کاربست روش‌شناسی آینده‌نگاری راهبردی در برنامه‌ریزی توسعه فضایی؛ موردپژوهی سناریونگاری منطقۀ کلانشهری کرج
Application of Strategic Foresight Methodology in Strategic Spatial Development Planning; Case Study: Karaj Urban Region Scenario Writing
اشتراک گذاری
اشتراک در شبکه های اجتماعی :
گزارش خطا
برنامه‌ریزی توسعۀ فضایی با دستور کار بهبود وضعیت آتی، از لحاظ نظری با ابعاد مربوط به آینده سروکار دارد. لیکن در عرصه‌های نظری و عملی، عمدتاً آینده به دلایلی همچون تأثیرپذیری از روش‌های اثبات‌گرا، کمبود داده و ناشناخته بودن رویدادهای مربوط به آینده و بودجه‌های ناکافی نادیده گرفته می‌شود. در شیوه‌های راهبردی نیز به آینده تنها به‌عنوان مقصدی هنجارین نگریسته می‌شود. با هدف تجهیز برنامه‌ریزی برای عمل در محیط‌های پیچیده و شرایط عدم‌قطعیت، انگاشت «آینده‌نگاری راهبردی» پیش‌بینی آینده‌های بدیل و تصویرسازی برآیندهای چندگانۀ ممکن را با نیت گسترش ادراک تصمیم‌گیرندگان از چالش‌های آتی در دستور کار خود قرار داده است. بر این اساس در مقالۀ پیش‌رو، نخست به شیوۀ مطالعات اسنادی نسبت به تشخیص عرصه‌های متعدد از مفاهیم همپوشِ مرتبط اقدام و سپس با مرور رهیافت‌های متعدد آینده‌نگاری به پیشنهاد نحوه تلفیق آن در برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی، با استفاده از روش تحلیل اثرات تقاطع و نرم‌افزار سناریوویزارد در منطقۀ شهری کرج پرداخته شده است. وجود عدم‌قطعیت‌های فراوان خارج از سیستم برنامه‌ریزی توسعه فضایی، ناشی از وابستگی نهادی، عملکردی-کالبدی منطقه به تهران خردمایۀ انتخاب موردپژوهی را تشکیل می‌دهد. بر اساس نتایج و در راستای خلق گزینه‌های مختلف تصمیم‌گیری، سازگارترین سناریو تداوم روندهای فعلی (سناریوی روند) به‌دست آمد. الگوی نظام مراکز تک‌مرکزی، متشکل از نواحی یکپارچۀ بالقوه (PIA)، ساختار فضایی کریدوری به محوریت بزرگراه تهران- قزوین، ایفاگر نقش مکمل قطب‌کشاورزی منطقه با نظام مدیریتی به رهبری استاندار تهران از ویژگی‌های اصلی این سناریو به‌شمار می‌روند.
Spatial planning to improve future agenda, theoretically deals with aspects related to the future. However, both in theoretical and practical areas, future is mostly ignored, often for reasons such as the impact of social science and the scientific method on intellectual frameworks of planning, lack of data and unknown future events, political constraints, insufficient funding and professional routines. Even in strategic plans, future is seen only as a normative destination. To equip planning to operate in complex environments full of uncertainty, "strategic foresight", which is distinguished from traditional planning, considers the alternatives futures foresight and imagines multiple possible outcomes with the aim of expanding the perception of decision-makers. Accordingly, this paper, with the aim of integration of foresight in the strategic planning process, first detect multiple arenas of overlapped concepts and meanings via literature review and then reviews different foresight approaches and processes to propose how to combine strategic foresight in planning. This process using cross-impact analysis method and Scenario Wizard software has been tested in Karaj Metropolitan Region. Uncertainty out of spatial development planning system, due to the institutional, functional and physical affiliation to Tehran, is the main rationale for selection of this case study. Karaj Urban Region, consists of 6 cities of Karaj, Savojbolagh, Nazarabad, Taleghan, Eshtehard and Fardis, as well as 13 cities with the centricity of Karaj and a population of 1,614,626 (2011), has been separated from Tehran province on 2010 and turned into Alborz province. The results of the analysis show that the scenario of the continuation of the current trends is the most consistent scenario of spatial development in the Karaj metropolitan area. The model of mono-centric system consists of potential integrated areas (PIAs) with distinct functional areas and weak correlation among them, corridor oriented spatial structure centered on the Tehran highway in Qazvin with territorial spatial logic and behavior, acting as a pole of agriculture in the region, benefiting from scale-based savings with the management system led by the governor of Tehran, are the main features of this scenario. In this paper, it was tried to provide alternative strategies for strategists through scenario writing in a participatory way by means of futurology workshop. For the four consecutive scenarios, the output of the software only provides imagery of the potential future, thus providing the possibility of thinking about what is "unthinkable". Since the value of the future is not in the scenario creation, but is more likely in illustrating the consequences of any scenario, the author has tried to address, describe and draw the consequences of the five key determinants identified as spatial drivers (due to the greater relevance with spatial development planning dimensions). Therefore, the future agenda of the planning system, according to the proposed methodology of research, should be to create different decision-making options through scenario planning. Formulating the most appropriate perspective for the correct guidance of the system in the alternative futures, proposing suitable spatial organization, and developing a strategic plan for this area are to be taken into account.
(4.3 مگابایت)
دانلود مقاله
مشخصات مقاله
سازمان برنامه و بودجه (1395). رهنمودها و تدابیر آمایش سرزمین برای برنامه ششم توسعه کشور. معاونت امور اقتصادی و هماهنگی برنامه و بودجه- امور برنامه‌ریزی، آمایش سرزمین و محیطزیست، تهران.
- مظفری، ع. (1389). «آینده‌پژوهی، بستر عبور از مرز دانش»، فصلنامه نظم و امنیت انتظامی، 2(4).
- Amer, M., Daim, T., & Jetter, A. (2013). A review of scenario planning. Futures, 46: 23-40.
- Anderson, J. (2006). Futures Studies Timeline. Elon University.
- Ansoff, I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review, 35(5): 113-124.
- Armstrong, J. (2001). Principles of Forecasting. New York: Springer.
- Barbieri, E. (1993). La previsión humana y social. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
- Bell, W. (1997). Foundations of Futures Studies. New Brunswick: Transaction publishers.
- Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). “The current state of scenario development:an overview of techniques”, foresight, 9(1): 5-25.
- Brummell, A., & MacGillivray, G. (2016). Introduction to scenarios. Netherland:Shell International Petroleum Company.
- Bryson, J. (2011). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. Minneapolis: John Wiley & Sons.
- Burger, M.J., Goei, B., van der Laan, L., & Huisman, F.J.M., (2011). “Heterogeneous Development of Metropolitan Spatial Structure: Evidence from Commuting Patterns in English and Welsh City-Regions, 1981–2001”, cities, 28(2): 160-170
- Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2004). The city network paradigm: theory and emprical evidence. In R. Capello, & Nijkamp, urban dynamics and growth: Advances in Urban Economics (495-529). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
- Centre for Security Studies. (2009). Strategic foresight: anticipation and capacity to act. Zurich: CSS Analyses in Security Policy.
- Centre for Workforce Intelligence. (2014, August). Scenario generation: Enhancing scenario generation and quantification. CFWI technical paper series no.0007: 1-45.
- CISCO, & GBN. (2012). The evolving internet driving forces, uncertainties, and four scenarios to 2025. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
- Conway, M. (2003). An introduction to scenario planning. Foresight Methodologies Workshop. Australia, Victoria: thinking futures.
- Fernández Güell, J. (2006). Planificación estratégica de ciudades, nuevos instrumentos y procesos. Barcelona: Editorial Reverté.
- Foren, A. (2001). practical Guide To Regional Foresight. European Commission research directorate general.
- Fuerth, L. (2009). “Foresight and anticipatory governance”, Foresight, 11(4): 14-32.
- Georg, I., Blaschke, T. & Taubenböck, H. (2016). “New spatial dimensions of global cityscapes: From reviewing existing concepts to a conceptual spatial approach”, Journal of Geographical Sciences, 26(3): 355-380.
- Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. New York: The Wiley Advantage.
- Heinecke, A., & Schwager, M. (1995). Die Szenario-Technik als Instrument der strategischen Planung. Braunschweig.
- Hines, A., & Bishop, P. (2015). Thinking About the Future: Guidelines for Strategic Foresight. Houston: Hinesight.
- Inayatullah, S. (2011). Future studies: theories and methods. Blanca Manoz: Campo Magnetico Triple.
- Isserman, A. (1985). “Dare to plan: An essay on the role of the future in planning practice and education”, Town Planning Review, 56(4):483-491.
- Jantsch, E. (1967). Technological Forecasting in Perspective. Paris: OCDE.
- Kaulfuß, S. (2011, 11 18). Scenario planning – a glimpse into the future. Retrieved 1 1, 2016, from http://www.waldwissen.net: http://www.waldwissen.net/waldwirtschaft/schaden/fva_szenariotechnik_ak1/index_EN.
- Markley, O. (1995). The fourth wave: A normative forecast for the future of "SpaceShip Earth". http://www.inwardboundvisioning.
- Markley, O. (1996). “Global Consciousness: An Alternative Future of Choice”, Futures, 28: 623.
- Mietzner, D., & Reger, G. (2004). “Scenario approaches-History, Differences, Advantages and disadvantages”, EU-US Seminar: New technology foresight, forecasting and assessment methods (47-67). Seville: EU-US Seminar.
- Myers, D., & Kitsuse, A. (2000). “Constructing the Future in Planning: A Survey of Theories and Tools”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(3): 221-231.
- Meijers, Evert J , Burger, Martijn J., (2017). “Stretching the concept of ‘borrowed size’”, Urban Studies, 54(1): 269-291.
- ,Ochola, W. (2001). Africa environment outlook 2-Our environment our wealth. Africa: United Nation Environmental Program(UNEP).
- Peter, K. (2017). The Uncertain Environment. Retrieved April 01, 2017, from FutureScreening: http://futurescreening.com/foresight-framework/the-uncertain-environment/
- Parr, J. (2008). “Cities and Regions: Problems and Potentials”, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 40(12): 2793–2799.
- Puglisi, M. (2001). The s tudy of the futures : an overview of futures s tudies methodologies. In D. Camarda, & L. Grassini, Interdependency between agriculture and urbanization: Conflicts on sustainable use of soil and water (439-463). CIHEAM: Bari.
- Ringland, G. (2002). Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future. London: John Wiley & Sons.
- Roy, A. (1981). The Future Field. The Futurist.
- Sardar, Z. (2010). “The Namesake: Futures; futures studies; futurology; futuristic;foresight—What’s in a name?”, Futures, 42: 177-184.
- Schwartz, P. (1996). The art of the long view. New York: Currency Doubleday.
- Scott, C., Bailey, C., Marra, R., Woods, G., Ormerod, K., & Lansey, K. (2012). “Scenario planning to address critical uncertainties for robust and resilient water- wastewater infrastructure under condition of water scarcity and rapid development”, water, 4: 848-868.
- Van der Heijden, K. (1996). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. New York: John Wiley & Sons,.
- Von Reibnitz, U. (1999). “Scenarios + Vision, Managing and Planning in Turbulent Times, How Scenario Tequniques Help you Plotting a Successful Path into the Future”, SBM Conference "IT Challenges in the Next Millennium", Cannes.
- Wright, G., & Cairns, G. (2011). Scenario thinking: practical approaches to the future. London: Palgrave.
مسابقات
جوایز
نشریات
