محیط برنامه ریزی مشارکتی؛ ارائه مدل مفهومی برای تحلیل عوامل مؤثر بر مشارکت شهروندان در برنامه ریزی
Participatory Planning Environment: A Conceptual Model for Analysis of Effective Factors in Citizen Participation in Planning
اشتراک گذاری
اشتراک در شبکه های اجتماعی :
گزارش خطا
نتایج مثبت پیوستن شهروندان به فرایند برنامه‌ریزی انکارناپذیر است. در سال‌های اخیر موضوع مشارکت شهروندان در برنامه‌ریزی در اغلب کشورها بسیار مورد توجه قرار گرفته و سعی شده است امکان مشارکت عمومی در سطوح گوناگون برنامه‌ریزی و تصمیم‌سازی فراهم شود. اما زمانی که تلاش می‌شود مفهومی که به‌تدریج و هماهنگ با ساختارهای اجتماعی، اقتصادی، سیاسی و فرهنگی کشورهای توسعه‌یافته شکل گرفته است، در کشورهای در حال توسعه و بدون توجه به ویژگی‌های محیط‌های برنامه‌ریزی این جوامع - به همراه انبوهی از مسائل و مشکلات نظیر فقر، شهرنشینی سریع، ناکارآمدی در ارائه خدمات و ضعف‌های زیرساختی و نهادی و جز آن – به‌کار گرفته شود، موفقیت‌های قابل توجهی حاصل نمی‌شود. امکان مشارکت در ساختار چنین محیط‌های به تعبیر کانلی1 دشوار، مستلزم اصلاح رویه‌ها و ساختارهای موجود است ـ که راهکاری بلندمدت محسوب می‌شود ـ و یا اینکه با تکیه بر نقش کلیدی برنامه‌ریزان، استفاده حداکثری از ظرفیت‌های مشارکت شهروندان در ساختارها و رویه‌های کنونی امکان‌پذیر شود. هدف این تحقیق ارائه مدل مفهومی برای تحلیل عوامل مؤثر بر برنامه‌ریزی مشارکتی در محیط برنامه‌ریزی است. مدل پیشنهادی دربرگیرنده ساختارهای رسمی و غیررسمی در دو عرصه محیط بیرونی برنامه‌ریزی شامل حکومت و مشارکت‌کنندگان و سه عرصه محیط درونی برنامه‌ریزی شامل برنامه‌ریزان و نهادهای برنامه‌ریزی، قوانین و مقررات و ابزارها و رویه‌ها است. عرصه ششم تحلیل در مدل پیشنهادی دربرگیرنده تغییر و تحولات بیرونی است.
Positive consequences of citizen participation in planning process are irrefutable. Over the last few years, most countries have been considering citizen participation in planning, as they attempt to provide the grounds for public participation at different levels of planning and decision-making. While the concept of public participation has been developed in a piecemeal fashion in developed countries and while it is in line with their social, economic, political and cultural structure, its application to developing countries with numerous planning-related problems (e.g. poverty, rapid urban development, inefficiencies in service provision, infrastructure and institutional frailty, etc.) without due consideration to the characteristics of their planning environments, may not lead to much significant success. Achieving public participation in these hostile contexts requires either a reform in existing procedures and structures (i.e. a long-term strategy) or maximization in application of citizen participation capacities in existing planning procedures and structures with an emphasis on the role of planners as the key players. This research aims to introduce a conceptual model for analyzing the effective factors of participatory planning in the planning environment. In this regard this work is an attempt to study the models and theories related to planning environment, decision environment, planning system, and planning culture in general. It further offers a primary and temporary framework for effective participatory planning factors by surveying two kinds of research: (1) research that directly or indirectly mentions the effective factors on success or failure of public participation, and (2) research that introduces some criteria for evaluating participatory planning (from process- or result- viewpoint or both). In order to identify the effective factors in participation realization, and to better unite practice and theory in this matter, the proposed framework of basic factors seeks to incorporate normative and instrumental benefits of participation to provide a pragmatic, moderate, and genuine understanding of citizen participation in the form of contextual variables and potential impacts. Finally, to reconsider the primary conceptual framework and offer a conceptual model of participatory planning, the effective factors on the realization of public participation have been examined in the planning environment model. Based on the nature of participation and the influences it attains from informal structures, the submitted conceptual framework emphasizes both formal and informal structures of planning environment at six analytical levels: external planning environment consists of two analytical levels of: (1) government (e.g. political sustainability and stability of politics, commitment to public participation processes, economic structure, etc.), and (2) participants (e.g. motivation, skills, knowledge and experiment, social capital, etc.). Internal planning environment consists of three analytical levels of: (3) planners and planning institutions (such as professional ethics and commitments, norms and cognitive frameworks, accountability, etc.), (4) legislations (e.g. incentives and deterrent policies, rules and regulations in the field of public participation, etc.), and (5) mechanism and procedures (such as representativeness, accountability, providing sufficient information, timing, etc.). The sixth level implies (6) external changes, like globalization, the impact of technological changes in information and communication. This conceptual framework can lead to identification of the limitations in Iran’s planning environment in the field of citizen participation. The components of the model can further be reviewed according to Iran’s planning environment specifications.
(618.3 کیلوبایت)
دانلود مقاله
مشخصات مقاله
- کرایتن، جیمز ال. (1392) راهنمای مشارکت عمومی: گرفتن تصمیمات بهتر با مشارکت شهروندان (مترجمان: ناصر برک‌پور، افشین خاکباز، مرجان شرفی، نریمان زرین پناه)، نشر شهر، تهران.
- نیومن، پیتر و تورنلی، اندی (1387). برنامه‌ریزی شهری در اروپا: رقابت بین‌المللی، نظام‌های ملی و طرح‌های برنامه‌ریزی (مترجم: عارف اقوامی مقدم)، آذرخش، تهران.
- Abelsona, J., Forest, P. G., Eyles, J., Casebeer, A., Martin, E., & Mackean, G. (2007). Examining the Role of Context in the Implementation of a Deliberative Public Participation Experiment: Results from a Canadian Comparative Study. Social Science & Medicine, 64, pp. 2115-2128.
- Abram, S. (2011). Culture and Planning. England: Ashgate.
- Agger, A. (2012). Towards Tailor-made: How to Involve Different Types of Citizens Participatory Governance. TPR, 83(1), 29-45.
- Alexander, E. (2008). Public Participation in Planning—A Multidimensional Model .Planning Theory & Practice, 9(1), pp. 57-90, doi: 10.1080/14649350701843853.
- Alterman, R. (1982). Planning for Public Participation: the Design of Implementable Strategies. Environment and Planning B, 9, pp. 295-313.
- Arnstein S. R. (1969). a Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners (JAIP), 35 (4), 216-224.
- Beierle, T. C. (1999). Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Policy Studies Review, 16(3–4), pp. 75–103.
- Beard, V. A. (2005). Individual determinants of participation in community development in Indonesia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23, pp. 21-39, doi: 10.1068/c36m.
- Boal, K. & Bryson, J. (1987). Representation, Testing and Policy Implications of Planning Processes. Strategic Management Journal. 8(3), 211-231.
- Bolan, R. S. (1973). Community Decision Behavior: The Culture of Planning. In Andreas Faludi (Ed.), A Reader in Planning Theory (pp. 371-394). New York: Pergamon Press.
- Bonafede, G., & Lo Piccolo, F. (2010). Participative Planning Processes in the Absence of the (Public) Space of Democracy.Planning Practice & Research, 25(3), pp. 353-375, doi: 10.1080/02697459.2010.503430.
- Brownill, S. (2009). The Dynamics of Participation: Modes of Governance and Increasing Participation in Planning. Urban Policy and Research, 27 (4), pp. 357-375, doi: 10.1080/08111140903308842.
- Cullingworth, B., & Nadin, V. (2006). Twon and Country Planning in the UK. London: Routledge.
- Connelly, S. (2010). Participation in a Hostile State: How do Planners Act to Shape Public Engagement in Politically Difficult Environments?. Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), pp. 333-351.
- Conrad, E., Cassar, L. F., Christie, M., & Fazey, I. (2011). Hearing but not listening? A participatory assessment of public participation in planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29, pp. 761-782, doi: 10.1068/c10137.
- De Vries, J. (2015). Planning and Culture Unfolded: The Cases of Flanders and the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1018406.
- Dyckman, J., Kreditor, A. & Banerjee, T. (1984). Planning in an Unprepared Environment: The Example of Bahrain. The Town Planning Review. 55(2), 214-227.
- Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. L. (2006). Citizen Participation in Budgeting Theory. Public Administration Review, 66(3), pp. 437-447, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00600.x.
- Faludi, A. (1970). The Planning Environment and the Meaning of “Planning”. Regional Studies, 4 (1), pp.1-9, doi: 10.1080/09595237000185011.
- Faludi, A. (2005). The Netherlands: a Culture with a Soft Spot for Planning. In Bishwapriya Sanyal (Ed.), Comparative Planning Cultures (pp. 442-454). New York: Routledge.
- Forester, J. (2006). Making Participation Work When Interests Conflic; Moving from Facilitating Dialouge and Moderating Debate to Mediating Negotiations. American Planning Association, 72 (4), pp. 447-456.
- Friedmann, J. (1967). A Conceptual Model for the Analysis of Planning Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2), 225-252.
- Friedmann, J. (2005). Globalization and Emerging Culture of Planning. Progress in Planning, 64, pp. 183-234. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2005.05.001.
- Gaventa, J., & Valderrama, C. (1999). Participation, Citizenship and Local Governance. Background Note Prepared for Workshop on ‘Strengthening Participation in Local Governance’, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Brighton, June 21-24, 1999.
- Gordon, E., Schirra, S., & Hollander, J. (2011). Immersive Planning: A Conceptual Model for Designing Public Participation with New Technologies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38, 505-519.
- Hopkins, D. (2010). The emancipatory limits of participation in planning; Equity and power in deliberative plan-making in Perth, Western Australia. TPR, 81 (1), pp. 55-81, doi: 10.3828/tpr.2009.24.
- Khan, S., & Swapan, M. S. H. (2013). From Blueprint Master Plans to Democratic Planning in South Asian Cities: Pursuing Good Governance Agenda against Prevalent Patron-client Networks. Habitat International, 38, pp. 183-191.
- Keller, D. A., Koch, M., & Selle, K. (1996). ‘Either/or’ and ‘and’: First Impressions of a Journey into the Planning Cultures of Four Countries. Planning Perspectives, 11(1), 41-54, doi: 10.1080/026654396364925.
- King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 58 (4), pp. 317-326.
- Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (2009). Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
- Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (2015). Planning Culture; A Concept to Explain the Evolution of Planning Policies and Processes in Europe?. European Planning Studies, 1-15, doi: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1018404.
- Laurian, L. & Shaw, M. M. (2009). Evaluation of Public Participation; the Practices of Certified Planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28, pp. 293-309.
- Michels, A. (2011). Innovations in democratic governance: how does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy?. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77 (2), pp. 275-293.
- Othengrafen, F. (2010). Spatial Planning as Expression of Culturised Planning Practices: the Examples of Helsinki, Finland and Athens, Greece. TPR, 81 (1), pp. 83-110, doi: 10.3828/tpr.2009.25.
- Othengrafen, F. (2012). Uncovering the Unconscious Dimentions of Planning: Using Culture as a Tool to Analysis Spatial Planning Practices. USA: Ashgate.
- Othengrafen, F. (2014). The Concept of Planning Culture; Analysing How Planners Construct Practical Judgements in a Culturised Context. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 3(2), 1-17. doi: 10.4018/ijepr.2014040101.
- Othengrafen, F., Reimer, M. (2013). Embeddedness of Planning in Cultural Contexts: Theoretical Foundations for the Analysis of Dynamic Planning Cultures. Environmental and Planning A, 45, pp. 1269-1284, doi:10.1068/a45131.
- Ran, B. (2012). Evaluating Public Participation in Environmental Policy-Making. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 9 (4), pp. 407-423.
- Rowe, G. & Frewer L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1), pp. 3–29, doi: 10.1177/016224390002500101.
- Rowe, G. & Frewer L. J. (2004). Evaluating Public Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values, 29 (4), pp. 512-556, doi: 10.1177/0162243903259197.
- Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29 (1), pp. 88-121, doi: 10.1177/0162243903259194.
- Sanoff, H. (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Sanyal, B. (2005). Hybrid Planning Cultures: the Search for the Global Cultural Commons. In Bishwapriya Sanyal (Ed.), Comparative Planning Cultures (pp. 3-25). New York: Routledge.
- Stead, D., De Vries, J., & Tasan-Kok, T. (2015). Planning Cultures and Histories: Influences on the Evolution of Planning Systems and Spatial Development Patterns. European Planning Studies, pp. 1-6. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1016402.
- Steinhauer, C. (2011). International Knowledge Transfer - Analysis of Planning Culture. In M. Schrenk, V. V. Vasily & P. Zeile (Eds.), Change for Stability – Lifecycles of Cities on Regions; the Role and Possibilities of Foresighted Planning in Transformation Processes: Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Urban Planning, Regional Development and Information Society (pp. 483-492). Schwechat: CORP (Competence of Urban and Regional Planning).
- Webler, T. Tuler, S. & Krueger, R. (2001). What Is a Good Public Participation Process? Five perspectives from the Public. Environmental Management, 27(3), 435-450.
- Whittick, A. (1974). Encyclopedia of Urban Planning. NewYork: McGraw Hill Inc.
- Williams, G. (2004). Evaluating Participatory Development: Tyranny, Power and (re)Politicisation. Third World Quarterly, 25(3), 557-578.
- Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further Dissecting the Black Box of Citizen Participation: When Does Citizen Involvement Lead to Good Outcomes?. Public Administration Review, 71 (6), pp. 880-892, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02417.x.
- Yetano, A., Royo, S., & Acerete, B. (2010). What is Driving the increasing Presence of Citizen Participation Initiatives? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28, pp. 783-802, doi:10.1068/c09110.
مسابقات
جوایز
نشریات
http://aup.journal.art.ac.ir
