Plan Quality Concepts, Methods of Evalution and Conceptual Model for Quality of Urban Development (Master) Plans in Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

PhD in Urban Planning, Department of Urban Planning and Design, School of Architecture and Urban Studies, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The status and importance of the urban development plans and their evaluation through various methods is still an outstanding challenging issue in the academic and practical settings. Plan quality evaluation is known as an emerging methodology for assessing the quality of plans. It typically evaluate plans in relation to whether they contain certain desirable features, and aims to answer questions about the suitability of plans, applying methods and theories of planning, their strengths and weaknesses related to the ideal situation in different fields. During the past two decades, researchers have been able to formulate conceptual consensus based on the preliminary principles of plan quality. The purpose of this study is to introduce concepts and methods for plan quality evaluation describing an appropriate systematic conceptual model in order for quality evaluation of urban development plans in Iran, so that planners, while knowing the appropriate content of the plans, can try to carry out further research focused on specific topics and fields. It should be mentioned that the method used in this study is an explanatory overview. As the theoretical foundations, different methods and studies related to the subject have been comprehensively investigated and analyzed, consequently, the suitable "model and method" for evaluating the quality of urban development plans in Iran is clearly explained and adjusted to the whole country. In this research, six main stages for content analysis of the plans were clearly described including (1) determining the subject of evaluation, the level and scope of the research, explaining the conceptual model, identifying and determining the main features of the plan; (2) making a protocol composed of components, criteria and items (questions and items) related to each feature; (3) determining the method for scoring items in the protocol; (4) coding principles and methods; (5) checking the reliability of scores; and (6) interpreting, analyzing and comparing of plan quality scores. Additionally, due to the clarification of the concepts and theoretical framework and the literature review of the plan's quality, in order to explain the conceptual model of the comprehensive plans quality in Iran, the provisions of the definitions, requirements and methods of (rational) comprehensive planning, the description of contract services for the development plans (type 12), laws, guidelines, approvals and opinions of researchers, experts and critics of urban development plans, the results and content of studies on evaluation of plans in Iran were widely utilized. Finally, a conceptual model was designed with 10 main components (i.e., fact base, analysis and inference, preparation of plans, implementation, inter-organizational coordination, participation, presentation, monitoring and evaluation, planning methods, sustainable development). This conceptual model can be both a guide and a checklist for planners to improve the content of their plans and identify the strengths, weaknesses and shortcomings of them. Last but not least, this study motivates researchers to appropriately apply this conceptual model or counterpart models to their research topic for the purpose of initiating and extending studies on the quality of plans in Iran.

Keywords

References

-   بازرگان هرندی، عباس (1391).ارزشیابی آموزشی، تهران: سمت.
-   بحرینی، سیدحسین، و پرتوی، پروین (1380). ارزیابی بازسازی سه شهر زلزله زده ایران با تکیه بر تحلیل آسیب‌پذیری آن در برابر زلزله (گلبافت). تهران: پژوهشکده سوانح طبیعی.
-   پوراحمد، احمد، حاتمی‌نژاد، حسین، و حسینی، سیدهادی (1385). آسیب‌شناسی طرح‌های توسعه شهری در کشور. پژوهش‌های جغرافیایی،58، 167-180.
-   حبیبی، کیومرث، بهزادفر، مصطفی، مشکینی، ابوالفضل، هوشمند، علیزاده، و محکی، وحید (1390). ارزیابی اثرات طرح‌های توسعه شهری بر ساختارشکنی و ارتقای کیفی فضای شهر کهن ایرانی.فصلنامه مطالعات شهر ایرانی اسلامی، 14، 15-28.
-   حسینی دهاقانی، مهدی، و بصیرت، میثم (1396). ارزیابی کیفیت طرح‌های جامع شهری با رویکرد تلفیقی ISM و ANP، مورد مطالعه: طرح بازنگری در طرح جامع پولادشهر (مصوب 1390). آمایش سرزمین،9(2)، 245-274.
-   حقیقت نائینی، غلامرضا و قاجار خسروی، محمد مهدی (زیر چاپ).چالش‌های روش‌شناسی در ارزیابی طرح‌های توسعه شهری در ایران. تهران: آرمانشهر.
-   دانشور، مریم، و بندرآباد، علیرضا (1392). بررسی انطباق طرح‌های توسعه و عمران جدید کشور با ویژگی‌های طرح ساختاری راهبردی (مطالعه موردی: طرح توسعه و عمران مشهد).هویت شهر، 14، 83-92.
-   دلیر، کریم حسین‌زاده، پورمحمدی، محمدرضا، و سلطانی، علیرضا (1389). بررسی عوامل مؤثر درناکارآمدی طرح‌های جامع شهری ایران (مطالعه موردی، طرح جامع تبریز).نشریه جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی (دانشگاه تبریز)،31، 131-151.
-   رفیعی، راضیه، و برک‌پور، ناصر (1393). رویکردهای انطباق محور و کارکرد محور ارزیابی اجرا در برنامه ریزی کاربری زمین، موردپژوهی: ارزیابی انطباق محور در شهر لواسان. نشریه هنرهای زیبا - معماری و شهرسازی،۱۹(4)، 65-76.
-   رفیعیان، مجتبی، برک‌پور، ناصر، و رکنی‌پور، مهرداد (1387). ارزیابی استراتژی‌های توسعه مناطق کلان‌شهری از دیدگاه توسعه پایدار (برمبنای مدل SEA) نمونه موردی: طرح مجموعه شهری تهران. فصلنامه مدیریت شهری، 19، 7-18.
-   رفیعیان، مجتبی، و موسوی، سیدعلی (1383). ارزیابی میزان تحقق‌پذیری طرح‌های جامع و تفصیلی شهرهای استان آذربایجان شرقی. مجله جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی،17، 177 - 202.
-   سازمان برنامه و بودجه (1363). قرارداد تهیه طرح‌های توسعه و عمران، حوزه نفوذ و تفضیلی شهرها. قرارداد تیپ شماره 12.
-   سعید نیا، احمد (1374). اندیشه‌های خام شهرسازی.هنرهای زیبا،31-36.
-   سعیدنیا، احمد (1383). طراحی شهری در ایران، کتاب سبز راهنمای شهرداری‌ها (جلد 5).سازمان شهرداری‌ها و دهیاری‌های کشور.
-   شکوهی بیدهندی، محمدصالح، محملی ابیانه، حمیدرضا، غفاری، نازنین، و ناصرمستوفی، انوشیروان (1391). شاخص‌ها و معیارهای ارزیابی طرح جامع تهران. دانش شهر،112، مرکز مطالعات و برنامه‌ریزی شهر تهران. 
-   صرافی، مظفر، توکلی‌نیا، جمیله، و چمنی مقدم، مهدی (1393). جایگاه برنامه‌ریز در فرآیند برنامه‌ریزی شهری ایران. مطالعات شهری،12، 19-32.
-   عزیزی، محمدمهدی، و آراسته، مجتبی (1390). ارزیابی تحقق‌پذیری پیش‌بینی‌های کاربری اراضی و پیشنهادهای جهات توسعه در طرح جامع شهر لار. مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری و منطقه‌ای، 11، 1-22.
-   علی‌اکبری، اسماعیل، رهنمایی، محمدتقی، و ابراهیمی بوزانی، مهدی (1392). بررسی روش‌شناسی طرح‌های توسعه شهری در ایران. جغرافیا،11(37)، 97-114.
-   قربانی، رسول، جام کسری، محمد، و میرزا بکی، ملیحه (1393). ارزیابی میزان انطباق مکانی در فرآیند اجرای طرح‌های جامع شهری.نشریه علمی و پژوهشی جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی،49، 191 ذ 216.
-   مشهودی، سهراب (1380). مبانی طرح‌های سیال شهری.تهران: نشر شرکت پردازش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری.
-   مهندسین مشاور شارمند (1378). شیوه‌های تحقق طرح‌های توسعۀ شهری، جلد دوّم: بررسی تجارب تهیه و اجرایی طرح‌های توسعۀ شهری در ایران.تهران: سازمان شهرداری‌های کشور.
-   وزارت راه و شهرسازی (1397).گزارش آماری اطلاعات وارد شده توسط ادارات کل استانی، سامانه جامع مدیریت تهیه و تصویب طرح‌های توسعه و عمران. http://mis-shahrsazi.mrud.ir/stat.aspx.
-   وزارت راه و شهرسازی (1395). مجموعه ضوابط، مقررات و مصوبات موردی شورای عالی شهرسازی و معماری. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
-   وزارت حمل و نقل، محیط زیست و مناطق شهری انگلستان (1387). طرح‌های توسعه: کتاب راهنمای عمل صحیح (مترجم‌ها: ناصر برک پور، ایرج اسدی و رعنا تقدسی). تهران: دانشگاه هنر.
 
-  Alexander, E. R., & Faludi, A. (1989). Planning and plan implementation: Notes on evaluation criteria. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design,16(1), 127-40.
-  Baer, W. C. (1997). General Plan Evaluation Criteria. An Approach to Making Better Plans. Journal of the American Planning Association,63(3), 329-44.
-   Berke, P. R. (1994). Evaluating Environmental Plan Quality:The Case of Planning for Sustainable Development in NewZealand.Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 37(2), 155–70.
-  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), 22-36.
-  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., & Manta-Conroy, M. (2000). Are We Planning for Sustainable Development? An Evaluation of 30 Comprehensive Plans.Journal of the American Planning Association,66(1), 21–33.
-  Berke, P. R., & Steven P. F. (1994). The Influence of State Planning Mandates on Local Plan Quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research,13(4), 237–50.
-  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, 643-64.
-  Berke, P. R., Dale R., Roenigk, J., Kaiser, E. J., & Burby, R. (1996). Enhancing Plan Quality: Evaluating the Roleof State Planning Mandates for Natural Hazard Mitigation.Journal of Environmental Planning & Management,39(1), 79–96.
-  Berke, P. R., Dixon, J., & Ericksen, N. (1997). Coerciveand Cooperative Intergovernmental Mandates: A Comparative Analysis of Florida and New Zealand Environmental Plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,24(3), 451–68.
-  Berke, P. R., Gavin, S., & Ward, L. (2012). Planning for Resiliency: Evaluation of State Hazard Mitigation Plans under the Disaster Mitigation Act. Natural Hazards Review, 13(2), 139–49.
-  Berke, P. R., Godschalk, D. R., Kaiser, E. J., & Rodriguez, D. A. (2006).Urban land use planning(5th Ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
-  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, USA.Land Use Policy, 31, 450–59.
-  Brody, S. (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., & Highfield, W. E. (2005). Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida. Journal of the American Planning Association,71(2), 159-75.
-  Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in planmaking: 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 A Fresh Look at What Makes “AGoodPlan”. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(4), 338–53.
-  Burby, R. J. (2003). Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action.Journal of the American Planning Association,69(1), 33–49.
-  Burby, R. J., & May, P. (1998). Intergovernmental environmental planning: Addressing the commitment conundrum. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(1), 95-110.
-  Burby, R. J., May, P. J., Berke, P. R., Dalton, L. C., French, S. P., & Kaiser, E. J. (1997). Making Governments Plan: State Experiments in ManagingLand Use. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
-  Connell, D. J., & Daoust-Filiatrault, L. A. (2017). Better Than Good: Three Dimensions of Plan Quality. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 38(3), 265-272. 
-  Dalton, L. C., & Burby, R. J. (1994). Mandates, Plans, and Planners: Building Local Commitment to Development Management. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(4), 444–61.
-  Deyle, R. E., & Smith, R. A. (1998). Local GovernmentCompliance with State Plan Mandates: The Effects of StateImplementation in Florida.Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 64(4), 457–69.
-  Evenson, K. R., Satinsky, S. B., Rodriguez, D. A., & Aytur, S. (2012). Exploring a Public Health Perspective onPedestrian Planning. Health Promotion Practice,13(2), 204–13.
-  Godschalk, D. R., Beatley, T., Berke, P., Brower, D. J., & Kaiser, E. J. (1999). Natural HazardMitigation: Recasting Disaster Policy and Planning.Washington, DC: Island Press.
-  Godschalk, D. R., Brody, S., & Burby, R. (2003). Public Participation in Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy Formation: Challenges for Comprehensive Planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,46(5), 733–754.
-  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.
-  Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.
-  Hoch, C. (2002). Evaluating plans pragmatically.Planning Theory, 1(1), 53-75.
-  Hoch, C. (2007). How plan mandates work: Affordable housing in Illinois. Journal of the American planning Association,73(1), 86-99.
-  Hoch, C. (2009). Planning Craft: How Planners Compose Plans. Planning Theory, 8(4), 219-241.
-  Hopkins, L. D. (2001). Urban development: The logic of making plans.Washington, DC: Island Press.
-  Horney, J. A., Naimi, A. I., Lyles, W., Simon, M., Salvesen, D., & Berke, P. (2012). Assessing the Relationship between Hazard Mitigation Plan Quality and Rural Status in a Cohort of 57 Counties from 3 States in the Southeastern U.S. Challenges,3(2), 183–93.
-  Horney, J. A., Nguyen, M., Salvesen, D., Dwyer, C., Cooper, J., & Berke, P. (2016). Assessing the Quality of Rural Hazard Mitigation Plans in the Southeastern United States.Journal of Planning Education and Research,  37(1), 56-65.
-  Kaiser, E. J., & Davies, J. (1999). What a good plan should contain: A proposed model.Carolina Planning,2, 29-41.
-  Kaiser, E. J., Godschalk, D. R., & Chapin Jr., S. (1995). Urban land use planning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
-  Kaiser, E. J., & Godschalk, D. R. (1995). Twentieth Century Land Use Planning: A Stalwart Family Tree. Journal of the American Planning Association,61 (3), 365–85.
-  Kang, J. E., Peacock, W. G., Husein, R. (2010). An Assessment of Coastal Zone Hazard Mitigation Plans inTexas.Journal of Disaster Research,5 (5), 520–28.
-  Khakee, A. (2003). The emerging gap between evaluation research and practice. Evaluation, 9(3), 340-52.
-  Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in Content Analysis: Some Common Misconceptions and Recommendations. Human Communication Research,30(3), 411–33.
-  Krippendorff, K. (2013).Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology(3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
-  Loh, C. G., & Norton, R. K. (2015). Planning Consultants’ InfluenceonLocalComprehensivePlans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(2), 199-208.
-  Lyles, W. & Stevens, M. R. (2014). Plan Quality Evaluation 1994–2012:GrowthandContributions, Limitations, andNewDirections. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(4), 433–450.
-  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.
-  Neuman, M. (1998). Does Planning Need the Plan? Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(2), 208-220.
-  Norton, R. K. (2005). Local commitment to state-mandated planning in coastal North Carolina. Journal of Planning Educationand Research, 2, 149-71.
-  Norton, R. K. (2008). Using Content Analysis to EvaluateLocal Master Plans and Zoning Codes. Land Use Policy,25(3), 432–54.
-  Olonilua, O. O., and Ibitayo, O. O. (2011). Toward Multihazard Mitigation: An Evaluation of FEMA Approved Hazard Mitigation Plans under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Journal of Emergency Management,9(1), 37–49.
-  Srivastava, R., & Laurian, L. (2006). Natural HazardMitigation in Local Comprehensive Plans: The Case of Flood, Wildfire and Drought Planning in Arizona.Disaster Prevention and Management, 15(3), 461–83.
-  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.
-  Talen, E. (1996). After the plans: Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(1), 79-91.
-  Tang, Z., & Brody, S. D. (2009). Linking PlanningTheories with Factors Influencing Local Environmental-PlanQuality. Environment and Planning B,36(6), 522–37.
-  Tang, Z., Lindell, M. K., Prater, C., Wei, T., & Hussey, C. M. (2011). Examining Local CoastalZone Management Capacity in U.S. Pacific Coastal Counties. Coastal Management,39(2), 105–32.
-  Tang, Z., Brody, S. D., Quinn, C., Chang, L., & Wei, T. (2010). Moving from Agenda to Action:Evaluating Local Climate Change Action Plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53(1), 41–62.
-  Tang, Z. (2008). Evaluating Local Coastal Zone LandUse Planning Capacities in California. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51(7), 544–55.
Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning
Volume 11, Issue 23
August 2019
Pages 73-94

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics