واکاوی ابعاد و عوامل مشروعیت یک نظام‌ شهرسازی (با تکیه بر متون نظری جهانی و تحلیل نظر خبرگان داخلی)

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد شهرسازی، دانشکده شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 پژوهشگر دوره دکتری شهرسازی، دانشکده شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

مفهوم مشروعیت و مفاهیم نزدیک به آن چون حقانیت، موجه بودن، اعتبار و ...، همواره جزو حوزه­های مورد توجه ساختارهای سیاسی و نظام­های عمومی و حتی خصوصی بوده است. اما با وجود استفاده بلاغی از این مفهوم در گفتمان­های جاری در حوزه سیاسی، کمتر به دلالت­های آن در زیرنظام­های تخصصی یک حکومت، از جمله یک نظام شهرسازی، پرداخته شده است. در پژوهش حاضر سعی بر آن بوده تا ابعاد و عوامل مشروعیت یک نظام شهرسازی، هم از طریق مرور ادبیات و متون دانشگاهی و تخصصی و هم از خلال مصاحبه با 23 خبره عرصه شهرسازی در ایران، مورد بررسی قرار گیرد. نتایج نشان می­دهد که در کل تفاوت و شکاف شناختی چندانی میان محتوای متون جهانی و مجموع ادراک خبرگان داخلی در زمینه ابعاد و عوامل مشروعیت یک نظام شهرسازی وجود ندارد و در مجموع به 17 عامل مشروعیت در 4 بعد سیاسی-اجتماعی، قانونی، هنجاری و فنی-عملکردی رسیدیم. سپس با ادامه مصاحبه با 16 تن از این خبرگان، ارتباط درونی و اندرکنش­های بالقوه میان این عوامل با روش «نگاشت ادراکی فازی»، مورد تفحص قرار گرفته و در نهایت بر پایه شاخص ترکیبی حاصل از میانگین­گیری از مقدار نرمالیزه سه شاخص فراوانی، مرکزیت و مجموع شدت اثرگذاری بالقوه عوامل و ابعاد برپایه اولویت و اهمیتشان مرتب شدند. نتایج نشان می­دهد که در مجموع، بعد قانونی دارای بیشترین امتیاز بوده و ابعاد سیاسی-اجتماعی، فنی-عملکردی و هنجاری در رده­های بعدی اهمیت قرار گرفته­اند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

An Investigation of the Dimensions and Factors of Legitimacy of an Urban Planning System (Based on Literature Review and Iranian Experts’ Opinion Polling)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyyed-Hossein Bahrainy 1
  • Ebrahim Zargari-Marandi 2
  • Esfandiar Zebardast 1
1 Urban Planning Faculty, Fine Art Campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 PhD Candidate, faculty of Urban Planning (Urbanism), Fine Arts Campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The concept of legitimacy along with its close meanings and implications such as righteousness, justification, validity, etc. has always been one of the domains of interest in political structures and public and even private systems. However, despite the rhetorical use of this concept in the current discourses in the political arena, its implications in the specialized sub-systems of a government, including an urban planning and development system, are less discussed. In this study, an attempt was made to investigate the dimensions and factors of legitimacy of an urban planning and development system through reviewing scholarly literature, as well as interviews with 23 experts and elites in the field of urban planning in Iran. The results showed that there is no significant difference and epistemic gap between the content of the studies in global literature and the total perception of the domestic experts regarding the dimensions and factors of legitimacy of an urban planning system. In total, 17 factors of legitimacy in four dimensions, namely, political-social, legal, normative, and technical-functional were identified. Subsequently, through interviewing 16 out of 23 of the participating experts, the internal relationship and potential interactions among these factors were investigated by ‘fuzzy cognitive mapping’ method. Finally, based on the composite indicator resulting from the averaged normalized value of three indicators, namely, frequency, centrality, and total intensity of potential impact of each factor and dimension on other factors in the network, the factors and dimensions were sorted out based on their score. The results revealed that the legal dimension had the highest score overall and the political-social, technical-functional, and normative dimensions ranked next in order.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Urban planning and development system
  • Legitimacy factors
  • Fuzzy cognitive map
  • Iran

منتشلو، فرهاد، آقاعلی، بهمن و کشاورز امامی، افسانه (1392). منبع مشروعیت برنامه ریزی و برنامه ریزان. ارائه شده در: اولین همایش ملی شهرسازی و معماری در گذر زمان، دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی، قزوین، ایران (30 اردیبهشت 1392).

Aarsæther, N., Nyseth, T., & Bjørnå, H. (2011). Two Networks, One City: Democracy and Governance Networks in Urban Transformation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 18(3), 306-320.

Adger, N.W., Butler, C., & Walker-Springett, K. (2017). Moral reasoning in adaptation to climate change. Environmental Politics, 26(3), DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2017.1287624.

Alexander, M., Doorn, N., & Priest, S. (2018). Bridging the legitimacy gap: translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance. Regional Environmental Change, 18, 397-408.

Allmendinger, P. (1996). Development Control and the Legitimacy of Planning Decisions: A Comment. The Town Planning Review [TPR], 67(2), 229-233.

Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2011). Post‐political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers [TIBS], 37(1), 89-103.

Amer, M., Jetter, A., & Daim, T. (2011). Development of Fuzzy Cognitive Map (FCM)-based scenarios for wind energy. International of Energy Sector Management, 5(4), 564-584.

Ashcraft, R. (ed.) (1991). John Locke: Critical Assessments. London: Routledge.

Ashforth, B.E., & Gibbs, B.W. (1990). The double edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177-194.

Bailey, K., Blandford, B., Grossardt, T., & Ripy, J. (2011). Planning, Technology, and Legitimacy: Structured Public Involvement in Integrated Transportation and Land-Use Planning in the United States. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 38(3).

Baker, S.E., & Edwards, R. (2012). Introduction. In S.E. Baker & R. Edwards (Eds.), How many qualitative interviews is enough (pp. 3-26). UK: National Centre for Research Methods, Review Paper.

Balamir, M., & Payne, G. (2001). Legality and legitimacy in urban tenure issues. Paper presented at the Proceedings of ESF/N-AERUS Conference, Katholiek Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, 23-26 May 2001.

Beetham, D. (1991). The Legitimation of Power. Basingstoke: MacMillan.

Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures. American Journal of Sociology [University of Chicago Press], 92, 1170–1182.

Bonde, D. (2013). Qualitative Interviews: When enough is ENOUGH. AU: Research by Design.

Borgatti, S.P. (2005). Centrality and Network Flow. Social Networks, 27, 55–71.

Borgatti, S.P., & Everett, M.G. (2006). A Graph-Theoretic Perspective on Centrality. Social Networks, 28, 466–484.

Brown, P. (2013). Legitimacy Expectation, Consultation and Fairness in Planning law, Landmark Chambers, September.

BUL [Baltic Urban Lab] (2018). Integrated planning and partnerships. Baltic Urban Lab, EU, European Regional Development Fund, Retrieved in 2018 <https://www.balticurbanlab.eu/content/integrated-planning-and-partnerships>.

Carothers, T., & Brechenmacher, S. (2014). ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY, PARTICIPATION, and INCLUSION: A New Development Consensus? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307-326.

Choudhury, N. (2014). Legality and legitimacy of public involvement in infrastructure planning: observations from hydropower projects in India. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(2), 297-315.

Coakley, M. (2011). On the Value of Political Legitimacy. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 10(14), 345_369.

Dahl, R.A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven and London, Yale University Press.

Dahl, R.A. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, Yale University Press.

Egner, B., Haus, M., & Konig, C. (2006). Strong Mayors and Policy Innovations: Lessons from two German Cities. In Hubert Heinelt, David Sweeting, & Panagiotis Getimis (eds.), Legitimacy and Urban Governance: A Cross-National Comparative Study. London and New York: Routledge.

Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic Authority: A philosophical Framework. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Few, R. (2002). Researching Actor Power: Analyzing mechanisms of interaction in negotiations over space. Area, 34(1), 29-38.

Fridahl, M. (2013). Building legitimacy: Consensus and conflict over historic responsibility for climate change. In Chris Methmann, Delf Rothe, & Benjamin Stephan (eds.), Interpretive Approaches to Global Climate Governance (De)constructing the Greenhouse. London and New York, Routledge.

Getimis, P. (2010). Strategic Planning and urban Governance: Effectiveness and Legitimacy. In Maria Cerreta, Grazia Concilio, & Valeria Monno (eds.), Making Strategies in Spatial Planning: Knowledge and Values (pp. 123-146). Springer.

Getimis, P., & Grigoriadou, D. (2005). Changes in Urban Political leadership. In Haus, M., et al. (eds.), Urban Governance and Democracy: Leadership and Community Involvement. Routledge.

Getimis, P., Grigoriadou, D., & Kyrou, E. (2006). The Role of Political Leadership in the promotion of Legitimation in Urban Policy. In Heinelt, H. et al. (eds.), Legitimacy and Urban Governance: A cross-national comparative study (pp. 286-302), Routledge.

Gilman, H.C. (2005). ETHICS CODES AND CODES OF CONDUCT AS TOOLS FOR PROMOTING AN ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE: Comparative Successes and Lessons. PREM, the World Bank.

Glykas, M. (ed.) (2010). Fuzzy Cognitive maps: Advances in Theory, Methodologies, Tools and Applications. Springer.

Gray, S. A., Gray, S., Kok, J.L.D., Helfgott, A.E.R., O’Dwyer, B., Jordan, R., & Nyaki, A., (2015). Using fuzzy cognitive mapping as a participatory approach to analyze change, preferred states, and perceived resilience of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 11 pages.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59-82.

Häikiö, L. (2007). Expertise, Representation and the Common Good: Grounds for Legitimacy in Urban Governance Network. Urban Studies, 44(11), 2147-2162.

Hansson, H. (2016). The Documentality of Ethics – Codes of Library Ethics as Support of Professional Practice. Proceedings from the Document Academy, 3(1), Article 8.

Haus, M., & Heinelt, H. (2005). How to achieve governability at the local level? Theoretical and conceptual considerations on a complementarity of urban leadership and community involvement. In Michael Haus, Hubert Heinelt and Murray Stewart (eds.), Urban Governance and Democracy: Leadership and community involvement (pp. 12-39). London and New York: Routledge.

Healey, P. (1998). Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Planning Review [TPR], 69(1), 1–21.

Healey, P. (2007). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. London and New York: Routledge.

Hellström, T. (1997). Boundedness and legitimacy in public planning. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 9(4), 27-42.

Hensgen, L. (2016). The Struggle for Legitimacy: Illustrated upon the relief work carried out through different actors after the earthquake 2015 in Nepal, Essay on Development Policy. MAS Development and Cooperation.

Hobbes, Thomas (1994/1651). Leviathan. In E. Curley (ed.), Leviathan, with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Hybels, R.C. (1995) On legitimacy, legitimation and organizations: A critical review and integrative model. Academy of Management Journal, Special Issue: Best Papers Proceedings, 241-245.

Innes, J.E., & Booher, D. (2002). The Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity, Working Paper 2003-03 [Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Baltimore, November 21–24, 2002], Institute of Urban and Regional Development University of California, Berkeley.

Jenkins, P. (2003). Investigating the Concepts of Legality and Legitimacy in Sustainable Urban Development: A Case Study of Land Use Planning in Maputo, Mozambique. Human Settlement Development IV, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, EOLSS.

Jessop, B. (2004). Multi-Level Governance and Multi-Level Meta-Governance changes in the European union as Integral Moments in The Transformation and Re-Orientation of Contemporary Statehood. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (eds.), Multi-Level Governance (pp. 49-74), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Junjan, V. (2015). Strategic Planning in local governments in Europe: Where do we go now? Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences (Special Issue), 45-54.

Kardaras, D. & Karakostas, B. (1999). The use of fuzzy cognitive maps to simulate the information systems strategic planning process. Information and Software Technology, 41(4), 197–210.

Keller, A. (2017). How to Gauge the Relevance of Codes in Qualitative Data Analysis? - A Technique Based on Information Retrieval. In Leimeister, J.M. & Brenner, W. (Eds.), Proceedings in 13. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschafts informatik, St. Gallen, 1096-1110.

Kilinç, G., Özgür, H., & Neval, G.F. (2012). The Possible Sources of Ethical Issues in Urban/Physical Planning in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 13(1), 45-65.

Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. International of Man-Machine Studies, 24, 65-75.

Liljenfeldt, J. (2014). Legitimacy and Efficiency in Planning Processes: (How) Does Wind Power Change the Situation? European Planning Studies, 23(4), 811-827.

Lipset, S.M. (1983). Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (expanded edition). London: Heinemann.

Martin, B., & Mayntz, R. (eds.) (1991). Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Frankfurt: Campus.

Mascarenhas, M., & Scarce, R. (2010). “The Intention Was Good”: Legitimacy, Consensus-Based Decision Making, and the Case of Forest Planning in British Columbia, Canada. Society & Natural Resources, 17(1), 17-38.

Matti, S. (2009). Exploring Public Policy Legitimacy: A Study of Belief-System Correspondence in Swedish Environmental Policy (Doctoral Thesis). Luleå University of Technology.

Montpetit,        É. (2007). POLICY DESIGN FOR LEGITIMACY: EXPERT KNOWLEDGE, CITIZENS, TIME AND INCLUSION IN THE UNITED KINGDOM’S BIOTECHNOLOGY SECTOR. Public Administration [doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00698.x.]

Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325-344.

Özesmi, U., & Özesmi, S.L. (2004). Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling, 176, 43–64.

Papageorgiou, E.I. & Kontogianni, A. (2012). Using Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping in environmental decision making and management: A methodological primer and an application. In S.S. Young & S.E. Silvern, International Perspectives on Global Environmental Change (pp. 427-450). InTech Publication.

Papageorgiou, E.I. (ed.) (2014). Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for Applied Sciences and Engineering From Fundamentals to Extensions and Learning Algorithms. Springer.

Pløger, J. (2004). Ethics in Norwegian planning – legitimacy, ambivalence, rhetoric. Planning Practice & Research, 19(1), 49-66.

Rein, M. (1969). Social Planning: The Search for Legitimacy. Journal of the American Institute of Planners [JAIP], 35(4), 233-244.

Rossi, E. (2010). Modus Vivendi, Consensus, and (Realist) Liberal Legitimacy. Public Reason: Journal of Political and Moral Philosophy, 2(2), 21-39.

Sager, T. (2012). Collective Action: Balancing Public and Particularistic Interests. In R. Weber & R. Crane (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning (pp. 25-45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences (Third Edition). New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Simmons, A.J. (2001). Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations. Cambridge University Press.

Sinner, J., Newton, M., & Duncan, R. (2015). Representation and legitimacy in collaborative freshwater planning [STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON A CANTERBURY ZONE COMMITTEE], CAWTHRON INSTITUTE, REPORT NO. 2787.

Smith, R.W. (1973). A Theoretical Basis for Participatory Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(3), 275-295.

Sternberger, D. (1968). Legitimacy. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Vol. 9, 244). New York: MacMillian and Free Press.

Stewart, M. (2005). Collaboration in multi-actor governance. In Michael Haus, Hubert Heinelt & Murray Stewart (eds.), Urban Governance and Democracy: Leadership and community involvement (pp. 149-167). London and New York: Routledge.

Stewart, M., Carmichael, L. & Sweeting, D. (2004). Participation, leadership and urban sustainability. PLUS Final Research Report (www.plus-eura.org/researchfindings.htm).

Tait, M. (2012). Building trust in planning professionals: understanding the contested legitimacy of a planning decision. The Town Planning review [TPR], 83(5), 597-617.

Taylor, Z. (2018). Pathways to Legitimacy. Planning Theory, Oct. 17, 2018, DOI: 10.1177/1473095218806929 (Published Online), 1-23.

Tewdwr-Jones, M. (1995). Development Control and the Legitimacy of Planning Decisions. Town Planning Review [TPR], 6(2), 163-181.

Wallner, J. (2008). Legitimacy and Public Policy: Seeing Beyond Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Performance. Policy studies Journal, 36(3), 421-443.

Weatherford, M.S. (1992). Measuring Political Legitimacy. American Political Sciences Review, 86(1), 149-166.

Zelditch, M., Jr. (2001). Theories of Legitimacy. In J.T. Jost & B. Major (eds.), The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice and intergroup relations (pp. 33-53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.