Extended English Abstract

Introduction
The intensification of global risks, particularly pandemics like COVID-19, has positioned urban resilience as fundamental concepts in urban planning and design, especially at the neighborhood scale. The COVID-19 pandemic not only challenged public health but also exposed critical vulnerabilities in conventional urban planning paradigms, necessitating a re-evaluation of mechanisms for urban recovery, resilience. This research was conducted to identify various urban planning factors influencing the resilience of neighborhoods in Tehran and to explain the components for enhancing their resilience during and after a pandemic. The study addresses a significant gap in the literature by proposing a comprehensive, integrated model that considers socio-cultural, economic, physical, environmental, and institutional-managerial dimensions specific to the local context of Tehran, moving beyond fragmented approaches found in previous studies..

Methodology
This applied developmental research employed a descriptive-analytical approach. The methodology involved several stages. First, an extensive review of domestic and international literature on neighborhood resilience was conducted to identify initial factors. Subsequently, these factors were refined using the Delphi method through multiple rounds of consultation with a panel of 46 urban experts and specialists. Based on the identified components, a questionnaire was designed and distributed to the same panel of experts for data collection. The collected data were analyzed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) extraction and Promax rotation in SPSS software. The reliability of the constructs was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and sample adequacy was measured with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index and Bartlett's test of sphericity. The final analysis aimed to identify latent dimensions and construct a comprehensive model of urban planning components affecting neighborhood resilience in Tehran.

Results and discussion
The findings revealed that all five predefined dimensions demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach's alpha > 0.90) and acceptable sample adequacy (KMO > 0.7). The EFA results indicated that the socio-cultural, economic, environmental, and institutional-managerial dimensions were single-factor constructs. In contrast, the physical-accessibility dimension was identified as a two-factor construct.
Socio-Cultural Dimension: This single factor, explaining 71.989% of the variance, encapsulates eight variables loading onto a unified concept termed "Social Capital and Collective Cohesion," with key loadings on "Cultural Responsibility and Social Norms" (0.915) and "Community Preparedness and Response Capacity" (0.913).
Economic Dimension: This single factor, explaining 71.616% of the variance, represents "Economic Stability and Justice," with high loadings on "Economic Opportunity and Business Resilience" (0.922) and "Insurance, Financial Support, and Safety Nets" (0.900).
Physical-Accessibility Dimension: This was a two-factor structure (cumulatively explaining 75.376% of the variance). Factor 1, "Spatial Quality and Safety," included variables like "Infrastructure and Smart Systems" and "Safety and Transmission Control." Factor 2, "Accessibility and Spatial Organization," comprised "Urban Form and Land Use" and "Mobility and Transportation."
Environmental Dimension: This single factor, explaining 69.462% of the variance, termed "Environmental Sustainability and Health," had the highest loading on "Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity" (0.878).
Institutional-Managerial Dimension: This single factor, demonstrating the highest reliability (α=0.957) and explaining 79.840% of the variance, represents "Effective Governance and Strategic Management," with the strongest loadings on "Planning, Policy, and Risk Integration" (0.937) and "Performance, Accountability, and Crisis Management" (0.931).
The discussion contextualizes these findings within existing literature. The single-factor structures align with studies emphasizing the integrated nature of resilience and safety concepts (e.g., Cheshmeh Zangi et al., 2023; Afrin et al., 2021). The critical distinction of the physical dimension into two factors challenges traditional one-dimensional views and underscores the necessity of addressing both spatial quality and accessibility simultaneously for effective resilience and safety planning, resonating with findings from Boeing & Ha (2024) and Fan et al. (2023). The strong consensus on the institutional-managerial dimension highlights its perceived role as the cornerstone for implementing effective resilience and safety strategies during crises, corroborating research by Rönkkö et al. (2022) and Tayebi et al. (2022).
Conclusion
This study successfully developed a comprehensive framework for enhancing neighborhood resilience in Tehran against pandemics, comprising 5 main dimensions and 6 core components (considering the split in the physical dimension). The model conclusively demonstrates that urban resilience are multifaceted and intertwined concepts that require a holistic and integrated planning perspective. The most significant insight is the differentiation within the physical dimension, revealing that high accessibility does not automatically confer high resilience if spatial quality are compromised. Accordingly, practical recommendations for each dimension are provided, including strengthening community-based programs, expanding insurance coverage and economic nets, simultaneous planning for spatial quality and accessibility, developing green infrastructure, and enhancing institutional transparency and participatory planning. For future research, testing this model in diverse neighborhoods of Tehran, ranking neighborhood resilience levels, and conducting qualitative studies to deepen the understanding of the interactions between the identified components are suggested.