Urban Planning
Bahare Bahra; Mojtaba Rafieian
Abstract
Background: The subject of the nature and management of conflicts in the literature of urban planning has a history almost as old as this discipline, and in recent decades, various schools of urban planning have reacted to this issue. The serious discussion about this issue started in the 70s and with ...
Read More
Background: The subject of the nature and management of conflicts in the literature of urban planning has a history almost as old as this discipline, and in recent decades, various schools of urban planning have reacted to this issue. The serious discussion about this issue started in the 70s and with the popularization of participatory planning in the 80s, it has grown significantly and has been discussed in the world literature. The positions presented so far regarding the understanding of conflicts in planning are an incoherent and sometimes opposite set based on various theoretical-philosophical bases. In order to obtain a criterion for understanding conflict and conflict management in urban planning, according to the historical development of the engagement of planning theory with conflicts, this study has classified the viewpoints based on the prevailing theoretical-philosophical and contextual approaches. Filling this gap requires an answer to the question that each of the presented views of conflicts in planning is based on what theoretical or contextual approach?
Objectives: Description and understanding of conflict and conflict management in the context of urban planning and classification of this issue based on the evolution of planning theories over time.
Method: The methodology is based on meta-analysis and qualitative content analysis, and a systematic review in the Scopus and Google Scholar database and in the PRISMA framework was used to collect data. According to this framework, the content analysis of 183 English sources was done.
Result: The positions surrounding conflicts in urban planning can be considered as "managerial", "theoretical" and "situational" approaches. The situated approach includes conflicts in the fields of "spatial-locational patterns of the city", "land use and ownership", "urban development and regeneration", "Urban spaces" and "large-scale projects". The managerial approach includes "decision-making process", "conflict management techniques", "impact assessment" and "institutional analysis and design" and the theoretical approach includes "the role of planning theory", "the role of power institutions" and "the role of the planner" in understanding the problem of conflict. Management and theoretical approaches based on the historical course of understanding conflicts in the field of urban planning theories can be recognized in three paradigms: "positivist" with the belief in guided consensus, "post-positivist" with the belief in the end of conflicts through consensus based on discourse ethics and "critical" By emphasizing the hegemony resulting from consensus building and the constant reproduction of conflicts in planning.
Conclusion: Despite the ideological backgrounds and different approaches to the conflict, a political turn in this field is understood in the theory and practice of urban planning. Therefore, in this field, planners should go beyond the traditional relegation of their actions to a regulatory dimension and help to reconceptualize urban policy and transform the physical and symbolic dimensions of space.
