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.
Urban Planning
Elham Ghasemi; Mojtaba Rafieian
Abstract
Urban development is aimed at meeting public interest, but it sometimes leads to conflicts between the goals and accepted results of different groups and contributors. The significance of managing these conflicts as a methodological, practical approach is highlighted by the background of its impacts. ...
Read More
Urban development is aimed at meeting public interest, but it sometimes leads to conflicts between the goals and accepted results of different groups and contributors. The significance of managing these conflicts as a methodological, practical approach is highlighted by the background of its impacts. Recent models of conflict management include public-private partnership in urban development (3P) and public-private-people partnership (partnership model) (4P). Public-private-people partnership is a new concept in urban planning, establishing new ways to improve the inclusion of various public-sector actors, private actors, residents, NGOs, and other civil-society actors in planning processes. The notion of 4P has arisen partly to respond to the criticism of public-private partnerships for insufficient inclusion of citizens, NGOs, and other actors in the civil society, and is used to refer to a variety of processes involving public actors, private actors, citizens, and NGOs in urban planning. For an understanding of 4Ps, it is useful to have a basic understanding of the background of public-private partnerships. In general, partnerships are urban development tools involving changes where strategic planning arises alongside more traditional land-use planning, and the roles of public- and private-sector actors, residents, and associations are reassessed and changed in a process that is perceived as a shift from government to governance. The concept of governance focuses on the interplay between the public sector and other actors in a situation where the public sector is no longer delivering all public goods and instead has the role of coordinating public actors at different levels and private actors and other partners. Central in the shift from government to governance is also the blending of public and private resources for delivery of public goods. In high-standard urban development projects, therefore, where common visions are created, and conflicting goals are managed, the strengths of each type of actor are utilized. The government provides the resources and a long-term development framework, and citizen initiatives organize and activate citizens to act, while companies provide the kinds of service that are demanded, and produce tax revenues for the government.This applied, perceptual research uses a qualitative method involving interpretation, and provides descriptions of the 3P and 4P aspects, addressing conflict management in the new 4P model using library documentation and a simple overview. For data collection in a case study of Jahan-Nama Citadel in the city of Isfahan, Iran, a semi-structured interview method was used to identify the problems with the project and to specify the conflicts between actors, including beneficiaries and stakeholders. Finally, the intergroup conflicts in the project were analyzed using the achievement matrix. The inter-organizational conflicts between the public and private sectors and the groups of people in the project were considered in three areas: land ownership (the land owners in the caravanserai), the type of land use proposed for the area (switching from green space to cultural and, ultimately, commercial uses), and the physical type of construction of the citadel, (regardless of the Naghshe Jahan Square skyline altitude). It was concluded that both the public and private sectors and different groups of people involved in the design and planning process have caused conflicts through their failure to recognize the actors in the Jahan-Nama Citadel project and to consider partnership in a wider sense (sharing the profits and losses and innovations of the plan), which has hindered achievement of the plan objectives.
