Urban Planning
Farshad Nourian; sara vosoughi
Abstract
A substantial body of informality literature has emphasized the pivotal role of state power in suspending the law. These studies focus on the idea of informality from above, portraying the state as a unified entity with significant control over society and viewing law as an objective and fixed concept ...
Read More
A substantial body of informality literature has emphasized the pivotal role of state power in suspending the law. These studies focus on the idea of informality from above, portraying the state as a unified entity with significant control over society and viewing law as an objective and fixed concept that forms the basis of the state's bureaucratic practices. More recently, there has been a shift to expand the concept of power beyond the state and to challenge the idea of law as purely objective and neutral. According to this growing de-centered approach to informality, this article examines dynamic interconnections between law and power to shed light on the social and practical construction of law as a fundamentally indeterminate concept in urban governance, where a multitude of networked actors, both inside and outside the government, largely shape processes and outcomes. Relying on the Foucauldian Reading of Power relations and truth discourses, this article outlines how power relations can shape legality discourses in the context of controversial decision-making in urban planning. In this sense, through a Foucauldian discourse analysis of acquired rights in the revision of the Urban Renewal project in Samen District, the article provides an empirically grounded discussion that renders the power/law nexus visible. The data originated from 15 narrative in-depth interviews, 200 official documents (including planning documents, official correspondence, approvals, and reports of official meetings), as well as 130 unofficial documents (including press reports of official interviews, official meetings, official speeches, reports of official websites of the institutions). The analysis shows that the power struggles within and beyond the state produce various discourses of (il)legality, which provide different answers to critical questions such as who is entitled to interpret the acquired rights, what the definition of the acquired rights is, and Whose interest the acquired rights respond to?. As a result of the long-lasting disputes among four discourses on the acquired rights (extralegal, extended, reconciliatory, argumentative), the vast deregulation that was informally adopted to manage project investment was finally authorized in formal urban governance. The findings of this study demonstrate that informality is not necessarily the ungovernable realm outside of formal planning. This study shows that power dynamics create competing discursive claims of legality, which justify the subject positions who have the authority to determine what is legal, legitimize the elaboration of the notion of the law, and rationalize legal decisions based on serving the public interest or not. Rather than following established bureaucratic processes based on written law, these competing discursive claims of legality shape formal decision-making. In these processes, power reshapes the legal notion of law and redefines formality/informality boundaries within urban planning and governance. This complex interplay of power and law demonstrates that informality, often viewed as a violation of urban planning laws, can gradually become a regular part of urban planning. This process which can be named "informality from within formal urban planning" challenges the formality/informality binary that equates planning with law and informality with the absence of law.
Urban Management
sara vosoughi; Behnaz Aminzadeh
Abstract
Highlights: Justice, trust, effectiveness, intrusiveness, complexity, and revenue allocation are critical factors in the public acceptability of the Tehran congestion pricing scheme. Lack of trust and justice are the most important variables that reduce the public acceptability of the Tehran congestion ...
Read More
Highlights: Justice, trust, effectiveness, intrusiveness, complexity, and revenue allocation are critical factors in the public acceptability of the Tehran congestion pricing scheme. Lack of trust and justice are the most important variables that reduce the public acceptability of the Tehran congestion pricing scheme. Perceived effectiveness of the Tehran congestion pricing reduces in the second year of the implementation of the scheme. 1. Introduction Congestion charging schemes are implemented in an increasing number of cities as a method of reducing traffic congestion and air pollution. Studies such as Schade & Schlag (2000: 93) and Huber et al. (2020:666) indicate that public acceptability plays a crucial role in the success of these schemes. According to research findings (Schmöcker et al., 2012: 15-17; Fujii et al., 2004: 290-293), factors influencing public acceptability vary by socioeconomic context. Given the absence of such studies in Iran, this paper investigates what factors affect the public acceptability of congestion charging schemes (2018-19) in Tehran. The answer to this question can be useful for urban authorities to better manage congestion charging schemes. 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1 Factors effective on public acceptance It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of acceptability and acceptance. Acceptability concerns the attitude towards a specific object like congestion pricing. In contrast, acceptance pertains to some kind of behavior exhibited as a reaction to an object. It is assumed that attitudes guide people’s behaviors and reactions (Schade & Schlag, 2000: 5). Indeed, the public acceptability of congestion charging schemes is a crucial factor in specification of people’s reactions or behaviors in regard to them. A review of the literature on the public acceptability of transport pricing policies indicates several effective factors, including justice or fairness (Gu et al., 2018: 98; Jakobsson et al., 2000: 154-153; Ittner et al., 2003), expected effectiveness (Schuitema et al., 2010: 588; Jakobsson et al., 2000: 155-156), trust in the government (Sugiarto et al., 2020: 144-145; Grisolía et al., 2015: 38), perceived intrusiveness (Huber et al., 2020: 657), revenue allocation (Glavic et al., 2017: 81; Ubbels & Verhoef, 2005), problem awareness (Jaensirisak et al., 2005: 149-150; Schmöcker et al., 2012: 10), complexity (Gu et al., 2018: 98), social norms (Jakobsson et al., 2000: 154; Schade & Schlag, 2003: 48), and privacy (Ison & Rye, 2005: 461). The context (social, political, and economic) determines which of these factors are most effective on public judgment. 2.2. Case study The implementation of the congestion pricing scheme in Tehran started in 1980. Since then, the entry of private cars to the central business district (CBD) has been limited, and only drivers with permits have had access to the area. The main policy for reduction of congestion in the CBD of Tehran, specification of limited access areas has been implemented for nearly forty years. In 2018, the city administrators decided to change this policy to facilitate public access to the district, and proposed a congestion charging zone and a low-emission zone. All citizens can pay for daily charges to drive into the former zone, and have limited access (based on the number of days) into the latter. The main purpose of our research is to investigate what factors influence the public acceptability of this new congestion pricing scheme for the CBD of Tehran in two consecutive years (2018-2019). 3. Methodology The content analysis method is applied to analyze almost 350 online comments made by users on the news about Tehran congestion pricing schemes in 2018-2019. 4. Result and Discussion The findings indicate that six effective factors, including justice, trust, influence, intrusiveness, complexity, and revenue allocation, are critical in specification of the public opinion about the Tehran congestion pricing scheme. Problem awareness, social norms, and privacy—the other factors identified in the review of the literature—are not observed in the content analysis of the comments. The investigation demonstrates that the public acceptability of the Tehran congestion pricing scheme is heavily affected by two variables. Firstly, a low level of public trust in government policies causes a negative attitude toward them, with some arguing that the Tehran congestion pricing policy is not aimed at environmental concerns or congestion management, and it is the financial advantage of such policies that encourages the administrators to adopt them. Secondly, the public evaluates the Tehran congestion pricing scheme as unjust and unfair. According to the findings, low-income groups and residents of the congestion area perceive the scheme as less just because it does not consider their needs and conditions. This causes an increase in the sense of social discrimination, especially among low-income groups. Furthermore, the results show that the perceived effectiveness of the Tehran congestion pricing decreases in the second year of the implementation of the scheme. 5. Conclusion The results indicate that the lack of trust in local administrative policies and the sense of injustice are the most crucial variables in the public judgment of the Tehran congestion pricing scheme. Based on these findings, the authors provide recommendations for further studies on the impacts of the Tehran congestion scheme on public welfare in different income groups and the way the pricing systems can be adjusted to their different socio-economic needs. Furthermore, investigation of the methods of building trust in pricing policies can be useful for local administrators to better implement congestion pricing schemes around Iran.
