معماری و شهرسازی ایران(JIAU)

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پیوندهای مفید

پرسش‌های متداول

اخبار و اعلانات

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

هزینه انتشار مقالات

فرایند داوری مقالات

مفهوم شناسی و ارائه الگوی فرآیندی تحقق‌پذیری طرح‌های توسعه شهری در ادبیات جهانی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد برنامه‌ریزی شهری، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

موضوع عملیاتی‌سازی و تحقق‌پذیری طرح‌های توسعه شهری یکی از مهمترین موضوعات مورد بررسی در ادبیات نوین برنامه‌ریزی شهری جهانی است. زیرا اگر برنامه‌ای به بهترین شکل ممکن هم تهیه شود اما اجرا نشود، انگار که اصلا تهیه نشده‌است. نیاز به این موضوع کاملاً حتی برای افراد غیر متخصص در این حوزه مشخص است. در همین راستا‌ در این تحقیق برای ارائه یک نظام پیشنهادی اولیه به مرور ادبیات جهانی این حوزه پرداخته شده‌ است. هدف اصلی این پژوهش بررسی ادبیات جهانی این موضوع و جمع‌بندی آن تحت ارائه یک الگو عملیاتی‌سازی و مدیریت اجرای طرح‌های شهری بر اساس ادبیات جهانی است. این پژوهش یک پژوهش توصیفی – تحلیلی است که در آن با بررسی اسناد و ادبیات جهانی حوزه مورد بررسی عملیاتی‌سازی و اجرای طرح‌های شهری به جمع‌آوری شاخص‌ها، نظام و ارکان این موضوع در ادبیات جهانی پرداخته شده ‌است و سپس با کمک متخصصان و بررسی ارتباطات اسناد به ارائه یک چهارچوب نهایی پیشنهادی تحت عنوان الگوی فرآیندی مدیریت اجرایی و عملیاتی‌سازی طرح‌های شهری بر اساس ادبیات جهانی پرداخته شده ‌است. در نهایت در این مطالعه با بررسی‌های انجام شده تعداد 74 شاخص، 21 آسیب، 17 رکن و یک الگویی عملیاتی‌سازی ارائه شده ‌است. یافته اصلی و نهایی این پژوهش شامل یک فرآیند 8 مرحله‌ای برای پیاده‌سازی طرح‌های توسعه شهری است. مراحل اصلی چهارچوب کلی ۸ مرحله‌ای که برای مدیریت اجرایی طرح‌های توسعه شهری در این پژوهش ارائه شده به ترتیب عبارتند از: بررسی اولیه کلیت اجرا طرح، بررسی شرایط اجرایی، مسئولیت و قوانین، زمان و منابع، برنامه عملیاتی‌سازی، اثربخشی، اجرا و ارزیابی و اصلاح؛ که تمامی این مراحل خود شامل زیر مجموعه‌های اجرایی خاص می‌باشند که به توضیح کامل آن‌ها در این پژوهش پرداخته شده ‌است.

چکیده تصویری

مفهوم شناسی و ارائه الگوی فرآیندی تحقق‌پذیری طرح‌های توسعه شهری در ادبیات جهانی

تازه های تحقیق

- بررسی تعاریف و نظریات مختلف در ارتباط با اجرای طرح‌های شهری و شناسایی و معرفی شاخص‌های تاثیرگذار بر فرآیند عملیاتی‌سازی طرح‌های شهری.
- آسیب‌شناسی اجرا و عملیاتی‌سازی در بخش‌های مختلف اجرای طرح‌های شهری در ادبیات جهانی موضوع تحقیق.
- ارائه و تعریف الگوی نهایی روند عملیاتی‌سازی و مدیریت اجرای طرح‌های شهری به مفهوم عام در جهان.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Conceptualization and presentation of a process model for implementation of urban development projects in the global literature

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amirhousein Bakhshi 1
  • Ahmad Khalili 2

1 M.A. student of Urban Planning, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: In 1984, Pressman and Wildavsky conducted a study that directly discussed the implementation of urban development plans (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984). Since then, the implementation of urban development plans has been studied extensively, with different researchers investigating four general categories of key issues in this field. The first category is the conceptual examination of program implementation based on compliance, performance, or a combination of both (Feitelson et al., 2017; Rudolf & Grădinaru, 2017). The second category includes the evaluation and different methods of urban development plans (Alfasi et al., 2012; Lyles et al., 2015). The third category is the identification of effective and influencing factors in the implementation process of urban plans (Loh, 2019; Chu, 2020). Finally, the fourth category, which has received the least attention, is the implementation system of urban plans, which examines implementation systems as a comprehensive and independent process (Suárez-Rocha et al., 2012; Hersperger et al., 2019; Nikolić et al., 2021). While research has been conducted in different sections, such as evaluation, effective factors, performance, and the role of people, the implementation system of urban plans has been limitedly studied. Thus, the main question of this research is “how to model the ideal system of implementation management” in urban development plans to achieve a general concept in the world. The purpose of this article is to identify and introduce an evaluation model and executive management for urban plans, which has not received much attention.
Methods: This research is a descriptive-analytical research in which, by reviewing the documents and the global literature of the investigated field of operationalization and implementation of urban plans, the indicators, systems, and elements of this subject in the global literature have been collected. The main method in this research is documentary studies. In the first stage, the indicators, pillars, definitions, and generality of the subject have been identified in the world literature, and then after identifying these indicators from the bibliographic method using text analysis techniques and the help of experts, in a workshop, a proposed system based on Global literature has been discussed for the implementation and operationalization of urban plans.
Findings: The research’s main question is “How to model the ideal system of implementation management” in urban development plans to achieve a general concept in the world? By reviewing the global literature on implementation management and operationalization of urban plans, 74 indicators divided into 17 sections have been identified. Based on the totality of urban plans, studies, and documents reviewed in this research, an 8-step general framework for the implementation management of plans for a city has been presented. The eight stages of the proposed model are respectively; “Initial review of the whole,” “Review of implementation conditions,” “Responsibility and rules,” “Time and resources,” “Operationalization program,” “Effectiveness,” “Implementation,” and “Evaluation and correction.” This model provides a comprehensive system for managing urban plans from preparation to final implementation to ensure complete and correct implementation. The eight main stages also have executive subsets that cover all 74 identified indicators and factors. In addition to the eight steps, this model requires 5 groups of implementation, evaluation, monitoring, training, and participation, which form the executive council of this model. The proposed model’s focus is on program implementation, whereas, in most similar studies, implementation is seen within the preparation of the program and alongside it. Hersperger et al. (2019) proposed a framework (SPlaMI) that represents current planning practices based on two stages of implementation and planning, including ten general frameworks. Although the research conducted by Hersperger et al. and the current research both seek to introduce a logical system for the optimal implementation of urban plans, there are some differences between them. Hersperger’s research was limited to a systematic review of the implementation based on specific and limited criteria, while the current research looked at the subject in a more general way.
Conclusion: Operationalizing urban plans is a crucial issue in the modern literature of urban planning worldwide. It is understood as a process in which plans are transformed into (urban) space changes to ensure controlled and anticipated change and development (Clifford & Tewdwr-Jones, 2013). If plans are not implemented, no development will take place. This research provides an initially proposed system by reviewing the world literature in this field. While some studies in this field, such as Hersperger et al. (2019), introduce proposed frameworks for the optimal implementation of urban plans, the focus is often on specific and limited criteria. In contrast, this research looks at the implementation process in a general sense. The current research provides an initially proposed system based on global literature to ensure the implementation and operationalization of urban plans. The proposed model provides a comprehensive system for managing urban plans, from preparation to final implementation to ensure complete and correct implementation. The proposed model can help policymakers and urban planners identify the key factors and indicators required for the optimal implementation of urban plans. The proposed model’s focus on program implementation can make it a valuable tool in improving the quality of life in urban areas.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • City Development Plans
  • Implementation
  • Realization
  • Process Model

این مقاله برگرفته از پایان‌نامه کارشناسی‌ارشد نویسنده نخست با عنوان «ارائه نظام مدیریت اجرایی طرح‌های توسعه شهری در ایران، نمونه موردی: طرح جامع تهران 1386» می‌باشد که به راهنمایی نویسنده دوم در دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، انجام گرفته است.

This article is derived from the first author`s master thesis entitled “Presenting the Executive Management System of Urban Development Plans in Iran Case Study: Tehran Master Plan 2007”, supervised by the second author, at Iran University of Science and Technology (lUST).

مراجع
  1. Ahmad, N., & Anjum, G. A. (2012). Legal and institutional perplexities hampering the implementation of urban development plans in Pakistan. Cities, 29(4), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.07.006
  2. Alexander, E. R., & Faludi, A. (1989). Planning and plan implementation: notes on evaluation criteria. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 16(2), 127-140.
  3. Alfasi, N., Almagor, J., & Benenson, I. (2012). The actual impact of comprehensive land-use plans: Insights from high resolution observations. Land Use Policy, 29(4), 862-877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.003
  4. Alterman, R. (1981). Implementation analysis in urban and regional planning: toward a research agenda. Center for Urban & Regional Studies.
  5. Alterman, R., & Hill, M. (1978). Implementation of Urban Land Use Plans. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 44(3), 274-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367808976905
  6. Berke, P., & Godschalk, D. (2009). Searching for the good plan: A meta-analysis of plan quality studies. Journal of Planning Literature, 23(3), 227-240.
  7. Berke, P., Backhurst, M., Day, M., Ericksen, N., Laurian, L., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2006). What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zealand. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(4), 581-600.
  8. Brody, S. D., & Highfield, W. E. (2005). Does Planning Work?: Testing the Implementation of Local Environmental Planning in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 159-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976690
  9. Burby, R. J. (2003). Making Plans that Matter:Citizen Involvement and Government Action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976292
  10. Calbick, K. S., Day, J., & Gunton, T. I. (2003). Land use planning implementation: a'best practices' assessment. Environments- A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 31(3), 69-82.
  11. Chu, Y.-w. (2020). China's new urbanization plan: Progress and structural constraints. Cities, 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102736
  12. Clifford, B., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2013). The collaborating planner?: Practitioners in the neoliberal age. Policy Press.
  13. Davidoff, P., & Reiner, T. A. (1962). A choice theory of planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 28(2), 103-115.
  14. Đorđević, D. (2004). Introduction in to Planning Theory. Faculty of Geography, University of Belgrade.
  15. Feitelson, E., Felsenstein, D., Razin, E., & Stern, E. (2017). Assessing land use plan implementation: Bridging the performance-conformance divide. Land Use Policy, 61, 251-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.017
  16. Friedmann, J. (1973). RETRACKING AMERICA; A THEORY OF TRANSACTIVE PLANNING.
  17. Gilg, A. W., & Kelly, M. P. (1997). The Delivery of Planning Policy in Great Britain: Explaining the Implementation Gap. New Evidence from a Case Study in Rural England. Environment and Planning C, 15(1), 19-36. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:envirc:v:15:y:1997:i:1:p:19-36
  18. Hameed, R., & Nadeem, O. (2008). Challenges of implementing urban master plans: The Lahore experience. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 2(12), 1297-1304.
  19. Hersperger, A. M., Grădinaru, S., Oliveira, E., Pagliarin, S., & Palka, G. (2019). Understanding strategic spatial planning to effectively guide development of urban regions. Cities, 94, 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.032
  20. Hersperger, A. M., Oliveira, E., Pagliarin, S., Palka, G., Verburg, P., Bolliger, J., & Grădinaru, S. (2018). Urban land-use change: The role of strategic spatial planning. Global Environmental Change, 51, 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.001
  21. Hopkins, L. D. (2001). Urban development: The logic of making plans (Vol. 166). Island Press.
  22. Hudson, B. M., Galloway, T. D., & Kaufman, J. L. (1979). Comparison of current planning theories: Counterparts and contradictions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(4), 387-398.
  23. Lau, M. (2015). Tackling uncertainties in plan implementation: lessons from a growth area in England. Town Planning Review, 86(1), 7-28. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2015.2
  24. Laurian, L., Day, M., Backhurst, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Crawford, J., Dixon, J., & Chapman, S. (2004). What drives plan implementation? Plans, planning agencies and developers. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(4), 555-577.
  25. Laurian, L., Day, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Backhurst, M., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2004). Evaluating plan implementation: A conformance-based methodology. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), 471-480.
  26. Lichfield, N., & Darin-Drabkin, H. (1980). Land policy in planning (Vol. 8). Taylor & Francis.
  27. Liu, T., Huang, D., Tan, X., & Kong, F. (2020). Planning consistency and implementation in urbanizing China: Comparing urban and land use plans in suburban Beijing. Land Use Policy, 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104498
  28. Loh, C. G. (2011). Assessing and Interpreting Non-conformance in Land-use Planning Implementation. Planning Practice & Research, 26(3), 271-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2011.580111
  29. Loh, C. G. (2019). Placemaking and implementation: Revisiting the performance principle. Land Use Policy, 81, 68-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.024
  30. Long, Y., Gu, Y., & Han, H. (2012). Spatiotemporal heterogeneity of urban planning implementation effectiveness: Evidence from five urban master plans of Beijing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 108(2-4), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.08.005
  31. Lyles, W., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2015). Local plan implementation: assessing conformance and influence of local plans in the United States. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(2), 381-400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515604071
  32. Margerum, R. D. (1999). Getting Past Yes: From Capital Creation to Action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(2), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369908976046
  33. McLoughlin, J. B. (1969). Urban and regional planning. A systems approach. Urban and regional planning. A systems approach.
  34. Mueller, G. P., & Hersperger, A. M. (2014). Implementing comprehensive plans: indicators for a task-sheet based performance evaluation process. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(11), 2056-2081. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.973482
  35. Nikolić, D. S., Pantić, M. D., & Jokić, V. T. (2021). Urban and Spatial Planning: Pragmatic Considerations for Plan Implementation Improvements (A Case Study of the City of Bor). SAGE Open, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244021994554
  36. Oliveira, E., & Hersperger, A. M. (2018). Governance arrangements, funding mechanisms and power configurations in current practices of strategic spatial plan implementation. Land Use Policy, 76, 623-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.042
  37. Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2009). Evaluating Plans, Processes and Results. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(1), 35-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350802661741
  38. Pagliarin, S., Hersperger, A. M., & Rihoux, B. (2019). Implementation pathways of large-scale urban development projects (lsUDPs) in Western Europe: a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). European Planning Studies, 28(6), 1242-1263. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1681942
  39. Peter, L. L., & Yang, Y. (2019). Urban planning historical review of master plans and the way towards a sustainable city: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 8(3), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.01.008
  40. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; Or, why it's amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation (Vol. 708). Univ of California Press.
  41. Randolph, N. (2018). License to Extract. Lateral, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.25158/l7.2.8
  42. Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Jaafar, M., & Badarulzaman, N. (2014). Examining the contributing factors for the successful implementation of city development strategy in Qazvin City, Iran. Cities, 41, 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.05.002
  43. Rudolf, S. C., & Grădinaru, S. R. (2017). The quality and implementation of local plans: An integrated evaluation. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(5), 880-896. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317737070
  44. Stefanović, N., Josimović, B., & Hristić, N. D. (2018). Models of implementation of spatial plans: Theoretical approach and case studies for spatial plans for the special purpose area. In An overview of urban and regional planning. IntechOpen.
  45. Stojkov, B. (1992). Methods of Analysis and Synthesis in Spatial Planning. Belgrade: Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia.
  46. Suárez-Rocha, J., Gelman, O., & Rojas-Arce, J. (2012). The Methodology for Strategic Plan Implementation. Journal of Applied Research and Technology, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.22201/icat.16656423.2012.10.2.416
  47. Talen, E. (2016). Do Plans Get Implemented? A Review of Evaluation in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 10(3), 248-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/088541229601000302
  48. Tian, L., & Shen, T. (2011). Evaluation of plan implementation in the transitional China: A case of Guangzhou city master plan. Cities, 28(1), 11-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.07.002
  49. Todes, A., Karam, A., Klug, N., & Malaza, N. (2010). Beyond master planning? New approaches to spatial planning in Ekurhuleni, South Africa. Habitat International, 34(4), 414-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.012
  50. Yunos, F., Johar, F., & Sabri, S. (2015). Planners’ Perception on Factors that affects Plan Implementation in Iskandar Malaysia. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 2(1).
  51. Zhong, T., Mitchell, B., & Huang, X. (2014). Success or failure: Evaluating the implementation of China's National General Land Use Plan (1997–2010). Habitat International, 44, 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.05.
معماری و شهرسازی ایران(JIAU)
دوره 14، شماره 1
مرداد 1402
صفحه 401-423
فایل ها
سابقه مقاله
  • تاریخ دریافت: 18 دی 1401
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 04 اسفند 1401
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 15 خرداد 1402
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار