تحلیل محتوایی نگرش نظریات برنامهریزی شهری در تأمین منفعت عمومی | ||
| شهر آینده، اندیشه بومی | ||
| مقاله 11، دوره 1، شماره 1، مرداد 1404، صفحه 177-196 اصل مقاله (1.12 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی مستقل | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/future.2025.3709 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| محسن عبده کلاه چی* 1؛ محمود قلعه نویی2؛ رضا خیرالدین3 | ||
| 1گروه معماری، دانشکده عمران و معماری، دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، اهواز، ایران | ||
| 2گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران | ||
| 3گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| درحالیکه از تأمین منفعت عمومی بهعنوان یکی از مهمترین توجیهات عمل برنامهریزی یاد میشود ولی با مروری بر نظریات غالب برنامهریزی شهری و رویکردهای اقتصادی ـ سیاسی میتوان گفت این نظریات خوانشی متفاوت نسبت به اولویت تأمین منفعت در یک دوگانگی چالشبرانگیز میان بخش عمومی و یا بازار دارند. ازاینرو هدف از نگارش مقاله پیشرو آن است تا در قالب پارادایم تفسیرگرایی و با استفاده از روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی از طریق بررسی و تفسیر منابع مرتبط معتبر، سیر تحول مفهومی منفعت عمومی از دهه 1960 در نظریات برنامهریزی شهری ارائه گردد. در این خصوص بر مبنای 6 مقوله مستخرج از کدگذاری باز، گونه شناسی از منفعت عمومی در نظریات برنامهریزی شهری استخراجشده است. یافتهها حاکی از آن است که گرچه عمده نظریات در ابتدای طرح خود به تأمین منافع یکی از بخشهای عمومی و یا بازار گرایش داشتهاند، ولی با نمایان شدن نواقص این دیدگاهها که عموماً منجر به ایجاد ناپایداری اجتماعی و تعارض منافع گردیده، امروزه نگرشهای متأخر نظریات برنامهریزی شهری با رویکردی مشارکتی بر توافق و تأمین همزمان منافع همه ذینفعان سیاسی، اقتصادی و عمومی تأکید میکنند. به نظر میرسد اینچنین مفاهیمی عمدتاً در نظریه برنامهریزی ارتباطی گرد هم آمدهاند ولی با توجه به نواقص برنامهریزی ارتباطی در تأمین چارچوب هدایتکننده منافع کنشگران، در پایان مدلی مفهومی جهت حصول توافق در تنظیم و توزیع منافع میان کنشگران با تأکید بر ترکیب نظریات برنامهریزی عقلانی و ارتباطی پیشنهادشده است. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| نظریات برنامهریزی شهری؛ منفعت عمومی؛ منافع بازار؛ توافق در تأمین منافع | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Content Analysis of the Perspectives of Urban Planning Theories in Securing the Public Interest | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mohsen Abdeh Kolahchi1؛ Mahmoud Ghalehnoee2؛ Reza KHEYRODDIN3 | ||
| 1Department of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran | ||
| 2Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Isfahan Art University, Isfahan, Iran | ||
| 3Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| A B S T R A C T While the pursuit of the public interest has long been recognized as one of the most significant justifications for planning practice, a review of dominant urban planning theories and politico-economic approaches reveals that they offer divergent interpretations of whose interests should be prioritized—those of the public sector or of the market. Accordingly, this study aims to trace the conceptual evolution of the public interest in urban planning theories since the 1960s, within an interpretivist paradigm, using qualitative content analysis of relevant and authoritative sources. Based on six main categories identified through open coding, a typology of the concept of public interest in urban planning theories is developed. The findings indicate that although early planning theories tended to favor the interests of either the public sector or the market, the shortcomings of these approaches—often resulting in social instability and conflicts of interest—have led to the emergence of contemporary participatory perspectives. These newer views emphasize consensus-building and the simultaneous realization of the interests of all political, economic, and public stakeholders. Such integrative perspectives are largely consolidated within communicative planning theory; however, given its limitations in providing a guiding framework for reconciling actors’ interests, this paper proposes a conceptual model that combines rational and communicative planning theories to achieve consensus in the formulation and distribution of benefits among stakeholders. Extended Abstract Introduction While the provision of public interest is considered one of the most important justifications for planning, a review of dominant urban planning theories and economic-political approaches reveals that these theories, based on different intellectual, economic, and political foundations, offer varying interpretations regarding the prioritization of public interest in a challenging dichotomy between the public sector and the market. This indicates the existence of instability and ambiguity in the concept of public interest at the theoretical level. Therefore, this study aims to provide a conceptual model of public interest provision by examining and interpreting credible related sources while presenting the evolution of public interest since the 1960s in urban planning theories and the typology of the studied theories. Methodology Within the framework of deductive reasoning and the interpretivism paradigm, and using qualitative content analysis through the examination and interpretation of credible related sources, an attempt has been made to present the conceptual evolution of the public interest since the 1960s in economic-political theories and approaches influencing urban planning, including rational planning theory, communicative planning theory, and socialist and liberal approaches, and to provide a typology of theories based on the subject of discussion. Subsequently, the data related to the topic were extracted and categorized into concepts and themes using the open coding process. In the next stage, to conceptually organize the extracted content from theories based on the selected themes, the theories were classified according to public interest. Findings and Discussion For the typology of planning theories regarding public interest, six themes derived from open coding have been used, including "perception of actor intervention," "perception of government intervention," "perception of planning," "perception of the planner," "priority of interest provision," and "tools for interest provision." Research results indicate that although most urban planning theories initially leaned towards serving the interests of one public sector or the market, the shortcomings of these perspectives, which generally led to social instability and conflicts of interest, have become apparent. Today, later urban planning theories emphasize a participatory approach focusing on the simultaneous agreement and provision of interests for all political, economic, and public stakeholders. From this perspective, it can be stated that two fundamental shifts have occurred regarding the provision of public interests: 1. The replacement of technocratic planning with participatory planning: While in the classical era of instrumental rationality-based planning, it was believed that the planner identified the public interest and could provide it through planning, in the later period, it is thought that providing interests without the formation of conflicts is impossible, and there is a need for realistic and participatory approaches to align or redefine sometimes conflicting interests in a discursive environment. 2. Replacing the binary of market or public interests with the interest of all: Another shift in the content of planning theories is that instead of emphasizing market or public interests, which mainly lead to conflict and social instability, contemporary planning theories such as communicative planning emphasize consensus and the simultaneous provision of interests to all actors. In a meta-analysis of research findings, it can be concluded that these two shifts are aligned: reducing the conflict of interest among actors by simultaneously addressing the interests of all of them. Accordingly, there is a need to use a combination of planning theories to achieve the sustainable provision of interests among different actors. In this regard, the present study suggests that the rational planning theory and the communicative planning theory, by presenting different epistemologies (the former emphasizes knowledge and methods to achieve public interest using specialized, legal, and formal tools, while the latter emphasizes the interaction of actors and reaching agreements using dialogue tools in a predominantly informal environment), can be positioned not in opposition to each other but in complementarity with each other. Rational planning, which proposes a development framework for the entire city using a comprehensive plan tool, requires support in areas where sensitivity exists, and market forces have a greater interest in intervention and participation. This is because it enters a process where the plan cannot be completed merely with expert statements and suggestions. In this case, communicative planning, as a support for planning and its tools (urban development plans and formal regulations), can mediate the conflicts of interest among actors. Accordingly, it can be stated that planning and legal tools at a macro scale and communicative planning tools such as dialogue towards moving towards a democratic society will be applied at a more micro-scale and can more appropriately conclude the interest distribution process. Conclusion Considering the discussion presented today, the provision of the interest of all has replaced public interest, intending to regulate and achieve a new agreement in the distribution of interest among actors in a consensual way. It seems that such concepts have mainly come together in the theory of communicative planning; however, given the shortcomings of communicative planning in providing a guiding framework for the interests of actors, it is necessary to complement it through rational planning, which can prescribe a guiding framework for development. Therefore, at the end of the research, a conceptual model for providing public interest, composed of rational and communicative planning, has been proposed. Funding There is no funding support. Authors’ Contribution Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none. Conflict of Interest Authors declared no conflict of interest. Acknowledgments We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Urban Planning Theories, Public Interest, Market Interests, Consensus in Benefit Provision | ||
| مراجع | ||
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 300 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 105 |
||