Identification and Analysis of the Effective Key Factors on Urban Development Using Foresight Approach A Case Study of Karaj Metropolitan Area

جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری

Article 2, Volume 3, Issue 2 - Serial Number 5, March 2017, Pages 35-52   

Document Type: Scientific-Research

DOI: 10.22067/gusd.v3i2.49479

Authors

Neda Malekzadeh^{* 1}; Mehdi Bazzazzadeh²; Mojtaba Rafieiyan¹

¹Tarbiat Modares University

²University of Art

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
At the beginning of the 3rd millennium, future studies (foresight) have been involved in the discovery, innovation and assessment of possible, probable and desirable futures as well as analyzing past procedures; such an approach is the objective evidence of what Gaston Berger has stated about the future, that is “see the future and disrupt its framework” (Godet, 2006, p. 2). Stable planning based on scenario design with the foresight approach has been the major focus of future development planning in countries willing to achieve fundamental developments (Tadbir, 2007).
The growth in competition among metropolitans in national and transnational levels, increase of limitations regarding natural resources, manpower, and financial capacities, along with declining of power as to pay for problems as well as the intensification of complexities and uncertainties concerning the development and management systems in metropolitan areas are a set of realities that metropolitans face nowadays. Methods of designing developmental policies based on insights and understanding the future threats and opportunities require skill and foresight. A foresight concerning the development of metropolitan areas as a systematic process is a form of collaboration to shape long-term perspectives. In fact, through establishing connections as well as providing organization among entities, foresight is a process that helps planners to design suitable plans with developmental purposes.
In the area of urban and regional development, using foresight in facing the future has become one of the inseparable components of planning processes. The conventional strategic planning processes during the past few decades have been mostly focusing on reducing uncertainties, and paying attention to the values and configurations of systems as to decrease the complexities and facilitate performances. Most of such insufficiencies have emerged due to the absence of predictions regarding future certainties, lack of focus on technological impacts and advances, neglecting exterritorial development procedures, the effects of global competitions on planning components or inadvertencies toward the driving forces of development and key factors affecting future development challenges. Lack of identification and involvement of key forces influencing metropolitan development have resulted in gradual weakening of such factors which in the end, has led to the omission of development processes or impacting them adversely. Therefore, through focusing on an extensive range of future consequences by employing collaborative, discursive approaches in the planning area, the foresight approach emphasizes on finding main factors along with the propellants of development; in this manner, uncertainties in planning processes can be taken into account and through gaining authority as to control and manage what is yet to come, a desirable future can be built.
Karaj metropolitan area as a supplement to Tehran is the case being studied in the present research, which occupies a special position within the territory of Tehran metropolitan area and involves cultural and ethnic diversities, particular capacities in areas such as transportation, agriculture, tourism, natural resources, human capital, etc. as well as potential threats such as security concerns, environmental issues, etc.
On one hand, Karaj metropolitan area is the junction of pathways among thirteen provinces in the country; on the other hand, through the existence of very high natural capabilities, it is also known as the central city garden of Iran. Being located adjacent to the Capital as well as its position concerning regional development processes along with the overflow of immigrants, have caused Karaj metropolitan area to act as the supplement to the Capital. Moreover, the speed of environmental, political, administrative, financial, social and cultural developments in Karaj metropolitan area is very significant to the extent to which employing an expansionist (against growth), futuristic approach is deemed necessary more than ever.
2. Method
Through the cross-impact analysis method as a recognized approach to do foresight as well as using the MicMac software, the present study is an attempt to analyze various components of development in Karaj metropolitan area. In this regard, 37 major components have been extracted from powerful documents. Then, these components have been adjusted in cross-impact matrices using the Delphi method of management. Using the averaging method among 15 designed matrices, the resulting final matrix has been analyzed through MicMac software.
3. Results
According to the results extracted from the employed model, the urban system of Karaj has been found to be unstable; furthermore, “the organization of special aspects in tourism using environmental qualities and aesthetic corridors” as well as “the development of complex functional sets around metro stations” to some extent, act as regulating factors. Regulating factors can be the main motivation as to move towards achieving a sustainable system.
The interesting point regarding the obtained analysis is that through authorities’ perspective, none of the developmental components of Karaj can be defined as the objective; such an issue implies the multilateral nature of urban development in Karaj, from the view of authorities.
According to the outputs of the model, due to lack of complete compliance on diagonal axis, none of the factors belong to the risk factor group unconditionally; yet the two factors of “developing urban electronic infrastructure” and “providing safety against unexpected accidents” have been very close to the diagonal axis of the chart (risk axis). Furthermore, due to their closeness to the diagonal axis of the chart, factors such as “organization and improvement of distressed and historical areas of the city”, “fair distribution of urban services”, “development of suburban transportation network”, “empowerment of non-government organizations along with cultural and ethnic ties”, and “development of cultural and religious centers throughout the city” can be extended and transformed to risk factors.
Factors including “greenhouse improvement”, “development of cultural, educational and academic centers”, “expansion of science and technology parks”, “enlargement and optimization of urban transportation networks”, “changing the combination of activities in favor of commercial actions throughout the city”, “development of innovative and technological infrastructures of industry” and “preparation for increasing social, financial, cultural and political participation of citizens in the development procedures of the city” have been considered among independent factors.
Finally, the outputs of the software show that “the development of tourism industry” and “internal urban development” would have the utmost impacts on the development process of Karaj city.
4. Conclusion
Due to immense developments in a limited period of time, the city of Karaj is faced with a set of consequences in which many obstacles and problems lie in the way of the city’s development. According to expert and background analysis as well as implicit studies, one may also infer the fact that the said system would be an unstable one.
According to a tacit, contextual understanding of scholars which is confirmed by the results of the study, factors such as “organization and improvement of distressed and historical areas of the city”, “fair distribution of urban services”, and “development of suburban transportation network” are the main factors regarding the risk position in the city of Karaj.
In this regard, “the industry of supportive services in agriculture” as one of the most important components of secondary leverage can be used as a development motivator. According to the views of urban managers, absence of a purpose factor within the analysis of cross-impact pattern indicates the fact that none of the developmental factors of Karaj is currently capable of being transformed into a function with development purposes.

Keywords

The key factors of development; foresight; Cross effects; MICMAC; Karaj metropolitan

References

1. بزاززاده، م.(1392). بررسی و تحلیل عوامل کلیدی مؤثر بر توسعۀ منطقه‌ای با رویکرد آینده‌نگاری منطقه‌ای (مطالعه موردی: استان آذربایجان‌غربی). پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

2. بزاززاده، م.، داداش‌پور، ه. و مطوف، ش. (1393). بررسی و تحلیل عوامل کلیدی مؤثر بر توسعۀ منطقه‌ای با رویکرد آینده‌نگاری منطقه‌ای (مطالعه موردی: استان آذربایجان‌غربی). برنامه‌ریزی فضایی (جغرافیا)، 2(13)، 79-104

3. بنیاد توسعة فردا . (1384). روش‌های آینده‌نگاری تکنولوژی. تهران: بنیاد توسعۀ فردا

4. بهشتی، م.، و زالی، ن. (1390). شناسایی عوامل کلیدی توسعه منطقه‌ای با رویکرد برنامه‌ریزی بر پایۀ سناریو (مطالعۀ موردی استان آذربایجان شرقی). مجلة برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا، 1(15)، 41-63

5. پورمحمدی، م.، حسین‌زاده‌دلیر، ح.، قربانی، ر.، و زالی، ن. (1389). مهندسی مجدد فرآیند برنامه‌ریزی با تأکید بر کاربرد آینده‌نگاری. مجلة جغرافیا و توسعه،20، 37-58

6. پورمحمدی، م.، و زالی، ن (1388). تحلیل نابرابری‌های منطقه‌ای و آینده‌نگاری توسعه (نمونه موردی: آذربایجان شرقی). مجلة جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی (دانشگاه تبریز)، 15(32)،. 29-64

7. تدبیر. (1386). میزگرد آینده‌شناسی ضرورتی برای ورود مقتدرانه به فردا. 18(179)، 6-17

8. تودارو ، م. (1373). توسعۀ اقتصادی در جهان سوم. ترجمۀ غلامعلی فرجادی. موسسه عالی پژوهش در برنامه‌ریزی و توسعه

9. حسنوی، ر.، نظامی‌پور، ق.، بوشهری، ع.، آذر، ع.، و قربانی، س. (1392). طراحی مدل تأثیر آینده‌نگاری بر سیاستگذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری در سطح ملی با استفاده از روش مدل‌یابی معادلات ساختاری. سیاست علم و فناوری، 1(6)، 21-34

10. خیرگو، م.، و شکری، ز. (1390). توسعۀ فرآیند سیاست‌گذاری با استفاده از راهبرد آینده‌نگاری. مدیریت نظامی، 11(42)، 103-126

11. شریف‌زادگان، م. (1382). چالش‌های برنامه‌ریزی در بررسی علل کاهش اثربخشی طرح‌های توسعه در ایران. اقتصاد کشاورزی و توسعه، 11(43و44)، 1-20

12. طباطباییان، س. ح.، و قدیری، ر. ا. (1386). متغیرهای مؤثر بر انتخاب ابعاد در یک پروژه آینده‌نگاری. علوم مدیریت ایران، 7(2)، 55-80

13. عباسی‌شاهکوه، ک.، سلطانی‌دلگشا، م.، واحدیان، ا.، و عبدالهی، ع. (1378). ارائۀ چارچوب فرآیندی برای آینده‌نگاری مبتنی بر روش فراترکیب. علوم مدیریت ایران، 11(3)، 45-72

14. لطفیان، س. (1384). استراتژی‌ها و روش‌های برنامه‌ریزی استراتژیک، تهران: وزارت امور خارجه

15. Batty, M. (2011). Building a science of cities. Cities, 29, 9-16

16. Blind, K., Cuhls, K., & Grupp, H. (1999). Current foresight activities in Central Europe. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(1), 15-35

17. Dixon, T., Eames, M., Britnell, J., Watson, G. B., & Hunt, M. (2014). Urban retrofitting: Identifying disruptive and sustaining technologies using performative and foresight techniques. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 131-144

18. Dufva, M., Könnölä, T., & Koivisto, R. (2015). Multi-layered foresight: Lessons from regional foresight in Chile. Futures, 73, 100-111

19. Dyner, I., & Larsen, E. R. (2001). From planning to strategy in the electricity industry. Energy Policy, 29(13), 1145-1154

20. Gavingan, J. P., Scapolo, F., Keenan, M., Miles, I., Farhi, F., Lecoq, D., Caprital, M., Bartolomeo, T. D. (Eds.). (2001). A practical guide to regional foresight. FOREN Network (Foresight for Regional Development) European Commision Research Directorate General, Start Programme. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Seville – Spain.

21. Godet, M. (2006). Creating futures: Scenario planning as a strategic management tool. Washington, DC: Economica

22. Gordon, T. J. (1994). Cross-impact method, AC/UNU Millennium Project. Futures Research Methodology. Greenwood Press

23. Helmer, O., & Helmer-Hirschberg, O. (1983). Looking forward: A guide to futures research. USA: Sage Publications, Inc

24. Kameoka, A., Yokoo, Y., & Kuwahara, T. (2004). A challenge of integrating technology foresight and assessment in industrial strategy development and policymaking. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(6), 579-598

25. Martin, B. R. (1995). Foresight in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 7(2), 139-168

26. Martinet, A. C. (2010). Strategic planning, strategic management, strategic foresight: The seminal work of H. Igor Ansoff. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(9), 1485-1487

27. Myer, D., & Kitsuse, A. (2000). Constructing the future in planning: A survey of theories and tools. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(3), 221-231

28. Penouil, M. (1972). Growth poles in underdeveloped regions and countries. In A. Kuklinski & R. Petrella (Eds.). Growth poles and regional policies (pp. 119-144). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Mouton & Co

29. Rotmans, J. (2006). A complex systems approach for sustainable cities. In M. Ruth (Ed.), Smart growth and climate change: regional development and adaptation (pp. 155-180.). Cheltenham, England: Edward Edgar

30. Slaughter, R. (1995). The foresight principle: Cultural recovery in the 21st century. California: Praeger Publishers

31. Störmer, E., Truffer, B., Dominguez, D., Gujer, W., Herlyn, A., Hiessl, H., ... & Ruef, A. (2009). The exploratory analysis of trade-offs in strategic planning: Lessons from Regional infrastructure foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(9), 1150-1162

32. Weber, M. (2012). FLAs and new patterns of governance of research and innovation. In S. Giessecke, A., van der Gießen, & S. Elkins (Eds.). The role of forward-looking activities for the governance of Grand Challenges. Insights from the European Foresight Platform. (pp. 4-11). Retrieved from:https:// ec.europa.eu/ jrc/ en/scientific-tool/ european-foresight-platform