organization to adapt to the conditions of the surrounding environment and the ability to create redevelopment capability to absorb and manage environmental changes. Therefore, in the literature on organizational resilience, it is assumed that crises (system disruptions) occur in the natural course of an organization. Here, the important thing is organizational readiness in terms of strategy, operations, and concentrated structure (Ayling, 2009: 84).
A resilient city is a stable network of physical systems and human communities. Physical systems are the environmental and built-up components of a city, including roads, buildings, infrastructures, communication facilities, soil, geographical features, and the like. In general, physical systems act as the body, the bones, and the arteries of a city. In the event of an accident, physical systems must be able to survive and function in critical conditions (Godschalk, 2003: 136).

Resilience and pandemics
At the times of pandemics, there is a need for more urban resilience than the strategic resilience plan. As mentioned earlier, when pandemics occur the conditions are indescribable and exclusive responses are required. This became apparent some years ago when we developed the rst resilient city tool (Siemens, Arup, and RPA, 2013).
Through various studies on resilient cities and urban resilience measures, we can examine a wide range of direct impacts on health, emergency medical services, communities, infrastructures, economics and businesses, reliability, production systems, social welfare, and quality of life. Since much of the city's structure is deteriorating rapidly, we must ensure that the city is su ciently prepared to manage the situation before it can make progress (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 8).
For the measures to be effective, urban resilience requires pioneering thinking. Besides, there is certainly a need to support guidelines and frameworks (Ihekweazu, et al., 2010).
To date, there is little speci c literature on urban resilience during pandemics. On the other hand, there are general examples of practical measures, frameworks, tools, and guidelines that enable us to support the cities in need. In practice, however, urban o cials often need to make decisions quickly and accurately. These decisions must be speci c in content and address cultural factors, social needs, and economic concerns about that particular city or place. This process is so effective that it can cause signi cant change and disruption in any direction. Any decision must be made carefully before it is made available to the public, otherwise, it can turn into various media games from social media to international media. They can make fake news, increase anxiety and fear, and simply create pandemonium (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 9).
At the time of pandemics, many public health issues require a new (or modi ed) perspective. Hence, when pandemics occur in cities and urban communities, vulnerabilities are much higher. Undoubtedly, resilience is necessary for every event and in every society. Most importantly, we also individually and socially, as a part of society must acquire resilience skills. However, the likelihood of failures in skills is high, and reconsideration and regretting from these decisions and skills can take much time and inhibit progress, and interrupt the recovery at any time (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 9).
In general, urban resilience should be realized as the backbone of how cities are managed effectively and pro tably, especially in the event of pandemics. There is little preparation (which does not include limited services, equipment, and facilities) before the actual outbreak begins. So, most tasks are not necessarily related to preparedness but are immediate and strategic responses that must be developed, outlined, and implemented during pandemics. This is just why at times of pandemics like some catastrophic events vulnerabilities are so high and cities and communities are at a dangerous level of risk (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 9).
WHO (2019: 15) indicates in its reports that, while guidance in the management of pandemics and responding to outbreaks is clear, but the health sector also has a critical role in preventing and minimizing health consequences in emergencies due to natural, technological and social hazards. In addition to this report, it is important to note that from the perspective of urban management, different sectors should experience the same situation; other sectors related to such incidents intend to respond quickly and appropriately to the emergencies and disruptions resulting from these special events.
In other words, the city as a whole becomes a creature that needs to deal with emergencies at several different levels and sectors. By having a resilience plan (for example, in any action-based performance), the city can act more effectively in managing speci c events and their negative effects on society (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 10).
Hence, it is suggested to strengthen urban resilience where we can and where it seems to be possible in certain circumstances (e.g. economic capacities, capabilities, economic background, social issues, etc.). With such a planning approach, we can accelerate the processes of controlling and recovering from pandemics_ that is, better management of the spread of the disease and preventing it from turning from an emergency to a disaster (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 10).
Finally, what needs to be considered is the method of preparation and response in a process. This requires a framework that can be effective in the existing changing situation at the time of pandemics. Therefore, a fundamental action with responsibility by government o cials (from several departments), emergency units and emergency medical services, and other related stakeholders of the public sector, private bodies, non-governmental organizations, NGOs, community groups and the public is essential. This situation creates new management and operational ecosystem that requires resilience measures and adaptive capacities (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 10).
These factors, in addition to having adequate planning measures, require a tangible resilience capacity to be able to effect quickly, prepare, and respond to situations in the best possible way (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 10).

Cities at the time of pandemics
At all stages of pandemics, cities can suffer greatly and society may need to endure some of these negative effects for some time. However, from a positive perspective, new opportunities have arisen to strengthen urban resilience and urban management (Hrudey et al., 2002).
Besides, it is clear that during pandemics, we are faced with a wide range of vulnerabilities, as well as a wide range of affected local groups and individuals who can be even more vulnerable than other local groups and individuals. In most pandemics, depending on their mortality rate and the quality of their response to control and treatment measures, we can identify three distinct categories of vulnerable/local groups that may suffer the most: People who are unaware of the conditions and, for any reason, do not know may be infected or may have the disease/virus. Hence, their delayed response or action at the latest stages may lead to the progression of the disease in their body.
Those vulnerable sections of the society who are less resistant to diseases/ viruses/ infections, including the elderly, those with previous health conditions, or those prone to high health risks.
Those communities, cities, and even countries that lack health infrastructures and poorer resilience, or those with limited resources and insu cient equipment, emergency units, diagnostic and con rmation tools, medical personnel, and related equipment (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 32).
The above-mentioned vulnerable groups represent a wide range of groups, from individuals to larger scales of cities or countries (or their clusters). Hence, during pandemics, the alert level rises to a higher level if it spreads or concentrates in poorer countries or areas with minimal health infrastructures/ systems and many other related factors that indicate a more vulnerable location. Therefore, we must consider vulnerable groups and individuals as the rst point of our resistance planning (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 32).

3.6.
Step-by-step perspective of cities It is important to summarize how cities respond in the event of pandemics. It may seem that cities are operating normally and without any disruption or unexpected disruption. After searching for more information and using the o cial announcements that are made for pandemics, we nally nd out that the performance of cities has changed a little. Usually, there are only minor effects. With the initial symptoms, we can see few people in public places, outdoors, shopping malls, and crowded areas of the city. As this stage progresses to a more alarming stage in the response stage, other sectors are also affected. The health care system and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) become more vigilant, and operational changes in cities increase with a higher speed. The public sector is affected the most because many public services gradually reduce their operations or may temporarily stop their tasks. It seems that in the use of public places, transportation in large-scale places, public transportation, and other public facilities have decreased further. In the next stage, namely the "transition phase", depending on the severity and scale of the pandemic, cities gradually prevent secondary operations. Hospitals and health clinics may become important points. So, they need more support to prevent the spread of the disease in those critical points. At this stage, cities will face major problems as most businesses, industries, and retail units may stop (or you may be asked to stop). If this happens, apart from the existing effects on society, its effects on the economy will also be more understandable. This will lead to more system failures as cities are facing more disruptions in their functions. At this stage, economic resilience and economic management are very signi cant for many critical infrastructures and key institutions under pressure. The economic foundation of cities suffers while the community worries about the rapid increase in cases and the mortality rate. At this stage, it is not necessary to close the city, but it may seem necessary if the response rate is not very fast in the early stages. This closing method can be partial to prevent negative effects on more parts. Eventually, the situation should become more stable, and it may end at this stage or peak at a later stage (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 32-33).
The two-way "transition" phase usually begins with a moment of pause. This is a critical time for any city, as progress may change the direction. The pandemic could get worse, and this may cause the most damage to the city, as it can stop all operations and only health institutions and EMS can work. By stopping transportation, food systems and other industries become very vulnerable. If in the transition stage the pandemic has shown signs of improvement, then urban activities can begin slowly at the end of this stage. This process is gradually shifting so that the city slowly moves from an alert/emergency to a safer stage of improvement. In the transition phase, if the situation worsens, the pandemic can also change to a catastrophic state with higher risks than anticipated in the response phase. If this happens, the situation needs more support at various governmental levels and it may turn into a completely closed condition. If it did not happen sooner, this means signi cant impacts on almost all primary and secondary parts of the city. However, if the situation starts to improve in a stable pattern, the situation will approach the next stage of reduced pandemic (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 33).
In the "recovery phase", cities must adopt and implement the maximum level of monitoring and control. For early inhibition, all operations must be stopped or monitored thoroughly and carefully. Cities should not take more risks and can compensate for more vulnerability. Recovery should succeed through full control of the pandemic. Any defect at this stage can potentially prolong the situation and intensify its prevalence, which will ultimately put more pressure on city o cials and the entire city operations. After that, it becomes more di cult to maintain the adequate performance of various entities/ services. So, it is important to experience a temporary problem rather than long-term troubles. Once a stable state is established (after a certain period), then the operation may start gradually from the primary entities/ services to the secondary ones. This gradual change before achieving recovery must be carefully managed and the conditions must be under complete control. At this stage, the city must strengthen its health systems to ensure increased treatment opportunities and then support the overall process of treatment and recovery. When this happens, the situation gradually progresses toward full recovery of the pandemic. The path to this must be paved through high security, high supervision, a high level of risk management, and high resistance to any unexpected changes (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 33-34).
With the success in the recovery phase, the community will begin to relax more. Finally, it is transferred to the nal stage of "post-recovery". This occurs when regular operations of various departments, services, and extensive systems are visible. It is important that all progress can be seen as much as possible. Such an approach improves the sense of distress in the community and assures businesses and industries to plan for their regular activities. At this stage, cohesion is crucial in every aspect and all sectors, because a system in a healthier ecosystem of urban resilience and management can help another. Disorders are expected to be minimized during this stage, and the community needs the highest level of support to ensure initial recovery. At this stage, more public-oriented and community-oriented performance should shape and revive the overall operations of the city. Careful monitoring should remain in place to prevent any unexpected problems. By doing this, we will be able to return all departments to regular operations and maintain the conditions of all systems and services to their original regular patterns. In the last stage after the recovery, the city must resume its exibility and maintain or improve its main institutions. Finally, the most important thing is the development of a "responsive urban management" (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 34).

Progress through responsive urban management
In a broader sense, there are many theories about resilience and its applications (Carlson et al., 2012;Barrett and Constas, 2014).
But there is a signi cant difference between the theoretical aspects of resilience and how it develops in action planning (Coaffee, 2013;Coaffee and Lee, 2016;Cheshmehzangi, 2020a).
Through a better understanding of urban resilience (including a general overview of actions, applications, and practices) and multi-sector urban management, a program can be proposed for better responding to and preparedness for disasters and pandemics. From different urban examples, different tools, and different frameworks we learn how to address resilience and urban management from different perspectives or in different situations. Studying what can be done is not important alone, but how to do them in practice should also be studied (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 34). The recent unpleasant pandemic of Covid-19 has inspired us to understand resilience from various perspectives, as most of these perspectives are related to the critical state of the pandemic. Most importantly, it is clear that resilience is a key, and city management is the ultimate answer to many functions (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 35).
Resilience is scenario-based, but it is essential for the city, and how to get out of troubles, including pandemics, is one of those scenarios. Therefore, it is important to note that urban operations cannot be stopped for a long time and cities cannot be neglected. The more we understand how cities can cope with such events, the more we can improve their resilience and support city management (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 35).

Conclusion of theory
Resilience is a concept that is fundamentally concerned with how a system, society, and individual face disruption and changes (Mitchel. T., Katie. H., 2012). Urban resilience is de ned as "the capacity of damaged communities or ecosystems to digest and repair negative effects" (Birkmann, Cardona, et al., 2013) because today, urban spaces can best play the role of centers of collective life (Cheraghi et al., 2013: 5).
Urban resilience has four main dimensions: 1) Economic: the response and adaptation of individuals and communities so that they can reduce the potential damages caused by accidents; 2) Social: it is obtained from the difference between social capacities in reacting positively, adapting to changes, and maintaining adaptive behavior and recovering from accidents; 3) Physical: an examination of physical and infrastructure systems such as pipelines and roads as well as their dependence on other infrastructures; 4) Institutional-managerial: it contains features related to risk reduction, planning and experiences of previous accidents and through the capacity of communities to reduce risk, the employment of local people is affected in reducing risk (Maleki et al., 2018: 7).
Urban resilience tools and measures are essential to respond to the problems and challenges_ that we anticipate and do not anticipate. Pandemics appear to be an example of speci c events that can be harmful in different ways and can increase the burden of managing the entire city. In such cases, this widespread vulnerability affects multiple functions of cities. The prevalence of any disease indicates the uncertain situation of the city. This is unhealthy for the government, institutions, economy, health, and most importantly, the community (Cheshmehzangi, 2020: 9).

Review Of Literature
Pandemics are diseases that affect a signi cant portion of the population. If these diseases spread rapidly to other countries or continents, they are also called global pandemics.
Throughout history, pandemics have had a profound effect on societies, both economically and culturally, and socially. The plague of Justinian, which broke out 500 BC, can be called the rst pandemic. The latest is the Corona Virus, which now almost every country in the world is struggling with it.
Studying the pandemics before the outbreak of Covid-19 will help a lot in how to deal with this new virus as well as its management nationally and globally. Thus, the table below shows a summary of the pandemic dates, the number of individuals and countries affected, and mortality rates of the pandemics or epidemics throughout history (source: authors). Results And Discussions

Extraction and analysis of the criteria and sub-criteria
To conceptualize and classify the experimental and eld studies conducted on identifying the factors affecting urban resilience in different dimensions, as well as to determine the citizens' behavior and o cials' crisis management in an epidemic such as Covid-19 throughout cities, and especially Tehran, and to examine as closely as possible the relationship between urban resilience and Covid-19, which has changed all the existing relationships in cities around the world from early 2020 to the present day in 2021, the present study sought to extract the urban development criteria related to resilience against the epidemic in physical, economic, social and welfare dimensions as well as governance and management. Therefore, relying on documentary and eld studies, several criteria along with related sub-criteria, each of which has a positive or negative orientation, were achieved. To achieve the objectives of the present study and to determine the signi cance of each of the criteria extracted in the issue of urban resilience against Corona Virus, a pairwise comparison or L-hour questionnaire was designed by the authors to compare the signi cance of several sub-criteria in each dimension. 16 experts of urban sciences including experts in urban development, urban planning, and urban design completed the questionnaire. The results of the experts' questionnaires were analyzed by AHP hierarchical method using EXPERT CHOICE software and the score and signi cance of each sub-criterion were calculated the results of which can be seen in the score column in the following table. It should be noted that the sum of the weights of the sub-criteria in each general criterion is equal to one which indicates the normality of the weight of the sub-criteria to continue the study. which have a great impact on urban life in four physical, economic, social, welfare, governance, and management dimensions, was analyzed using the correlation test with the help of SPSS 16 software, the results of which are shown in Table 6. The results of the correlation test that was performed for four criteria in the four studied dimensions show that the reliability of the correlation between the four selected criteria, namely land use and urban design in the physical dimension, security and stability in the economic dimension, community bonds, support, and social institutions in the social dimension, and welfare, as well as leadership and participation in the dimension of governance and management, is 99%; and in all these cases the Pvalue or the same signi cance level is less than 0.05, which indicates the signi cance of the pairwise relationships between the variables.
To describe the obtained correlation coe cients, it can be noted that there is a moderate correlation between the criteria of land use and urban design and security and stability; the criteria of security and stability and support and community bonds and social institutions; as well as leadership and partnership criteria and stability and security. Other pairwise correlations have weaker relationship intensity than the above.

Conclusions
Given that it has not been long since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, identi cation of the different dimensions of urban resilience against this global pandemic has many ambiguous and unknown dimensions. On the other hand, given that there are still many ambiguities and disagreements about the virus itself and its behavior, the ways to deal with Covid-19 and to improve urban resilience in the face of it are di cult. In the present study, given the concepts related to urban resilience, different dimensions and criteria of this concept were adapted based on the opinions of urban science experts and public satisfaction with the conditions and programs in Tehran to deal with Covid-19 damages in all economic, social and welfare, physical, governance, and management dimensions.
According to the research process and studies to develop urban development criteria with a focus on resilience against Covid-19, 12 criteria and 36 sub-criteria in four physical, economic, social, and welfare, and governance and management dimensions were extracted and classi ed. Each of these sub-criteria had a positive or negative orientation and a separate score. The score or weight of each sub-criterion was determined using the AHP hierarchical analysis method and L-hour (pairwise comparison) questionnaire completed by 16 urban development professors and experts of urban management, consulting engineers, and urban contractors, using EXPERT CHOICE software. Finally, the sum of the scores of the sub-criteria showed normality of the weight of the criteria and their relative signi cance in the research stages. Then, a questionnaire was designed with a ve-point Likert scale based on purposive sampling with a statistical population of 120 people selected randomly from among the residents of Tehran to measure the pairwise correlations between the four criteria of the four dimensions that have the greatest impact on citizens' lives. Using SPSS 16 software, reliability of the correlation between the four selected criteria, namely land use and urban design in the physical dimension, security and stability in the economic dimension, community bonds, support and social institutions in the social dimension and welfare as well as leadership and participation in the dimension of governance and management was 99%. In all these cases the P-value or the same signi cance level is less than 0.05, which indicates the signi cance of the pairwise relationships between the variables.
Finally, according to all the studies and examination of the criteria by urban development experts and professors as well as Tehran residents, it is concluded that during the Corona Virus pandemic, all four dimensions are equally important for urban resilience against this virus. Measures should be taken to increase the level of resilience in all these four dimensions and criteria. Examples of these measures are provided in the form of suggestions as follows: