نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دکتری شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر تهران.
2 دانشیار دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی دانشگاه هنر تهران
چکیده
جایگاه و اهمیت طرحها در برنامه‌ریزی و ارزیابی آنها در جهات مختلف، همچنان موضوعی داغ، مورد توجه و قلمروی چالش برانگیز در محافل علمی و حرفه‌ای است. یکی از رویکردهای رو به گسترش ارزیابی طرحها، بررسی "کیفیت طرحها" برای بررسی مطلوبیت طرحها، کاربرد روش‌ها و تئوری‌های برنامه‌ریزی و نقاط قوت و ضعف آنها نسبت به وضعیت آرمانی است. هدف اصلی این مطالعه نیز ارزیابی کیفیت طرحهای توسعه شهری (طرح جامع) در ایران برای شناسایی و تحلیل نقاط قوت و ضعف درونی طرحها در زمینههای یاد شده است. روش تحقیق، ترکیبی از رویکردهای پژوهشی تحلیلی و تبیینی است. بدین روی طرحها براساس چارچوب نظری و مدل مفهومی طراحی شده کیفیت طرحهای جامع شامل هفت مؤلفه پایه (مبنای واقعی، تجزیه‌وتحلیل، طرح و برنامه، اجرا، هماهنگی سازمانی، سازمان‌دهی و ارائه، روش برنامه‌ریزی) و سه مؤلفه پیشرو (مشارکت، نظارت و ارزیابی و توسعه پایدار) ارزیابی شدهاند. جامعه آماری این مطالعه، طرحهای شهرهای میانی (29 طرح) و بزرگ (پنج طرح) در نظر گرفته شده است. نتایج این تحقیق نشان می‌دهد، امتیاز کلی کیفیت طرحهای جامع در هر دو گروه شهرهای میانی و بزرگ در حد متوسط (میانگین نمره 4.95 از 10) قرار دارد. از میان هفت مؤلفه پایه کیفیت طرح، مؤلفههای مبنای واقعی، تجزیه‌وتحلیل، سازمان‌دهی و ارائه، وضعیت مطلوبی داشته و مؤلفههای طرح و برنامه، هماهنگی سازمانی، اجرا و روش برنامه‌ریزی دارای وضعیت مطلوبی نیستند. مؤلفههای پیشرو توسعه پایدار نیز علیرغم نمره پایین، وضعیت مستعد و قابل پیشرفت دارند و مؤلفههای "مشارکت" و "نظارت و ارزیابی" به صورت عمومی در طرحها مورد توجه قرار نمیگیرند. در بین طرح مورد بررسی طرح جامع شهر رشت و پس از آن چهار طرح مهاباد، بجنورد، آمل، سبزوار، کرمان و بیرجند به‌عنوان بهترین طرحها شناسایی شدند و میتوان از آنها به‌عنوان طرحهای پیشرو یاد کرد. در بررسی همبستگی درونی اجزای طرح نیز مشخص شد، مؤلفه "طرح و برنامه" مهم‌ترین و تأثیرگذارترین مؤلفه کیفیت طرح است و آن را میتوان به عنوان شاخص اصلی و نمایانگر کیفیت طرحهای جامع برشمرد. همچنین بین کیفیت طرحهای شهرهای بزرگ و شهرهای میانی تفاوت معنیداری وجود ندارد و طرحها به صورت عمومی دارای وضعیت مشابه هم هستند. با این حال کیفیت طرحها طی دو دهه گذشته افزایش یافتهاست.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Evaluating the Quality of Urban Development Plans in Mid-sized and Large Cities in Iran
نویسندگان [English]
- Mohammad Mahdi Ghajar Khosravi 1
- Gholam Reza Haghighat Naeeni 2
1 PhD of Urban Planning, Art University of Tehran
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Art University of Tehran
چکیده [English]
The position and importance of urban development plans and their evaluation through various methods remains a significant issue in theoretical and practical areas. Plan quality evaluation is known as an emerging methodology for examination of whether a plan holds certain desirable features, and is aimed at answering questions about the suitability of plans and application of methods and theories of planning and their strengths and weaknesses with respect to the ideal conditions in different fields. During the past two decades, researchers have successfully formulated a conceptual consensus based on the preliminary principles of plan quality.
The purpose of this study was to introduce concepts and methods for plan quality evaluation and to present an appropriate systematic conceptual model for quality evaluation of urban development plans in Iran. For specification of the theoretical framework of this explanatory-analytical research, a range of methods and studies related to the subject were comprehensively examined and analyzed, and the consequent appropriate model for evaluation of the quality of urban development plans in Iran was clearly established and adapted to the entire country.
A conceptual model for evaluating the quality of comprehensive plans consists of seven basic components (factual basis, analysis and inference, plans and programs, implementation, inter-organizational coordination, presentation, and planning methods) and three progressive components (participation, sustainable development, and monitoring and evaluation). This study evaluated 29 plans from medium-sized Iranian cities and 5 from large ones.
The results demonstrated that the overall quality score of the comprehensive plans in both groups was moderate (The average score was 4.95 out of 10). Among the seven basic components of plan quality, factual basis, analysis and inference, organization, and presentation exhibited proper conditions, and the components of plans and programs, inter-organizational coordination, implementation, and planning methods were found to be inappropriate. The progressive component of sustainable development exhibited potentials for advancement despite the low score, while participation and monitoring and evaluation were generally disregarded in the plans.
The findings also indicated the incapability of the plans (at least in the present conditions) of correctly completing the planning process. The most important drawbacks of the plans included the reduction of the capability of presenting and implementing the plans and the lack of a mechanism for monitoring and evaluating them.
Among all the evaluated plans, the plan from the city of Rasht was identified as the best, followed by those of Mahabad, Bojnord, Amol, Sabzevar, Kerman, and Birjand, all of which could be regarded as plans with potentials for advancement. In a study of the internal consistency of the plan components, plans and programs was found to be the most important, most influential component of plan quality, which could be considered as the main indicator of comprehensive plan quality. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the plan quality of the large and medium-sized cities. However, the quality of the plans has increased over the past two decades, and the dates of their approval were found to be effective on their quality.
The future conditions of plan quality in the country seem to be promising, and better quality is expected to be provided by the urban development plans. Future plans are likely to be capable of addressing issues such as justice in urban development, environmental quality, transportation, and sustainability.
This study sought to provide incentives for reconsideration of how plans are developed and to prevent discouragement of planners and unnecessary underestimation of their ability to inject creativity, new methods, and new planning challenges into their plans, so that they can present better plans to which they are committed.
The value of the capacity to assess the quality of plans in order to highlight their strengths and weaknesses in analysis of the controversial or innovative effects of urban development plans and land use planning in various fields was demonstrated in this research, requiring those in charge of development and implementation of plans to have greater concern for to their quality indicators.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Plan Quality
- Plan Evaluation
- Content Analysis
- Comprehensive Plan
Baer, W. C. (1997). General Plan Evaluation Criteria: An Approach to Making Better Plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(3), 329-344.
Bahraini, S. H., & Partovi, P. (2001). Assessing the Reconstruction of Three Earthquake-stricken Cities in Iran Based on the Analysis of Its Vulnerability to Earthquakes (Golbaft). Tehran: Natural Disaster Research Institute. [In Persian]
Berke, P. R. (1994). Evaluating environmental plan quality: the case of planning for sustainable development in New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 37(2), 155-169.
Berke, P. R. (2002). Does Sustainable Development Offer a New Direction for Planning? Challenges for the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(1), 21-36.
Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are We Planning for Sustainable Development? Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 21-33.
Berke, P. R., Crawford, J., Dixon, J., & Ericksen, N. (1999). Do Cooperative Environmental Planning Mandates Produce Good Plans? Empirical Results from the New Zealand Experience. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(5), 643-664.
Berke, P. R., Dixon, J., & Ericksen, N. (1997). Coercive and Cooperative Intergovernmental Mandates: A Comparative Analysis of Florida and New Zealand Environmental Plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(3), 451-468.
Berke, P. R., Ericksen, N., Crawford, J., & Dixon, J. (2002). Planning and Indigenous People:Human Rights and Environmental Protection in New Zealand. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(2), 115-134.
Berke, P. R., & French, S. P. (1994). The Influence of State Planning Mandates on Local Plan Quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13(4), 237-250.
Berke, P. R., & Godschalk, D. R. (2009). Searching for the Good Plan: A Meta-Analysis of Plan Quality Studies. Journal of Planning Literature, 23(3), 227-240.
Berke, P. R., Godschalk, D. R., Kaiser, E. J., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2006). Urban land use planning (5 ed.): University of Illinois Press.
Berke, P. R., Smith, G., & Lyles, W. (2012). Planning for Resiliency: Evaluation of State Hazard Mitigation Plans Under the Disaster Mitigation Act. Natural Hazards Review, 13(2), 139-149.
Berke, P. R., Spurlock, D., Hess, G., & Band, L. (2013). Local comprehensive plan quality and regional ecosystem protection: The case of the Jordan Lake watershed, North Carolina, U.S.A. Land Use Policy, 31, 450-459.
Brody, S. D. (2003). Are We Learning to Make Better Plans?: A Longitudinal Analysis of Plan Quality Associated with Natural Hazards. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(2), 191-201.
Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating Citizen Participation in Plan Making: Six Strategic Planning Choices. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3), 245-264.
Brody, S. D., Highfield, W., & Carrasco, V. (2004). Measuring the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to manage ecological systems in southern Florida. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 33-50.
Bunnell, G., & Jepson, E. J. (2011). The Effect of Mandated Planning on Plan Quality. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(4), 338-353.
Burby, J., & May, P. J. (1997). Making Governments Plan: State Experiments in Managing Land Use. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Connell, D. J., & Daoust-Filiatrault, L. (2017). Better Than Good: Three Dimensions of Plan Quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 38(3), 265-272.
Contract for Preparation of Development, Sphere of Influence and Detail Plans of Cities, No. 12 contract. (1984). Iran Program and Budget Organization. [In Persian]
Daneshvar, M., & Bandar Abad, A. R. (2013). Studying about Adaptation New Master Plan with Specifications of Structural Strategic Plan (Case study: Mashhad’s Comprehensives Plan). Hoviatshahr, 7(14), 83-92. [In Persian]
Development plans: a good practice guide. (2008). (N. Barakpur, I. Asadi, & R. Taghadosi, Trans.). Tehran: Honar University. [In Persian]
Ghajar Khosravi, M. M., & Haghighat Naeeni, G. R. (2019). Plan Quality Concepts, Methods of Evaluation and Conceptual Model for Quality of Urban Development (Master) Plans in Iran. Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning, 11(23), 73-94. [In Persian]
Ghorbani, R., Jam-E- Kasra, M., & Mirzabaki, M. (2014). Evaluation of Spatial Adaptation Ratio on Urban Comprehensive Plans Implementation Process; Case study: Bonab City. Journal of Geography and Planning, 18(49), 191-216. [In Persian]
Godschalk, D. R., Beatley, T., Berke, P. R., Brower, D. J., & Kaiser, E. J. (1999). Natural Hazard Mitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy And Planning. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Guyadeen, D., & Seasons, M. (2016). Evaluation Theory and Practice: Comparing Program Evaluation and Evaluation in Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 38(1), 98-110.
Hoch, C. (2007). How Plan Mandates Work. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(1), 86-99.
Horney, J., Nguyen, M., Salvesen, D., Dwyer, C., Cooper, J., & Berke, P. R. (2016). Assessing the Quality of Rural Hazard Mitigation Plans in the Southeastern United States. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(1), 56-65.
Hosseini Dehaghani, M., & Basirat, M. (2017). Urban Plan Quality Evaluation Using an Integrated Approach of ISM and ANP (Case Study: Master Plan of Pooladshahr City (2012)). Town and Country Planning, 9(2), 245-274. [In Persian]
Lyles, W., & Stevens, M. (2014). Plan Quality Evaluation 1994–2012: Growth and Contributions, Limitations, and New Directions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(4), 433-450.
Mashhoodi, S. (2001). Fundamentals of Urban Indefinite Plans. Tehran: Urban processing and planning company. [In Persian]
Ministry of Roads and Urban Development. (1984). Instructions for Identifying The Basis of The City Master Plan. Tehran: Ministry of Roads and Urban Development. [In Persian]
Nelson, A. C., & French, S. P. (2002). Plan Quality and Mitigating Damage from Natural Disasters: A Case Study of the Northridge Earthquake with Planning Policy Considerations. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(2), 194-207.
Norton, R. K. (2005). Local Commitment to State-Mandated Planning in Coastal North Carolina. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(2), 149-171.
Norton, R. K. (2008). Using content analysis to evaluate local master plans and zoning codes. Land Use Policy, 25(3), 432-454.
Oliveira, V., & Pinho, P. (2010). Evaluation in Urban Planning: Advances and Prospects. Journal of Planning Literature, 24(4), 343-361.
Purahmad, A., Hataminejad, H., & Hossaini, S. H. (2006). Finding Deficiency of Urban Delevopment Plans in Iran. Geographical Research, 58, 167-180. [In Persian]
Rafiean, M., & Musavi, S. A. (2004). Assessing the Feasibility of Comprehensive and Detailed Plans of Cities in East Azerbaijan Province. Journal of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tabriz, 17, 177-202. [In Persian]
Rafiean, M., Barakpur, N., & Roknipur, M. (2008). Mertopolitan Region Strategies Development Assessment by Using of Sustainable Development Approach (SEA Model) Case Study: Courbation of Tehran. Modiriyat Shahri, 19, 7-18. [In Persian]
Regulations on how to review and approve local, regional and national development plans. (1999). Tehran: Islamic Revolutionary Assembly Research Center.
Saeednia, A. (1995). Raw Ideas of Urban Planning. Honar-ha-ye Ziba, 1, 31-36. [In Persian]
Saeednia, A. (2004). Urban Design in Iran, Green Book of Municipal Guides (Volume 5). Tehran: Organization of Municipalities and Villages of The Country. [In Persian]
Sharmand, C. E. (1999). Methods of Realization of Urban Development Plans, Volume II: A Study of Experiences of Preparation and Implementation of Urban Development Plans in Iran. Organization of Municipalities and Villages of the Country, Tehran. [In Persian]
Stevens, M. R. (2013). Evaluating the Quality of Official Community Plans in Southern British Columbia. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(4), 471-490.
Stevens, M. R., Lyles, W., & Berke, P. R. (2014). Measuring and Reporting Intercoder Reliability in Plan Quality Evaluation Research. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1), 77-93.
Tang, Z. (2008). Evaluating local coastal zone land use planning capacities in California. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51(7), 544-555.
Tang, Z., & Brody, S. D. (2009). Linking Planning Theories with Factors Influencing Local Environmental-Plan Quality. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36(3), 522-537.
Tang, Z., Lindell, M. K., Prater, C., Wei, T., & Hussey, C. M. (2011). Examining Local Coastal Zone Management Capacity in U.S. Pacific Coastal Counties. Coastal Management, 39(2), 105-132.
Zebardast, E. (2004). City Size. Tehran: Urban Planning and Architecture Study and Research Center.
Zebardast, E. (2009). Evaluation Methods in Urban Planning. Tehran: Tehran University, Campus of Fine Arts, Faculty of Urban Planning. [In Persian]
)