فهم و تبیین برهم کنش ابعاد اجتماعی- ارتباطی برنامه ریزی شهری و معیارهای کلیدی توسعه پایدار

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشکده شهرسازی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 گروه برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

چکیده

ابعاد اجتماعی و ارتباطی از دهه 70 و به ویژه دهه 90 میلادی به عنوان ارکان اصلی رهیافت‌های نوین برنامه‌ریزی شهری مورد تاکید قرار گرفته است. ضرورت توجه به مولفه‌های اجتماعی و ارتباطی در برنامه‌ریزی شهری با مطرح شدن مباحث توسعه پایدار اهمیت دوچندان یافته است. دلیل این امر این‌است که در متون متاخر پایداری، مسئولیت‌پذیری، تعامل و آگاهی اجتماعی از زیرساخت‌های اصلی توسعه پایدار شهری به حساب می‌آید. با این حال علی رغم تاکید بر ضرورت پیوند رویکردهای اجتماعی و ارتباطی برنامه‌ریزی با مولفه‌های توسعه پایدار شهری، توجه چندانی به چگونگی پیوند میان این دو جنبه در پژوهش‌های برنامه-ریزی صورت نگرفته است.
پرسش اصلی در مقاله پیش رو این است که ابعاد اجتماعی مستتر در رهیافت‌های جدید برنامه‌ریزی چیست و چه ارتباطی میان این ابعاد و معیارهای توسعه پایدار می‌توان برقرار نمود. در راستای پاسخ به این سوال، ابتدا مبانی رهیافت‌های جدید برنامه‌ریزی به اختصار جمع‌آوری شده و سپس با استفاده از روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی به فهم ابعاد اجتماعی و ارتباطی این رهیافت‌ها پرداخته شده است. در گام بعدی، تحلیل محتوا و کدگذاری مولفه‌های کلیدی نظریات و دستورالعمل‌های توسعه پایدار انجام شده است. در گام پایانی تحلیل، تبیین رابطه مفهومی و برهم کنش میان نتایج حاصل از گام‌های پیشین با استفاده از روش فراترکیب کیفی استنتاج شده است. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که الگوها و نظریات رویه‌ای برنامه‌ریزی شامل رهیافت‌های ارتباطی، مشارکتی و عمل‌گرایی، از ظرفیت مطلوبی برای تحقق معیارهای توسعه پایدار به عنوان محتوا و هدف نهایی توسعه در برنامه‌ریزی شهری برخوردارند

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


Agger, B. (1991). Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological relevance. Annual review of sociology, 17(1), 105-131.
Akenji, L., Bengtsson, M., Briggs, E., Chiu, A., Daconto, G., & Fadeeva, Z. (2015). Sustainable consumption and production. A Handbook for Policymakers (Global Edition).
Alexander E.R. (2001). The planner-Prince: interdependence, rationalities and post- comuunicative practice. Planning Theory and practice 2, 3:24-311.
Alexander, E. R. (1994). The non-Euclidean mode of planning what is it to be?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(3), 372-376.
Alexander, E. R. (2000). Rationality revisited: Planning paradigms in a post-postmodernist perspective. Journal of planning education and research, 19(3), 242-256.
Allmendinegr, P. (1998). Planning in Postmodern Times. London: Routledge.
Allmendinger, P. (2002). Post-Positivist landscape of planning theory. Cited in: Planning Futures: New directions for planning theory. London: Routledge.
Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2012). Post‐political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus?. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), 89-103.
Baker, S. (2015). Sustainable development. Routledge.
Bauman, Z. (1999). In search of Politics. Cambridge: Polity press.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York: Free Press.
Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans. Journal of the American planning association, 66(1), 21-33.
Blaikie N. (1993). Approaches to social enquiry, Cambridge: Polity
Blaikie, N. (2007). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation. Polity.
Blowers, A. (1993). Planning for Sustainable Environment. London: Earthscan,
Brand, R. and Gaffikin F. (2007). Collaborative Planning in an Uncollaborative World. Journal of Planning Theory 6 (3): 282-313.
Brooks, D. (1994) Beyound Catch Phrases: What Does Sustainable Development Realy Mean?.
Campbell, S., & Fainstein, S. S. (2003). Readings in Planning Theory (Studies in Urban & Social Change).
Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development (1996)."Sustainable Development News". Springer.
Chai, N. (2009). Sustainability performance evaluation system in government: A balanced scorecard approach towards sustainable development. Springer Science & Business Media.
Cheng, Y. (2013). Collaborative planning in the network: Consensus seeking in urban planning issues on the Internet—the case of China. Planning Theory, 12(4), 351-368.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design; choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative and Qualitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable development, 19(5), 289-300.
Dyball, R., & Keen, M. (Eds.). (2012). Social learning in environmental management: towards a sustainable future. Taylor & Francis.
Eckstein, B., & Throgmorton, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Story and sustainability: Planning, practice, and possibility for American cities. MIT press.
Elliott, J. (2012). An introduction to sustainable development. Routledge.
Fainstein, S. S. (2014). The just city. International journal of urban Sciences, 18(1), 1-18.
Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (Eds.). (2012). The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice. Duke University Press.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Berekeley: University of California press.
Forester, J. (1993). Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Forester, J. (2006). Challenges of deliberation and participation. Les ateliers de l'éthique, 1(2), 19-25.
Forester, J. (2012). On the Theory and Practice of Critical Pragmatism: Deliberative Practice and Creative Negotiations. Planning theory, 12(1): 5-22.
Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning theory, 12(1), 5-22.
Forester, J. (2017). On the evolution of a critical pragmatism. Encounters with planning thought, 280-296.
Forester, J. (2020). Kindness, planners’ response to vulnerability, and an ethics of care in the time of Covid-19. Planning Theory & Practice, 21(2), 185-188.
Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Friedmann, J. (1993). Toward a Non- Euclidian mode of Planning. Jornal of APA: Automn 482-485.
Friedmann, J. (2003). Why do planning theory?. Planning theory, 2(1), 7-10.
Friedmann, J. (2011). Insurgencies: Essays in planning theory. Routledge.
Grieco, M. (2015). Social sustainability and urban mobility: shifting to a socially responsible pro-poor perspective. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(1), 82-97.
Grunkemeyer, W., & Moss, M. (2020). Key Concepts in Sustainable Development.
Habermass, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol I. Reason and the rationalisaztion of society, Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermass, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol II. System and Lifeworld, Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermass, J.(1974). Theory of Practice. Boston: Beacon Press.
Harvey, D. (2019). City and justice: social movements in the city. In The Human Sustainable City (pp. 235-254). Routledge.
Harvey, D., & Perry, J. (Eds.). (2015). The future of heritage as climates change: Loss, adaptation and creativity. Routledge.
Healey, P. (2006). Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. European planning studies, 14(3), 299-320.
Healey, P., Cars, G., Madanipour, A., & De Magalhaes, C. (2017). Transforming governance, institutionalist analysis and institutional capacity. In Urban governance, institutional capacity and social milieux (pp. 6-28). Routledge.
Heally, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmeneted societies. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Heally, P. (1998). Building institutional Capacities through Collaborative approaches to Urban Planning. Environment and Planning A, 30:1531---46.
Heally, P. (2003). Collaborative Planning in Persepevtive. Jornal of Planning Theory , London: 2 (2):101-123.
Heally, P. (2008). The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research 28:277-292.
Heally, P.(1992). Planning through debate. Town Planning review, 63, 2: 62-143.
Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of Power: An allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning. London: Routledge.
Hillier, J. (2003). Agonizing over Consensus: Why Habermasian Ideals Cannot be Real. Jornal of Planning Theory 2 (1): 37-59.
Hillier, J., & Healey, P. (Eds.). (2010). The Ashgate research companion to planning theory: conceptual challenges for spatial planning. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..
Hoch, C. (1996). A pragmatic inquiry about planning and power. Explorations in planning theory, 30-44.
Hoch, C. (2007). Pragmatic communicativ action theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(3): 272- 283.
Hoch, C. (2011). The planning research agenda: planning theory for practice. The Town Planning Review, 82(2), vii-xv.
Hoch, C. (2017). Pragmatism and plan-making. In Encounters in planning thought (pp. 315-332). Routledge.
Hoch, C.(1994). What palnners do. Chicago: APA.
Holden, M. (2008). Social learning in planning: Seattle's sustainable development codebooks. Progress in Planning, 69(1), 1-40.
Innes, J. & Booher, D. (2002). Network Power and Collaborative Planning: strategy for the information age. Paper presented at ACSP conference, Pasadena.
Innes, J. (1995). Planning Thoery's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14,3 183---9.
Innes, J. (1998). Information in Communicative Planning. APA, 64, 1: 52-63.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2018). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
Krizek, K. J., & Power, J. (2018). A planners guide to sustainable development. Translated by Behzadfar, M & Habibi, K. Tehran: Tahan Publication (2nd Edition) [In Persian].
Lafferty, W. M., & Eckerberg, K. (Eds.). (2013). From the Earth Summit to Local Agenda 21: working towards sustainable development. Routledge.
Mccarthy, T. (1990). The critique of impure reason: Foucault and the Frankfurt school. Political Theory, 18(3): 437- 469.
Neuman, W.l. (1994). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Polk, M., & Knutsson, P. (2008). Participation, value rationality and mutual learning in transdisciplinary knowledge production for sustainable development. Environmental education research, 14(6), 643-653.
Redclift, Michael. 1987. "Sustainable Development:Exploring the Contradiction", London: Methuenn & Co., Ltd.
Rees, William E. 1996."Revisiting Carring Capacity: Areas Based Indicators of Sustainability", Population and Environment 17,no. 3:195-215.
Sadler, B.(1996). Environmental Protection and Resource Development: Convergence for Today.
Sandercock, L. (1998). The death of Modernist Planning. In cities for citixens: Planning and the rise of civil society in a global age, Chichester: Wiley, PP. 163- 184.
Schreier, M., 2012. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA .
Shrifzadegan, M. & Nedayi Toosi, S. (2015). Qualitative research Methods in developmental planning with an emphasis on urban and regional planning. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti university press [In Persian].
Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L. (2012). Creativity and innovation: Divergence and convergence in pragmatic dialogical planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(1), 5-17.
Tewdwr-Jones, M. & Allmendinger P. (1998). Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: A critique of Habermassian Collaborative Planning. Environment and Planning Vol (30):1975-1989.
Wals, A. E., & Lenglet, F. (2016). Sustainability citizens: Collaborative and disruptive social learning. In Sustainability citizenship in cities (pp. 52-66). Routledge.
Westin, M. (2022). The framing of power in communicative planning theory: Analysing the work of John Forester, Patsy Healey and Judith Innes. Planning Theory, 21(2), 132-154.
Wismer, S. (1995). Sustainable Development and Urban Life.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. "Our Common Future", New York: Oxford University Press.