Analysis of Disputes among Stakeholders in Urban Space for Feasibility of Mediation Case Study: 17-Shahrivar Pedestrian Way in Tehran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Student in Islamic Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tabriz University of Islamic Arts, Tabriz, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Urban plans, especially in the central and old textures of cities, have a considerable complexity and expansive scope of interests of groups and stakeholders. For this reason, there is a need for a balance between sometimes conflicting objectives and interests of stakeholders in urban projects. In the event of disagreement, mediation between the beneficiary groups can, in turn, alter the attitudes of the parties to the disputed issues that have arisen, and so they will be able to find common ground and solutions. One of the important urban projects which has been performed in Tehran in the recent decade is turning the 17-Shahrivar Street into a pedestrian way. This street is one of the central axes of Tehran, which has relatively important traffic and functional role. Execution of this project led to lots of debates among pros and cons; particularly, there were three major groups involved with this project: urban managers who want to make a cultural axis to hold religious ceremonies in especial days per year, shop owners around the street (mainly car exhibitions) and households (residents). These three groups had different concerns and interests. The conflict in the project began from the beginning of the project in 2012, when the residents believed that the project was poorly informed, they were not consulted or received a proposal. On the other hand, at the managerial level, some officials of urban organizations and members of the city council disagreed with the project, because of the weakness of the previous studies, lack of coordination, lack of transparency and disapproval by the city council. City council members, with information about the area, took a decision to provide the municipality with a two-month period in March 2015 to provide the solution, which did not lead to a conclusion. Until the end of the year, the City Council, reopened a major part of the route, but even yet, there are still cases of dissatisfaction among the beneficiaries. The current research, which forms part of the pre-mediation stage, uses a descriptive-analytical method based on the content-based analysis and database theory approach. In this paper, after identifying the disputes and the main beneficiary groups of the 17-Shahrivar Street of Tehran, forty-five interviews were carried out, and information was encoded based on the content analysis method. The findings of the research show that there are more challenges and barriers to the existing facilities for resolving the disputes in the 17-Shahrivar route. Although the parties agree on issues of prioritization and ambition for the mediation process. However, there are challenges such as lack of proper relationships and trust among the parties to the dispute, the severity of high dissatisfaction especially by the business community and the problems of the Tehran city administration system, such as lack of proper accountability, lack of coordinated management, top to bottom command-line management, and insufficient funding has made the process difficult to resolve.

Keywords

References

-  حبیبی، سیدمحسن، و سعیدی رضوانی، هادی (1384). شهرسازی مشارکتی؛ کاوشی نظری در شرایط ایران. نشریه هنرهای زیبا، 24، 24-15.
-  فاضلی، محمد، و علیخواه، فردین (1391). پیوست اجتماعی و فرهنگی بهسازی میدان امام حسین (ع) و پیاده‌راه سازی خیابان 17 شهریور.تهران: سازمان زیبا سازی شهر تهران، شهرداری تهران.
-  گرشاسبی، اصغر (1388). هنر و فن میانجی‌گری (چاپ اول). تهران: مهاجر.
-  گلکار، کوروش (1390). آفرینش مکان پایدار: تأملاتی درباب نظریه طراحی شهری. تهران: دانشگاه شهید بهشتی. 
-  مهندسان مشاور باوند (1391). مطالعات ارتقای کیفی محور 17 شهریور حد فاصل میدان امام حسین و میدان شهدا، جلد دو: شناسایی تفصیلی محدوده طرح. تهران: سازمان زیباسازی شهر تهران، شهرداری تهران.
 
-   Carrasco, M. B. (2016). Mediation and the Social Work profession: particularly in the community context. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 29(2), 275-283.
-   Chereji, C. R., & Pop, A. G. (2014). Community mediation. A model for Romania. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 10(41), 56-74.
-   Coy, P. G., & Hedeen, T. (2005). A stage model of social movement co-optation: Community mediation in the United States. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(3), 405-435.
-   Dhiaulhaq, A., et al. (2015). The use and effectiveness of mediation in forest and land conflict transformation in Southeast Asia: Case studies from Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand. Environmental Science & Policy, 45, 132-145.
-   Dukes, E. F. (2004). What we know about environmental conflict resolution: An analysis based on research. Conflict resolution quarterly, 22(1-2), 191-220.
-   Fainstein, S. (2000). New directions in planning theory. Urban affairs review, 35(4), 451-478.
-   Forester, J. (2004). Planning and Mediation, Participation and Posturing: What's a Deliberative Practitioner to Do?. Prepared for the Annual Symposium of the Interdisciplinary Ph. D. Program in Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, 1-24.
-   Forester, J. (2006). Making participation work when interests conflict: Moving from facilitating dialogue and moderating debate to mediating negotiations. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 447-456.
-   Gazley, B., et al. (2006). Collaboration and citizen participation in community mediation centers. Review of Policy Research, 23(4), 843-863.
-   Groy, J. B., & Elliott, D. L. (1987). Resolving Land Use Disputes with Arbitration and Mediation. Land Use Law & Zoning Digest, 39(5), 3-8.
-   Hedeen, T. (2004). The evolution and evaluation of community mediation: Limited research suggests unlimited progress. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1-2), 101-133.
-   Hillier, J. (2003). Shadows of power: an allegory of prudence in land-use planning. New York: Routledge.
-   Innes, J. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning theory, 3(1), 5-20.
-   Liebmann, M., et al., (1998). Community and Neighbourhood Mediation. London: Cavendish Publishing.
-   Li-On, L. (2009). The politics of community mediation: A study of community mediation in Israel. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(4), 453-479.
-   Märker, O., & Schmidt-Belz, B. (2000). Online Mediation for Urban and Regional Planning. International Symposium Computer Science for Environmental Protection of Gesellschaft für Informatik GI, Germany, 158-172.
-   McGillis, D. (1997). Community mediation programs: Developments and challenges. Washington: National Institute of Justice.
-   Pavlich, G. (1997). Advocating Community Mediation in British Columbia: A Discourse and its Dangers. Australian Journal of Law and Society, 13, 145- 165.
-   Peltonen, L., & Sairinen, R. (2010). Integrating impact assessment and conflict management in urban planning: Experiences from Finland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(5), 328-337.
-   Susskind, L., et al. (2000). Mediating land use disputes: Pros and cons. Cambridge: Lincoln Inst. of Land Policy.
-   Susskind, L. (2011). Practical Elements of Facilitative Leadership and Collaborative Problem Solving. Planning Theory & Practice, 12(2), 302-303.
-   Wall Jr., et al. (2001). Mediation: A current review and theory development. Journal of conflict resolution, 45(3), 370-391.
Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning
Volume 12, Issue 25
February 2020
Pages 111-131

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics