Explanation the optimal model of participatory planning of urban projects using the Delphi method (Case Study: 1th District of Tehran city)

Sadeghzadeh Diman, Nima; Toghyani, Shirin; Saberi, Hamid; Shabani, Amir Hossein

doi:10.22034/jumes.2023.709797

Explanation the optimal model of participatory planning of urban projects using the Delphi method (Case Study: 1th District of Tehran city)

Document Type : Case Study

Authors

Nima Sadeghzadeh Diman ¹

Shirin Toghyani ²

Hamid Saberi ³

Amir Hossein Shabani ²

¹ Ph.D. researcher, Advancement in Architecture and Urban Planning Research Center & Young Researchers and Elite Club, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Advancement in Architecture and Urban Planning Research Center, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

³ Assistant Professor, Department in urban planning, Tourism Research Center, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

10.22034/jumes.2023.709797

Abstract

The current research is applied research because it seeks to achieve a scientific goal
and emphasizes on solving a problem and includes a set of methods whose purpose
is to describe the conditions or phenomena under investigation. In this research,
considering the need to explain and present the optimal model of participatory
planning of urban projects in Tehran, the type of exploratory research and the
method of carrying it out is descriptive-survey based on qualitative interview data
and quantitative Delphi questionnaire and structural equation questionnaire (to
verify the extracted codes and provide a quantitative model). Therefore, the present
research is a mixed method. The statistical population of this research includes two
groups, the first group is 12 urban planning experts and city managers and decisionmakers
who are at the top of affairs, and the second group is the population living
in district one of Tehran, based on the census. In 2015, more than 487 thousand
people are estimated. The results show that physical component (0.455) has highpriority
and social component (0.218) has a low-priority in participatory planning of
urban projects in Tehran. Finally, urban planning is compatible with strengthening
the economic capabilities of the local community and maintaining independence
and self-sufficiency in the production of goods and services. This practice increases
income, entrepreneurship, innovation and competitiveness in the local community.
Also, by preserving natural resources and reducing dependence on imports, it helps
to achieve the goal of sustainable development

Keywords

Participatory planning. physical

component

social component

sustainable development

Tehran

Beard, V. A. (2005). Individual determinants of participation in community development in Indonesia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23, 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1068/c36m
Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Policy Studies Review, 16(3–4), 75–103.
Bolan, R. S. (1973). Community decision behavior: The culture of planning. In A. Faludi (Ed.), A Reader in Planning Theory(pp. 371-394). New York: Pergamon Press.
Connelly, S. (2010). Participation in a hostile state: How do planners act to shape public engagement in politically difficult environments? Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), 333-351.
Conrad, E., Cassar, L. F., Christie, M., & Fazey, I. (2011). Hearing but not listening? A participatory assessment of public participation in planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29, 761-782. https://doi.org/10.1068/c10137
Dyckman, J., Creditor, A., & Banerjee, T. (1984). Planning in an unprepared environment: The example of Bahrain. The Town Planning Review, 55(2), 214-227.
Faludi, A. (2005). The Netherlands: A culture with a soft spot for planning. In B. Sanyal (Ed.), Comparative Planning Cultures(pp. 442-454). New York: Routledge.
Forester, J. (2006). Making participation work when interests conflict: Moving from facilitating dialogue and moderating debate to mediating negotiations. American Planning Association, 72(4), 447-456.
Friedman, J. (2005). Globalization and emerging culture of planning. Progress in Planning, 64, 183-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2005.05.001
Othengrafen, F. (2012). Uncovering the unconscious dimensions of planning: Using culture as a tool to analyze spatial planning practices. USA: Ashgate.
Othengrafen, F. (2014). The concept of planning culture: Analyzing how planners construct practical judgments in a culturised context. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 3(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2014040101
Othengrafen, F., & Reimer, M. (2013). Embeddedness of planning in cultural contexts: Theoretical foundations for the analysis of dynamic planning cultures. Environmental and Planning A, 45, 1269-1284. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45131
Ran, B. (2012). Evaluating public participation in environmental policy-making. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 9(4), 407-423.
Rasmussen, C. (2012). Participative design and planning in contemporary urban projects. Urban Planning & Management, Aalborg University.
Salama, A. M. (2012). Knowledge and design: People-environment research for responsive pedagogy and practice. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 8-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.07.002
Sanyal, B. (2005). Hybrid planning cultures: The search for the global cultural commons. In B. Sanyal (Ed.), Comparative Planning Cultures(pp. 3-25). New York: Routledge.
Steinhauer, C. (2011). International knowledge transfer: Analysis of planning culture. In M. Schrenk, V. V. Vasily, & P. Zeile (Eds.), Change for stability – Lifecycles of cities on regions; the role and possibilities of foresighted planning in transformation processes: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Urban Planning, Regional Development and Information Society(pp. 483-492). Schwechat: CORP (Competence of Urban and Regional Planning).
Whittick, A. (1974). Encyclopedia of Urban Planning. New York: McGraw Hill Inc.