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

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

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

References

Beard, V. A. (2005). Individual determinants of participation
in community development in Indonesia.
Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy, 23, pp. 21-39, doi: 10.1068/c36m.
Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using Social Goals to Evaluate
Public Participation in Environmental Decisions.
Policy Studies Review, 16 (3–4), pp. 75–103.
Bolan, R. S. (1973). Community Decision Behavior:
The Culture of Planning. In Andreas 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), pp. 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,
pp. 761-782, Doi: 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 Bishwapriya 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),
pp. 447-456.
Friedman, J. (2005). Globalization and Emerging
Culture of Planning. Progress in Planning, 64, pp.
183-234. Do: 10.1016/j. progress. 2005.05.001.
Othengrafen, F. (2012). Uncovering the Unconscious
Dimensions of Planning: Using Culture as a Tool to
Analysis Spatial Planning Practices. USA: Ashgate.
Othengrafen, F. (2014). The Concept of Planning Culture;
Analysing How Planners Construct Practical
Judgements in a Culturised Context. International
Journal of E-Planning Research, 3(2), 1-17. doi:
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,
pp.1269-1284, doi:10.1068/a45131.
Ran, B. (2012). Evaluating Public Participation in Environmental
Policy-Making. Journal of USChina
Public Administration, 9 (4), pp. 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. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sbspro.2012.07.002
Sanyal, B. (2005). Hybrid Planning Cultures: The
Search for the Global Cultural Commons. In Bishwapriya
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 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.
NewYork: McGraw Hill Inc.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 20 August 2023
  • Revise Date: 23 September 2023
  • Accept Date: 29 November 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics