Policies and Planning Approach: Challenges and Opportunities for Local Stakeholders' Empowerment and Sustainable Development (Case Study: South and South-East Villages of Tehran)

Journal of Research and Rural Planning

مقاله 8، دوره 8، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 27، اسفند 2019، صفحه 127-147   

نوع مقاله: Scientific Articles

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jrrp.v8i4.81006

نویسندگان

Naser Shafieisabet^* ؛ Neginsadat Mirvahedi

Shahid Beheshti University

چکیده

Purpose- The present study aims to examine the challenges and opportunities for local stakeholders' empowerment related to rural planning in Iran. In general, the current approach of planning process from making decision to implementation and monitoring is based on instrumental rationalism approach, irrespective of the villagers’ viewpoints. Urban – Rural divided planning has created some challenges for sustainable rural development and opportunities for improving environmental-ecological and socio-economic indicators, which have been ignored.
Design/Methodology/Approach- Less attention has been paid to local stakeholders' empowerment in planning methods and procedures, which is regarded as an obstacle for the promotion of the indicators related to sustainable rural development. The present study was based on a descriptive – analytical method. Correlation test and multivariate regression were used to provide a meaningful framework. Library and field studies were used for data collection. Library method was used to understand the impact of policy implementation and planning approach on the socio-economic empowerment of local stakeholders for their socio-economic participation in sustainable rural development and the study of previous research experiences and other countries on appropriate planning. The statistical population of the study is 124 villages in south and southeast of Tehran. Random sample size for completing the questionnaire of local authorities at village level, using Cochran formula and its adjustment formula for small statistical population, with 95% confidence level and probability of 0.05 and prediction of variance S2 0.25 = sample size of 54 villages was achieved. In these 54 villages, 450 questionnaires were completed according to size by specifying sample size in each village .The validity of the research questionnaire was conducted by experts in organizations. The reliability of the questionnaire through Cronbach's alpha was 0.801. 
Findings- The results indicated that local stakeholder's generative empowerment is important although unproductive empowerment is increasingly overcoming. In addition, the possible effects of this process have been identified. Thus, problem-oriented planning is necessary for formulating a community-based approach optimally and strengthening social capital, which is not based on current instrumental rationalism approach. Thus, for the best planning with a community-based approach and the reinforcement of social capital, the group to convene is needed in the process and problem-oriented planning is important. This is inconsistent with the techno centrism rationalism approach.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Rural Planning؛ Empowerment؛ Sustainable development؛ Rual areas؛ Tehran؛ Iran

مراجع

1. Alexander, E. R. (1997). A mile or a millimeter? measuring the planning theory: practice gap. Environment and planning B: planning and design, 24(1), 3-6.

2. Allmendinger, P., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2002). Planning futures: new directions for planning theory. Routledge, 1st Edition, 272 pages.

3. Amdam, J. (2005). Spatial planning in rural areas experience from the norwegian regional development research programme 1998-2004. In Collection of Papers-AESOP 2005 Congress, Vienna University of Technology, Austria.

4. Amdam, J. (2006). Communicative planning in rural areas. Paper to track 19: Rural and regional planning and development. Second world planning schools congress Mexico City - July 2006. Online: http://www. hivolda. no/neted/upload/attachment/site/group1/notat11_06. pdf, letzter Abruf am, 13(12.2012).

5. Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2015). Linking empowering leadership to job satisfaction, work effort, and creativity: The role of self-leadership and psychological empowerment. Journal of leadership & organizational Studies, 22(3), 304-323.

6. Behzadnasab, J. A. (1382/2003). Spatial analysis of communication planning approach in rural development and presentation of optimal pattern (case study: Tehran province), phd thesis under the guidance of dr. Abdolreza reza rokneddin eftekhari, tarbiat modares university, tehran. [In Persian].

7. Chirenje, L. I., Giliba, R. A., & Musamba, E. B. (2013). Local communities’ participation in decision-making processes through planning and budgeting in African countries. Chinese journal of population resources and environment, 11(1), 10-16.

8. Choguill, C. L. (1999). Sustainable human settlements: some second thoughts. In Foo, A.F., Yuen, B.k. (Eds). Sustainable cities in the 21st century, 131-142, The national university of Singapore, Singapore

9. Dab, J. K. (2013). Establishing good governance in local self-government administration in Rural India: portraying the priorities. Asian journal of research in social sciences and humanities, 3(10), 29-35.

10. Dede, O. M. (2016). The analysis of turkish urban planning process regarding sustainable urban development. In ergen, M. (Ed.). Sustainable urbanization, 269-290, IntechOpen publication, croatia

11. DeMeo, I., Cantiani, M., Ferretti., F., Paletto., A. (2011). Stakeholders’ perception as Support for forest landscape planning. International journal of ecology, Volume 2011, Article ID 685708, 1-8.

12. Douglass, M. (1998). A regional network strategy for reciprocal rural-urban linkages: an agenda for policy research with reference to Indonesia. Third world planning review, 20(1), 1-30.

13. Duckett, D., Mckee, A., Sutherland, L., Kyle, C., Boden, L., Auty, H., Bessell, P., Mckendrick, I. (2017). Scenario planning as communicative action: lessons from participatory exercises conducted for the scottish livestock industry. Technological forecasting & social change, 114, 138-151.

14. Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2015). Employee empowerment and job satisfaction in the us federal bureaucracy: a self-determination theory perspective. The american review of public administration, 45(4), 375-401.

15. Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham y Londres: Duke University Press.

16. Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Mit Press.

17. Friedmann, J., & Douglass, M. (1978). Agropolitan development: Toward a new strategy for regional planning in Asia.

18. Gibbens, M. (2012). An exploration of the role of power in intergovernmental communication on meaningful municipal integrated development planning. The built environment and information technology, University of pretoria (doctoral dissertation, dissertation-MBA).

19. Gyamfi-Kumanini, N. (1996). Development problems in rural Ghana: The case of Wamfie. Walden University Press, Minneapolis.

20. Habermas, J. (1985). The Theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalist reason (Vl. 2). John wiley & sons

21. Halla, F. (2005). Critical elements in sustaining participatory planning: bagamoyo strategic urban development planning framework in tanzania. Habitat International, 29(1), 137-161.

22. Healey, P. (1992). A planner's day: knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal of american planning association, 58(1), 9-20.

23. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. UBc Press.

24. Healey, P. (2000). Planning theory and urban and regional dynamics: a comment on yiftachel and huxley. International journal of urban and regional research, 24(4), 917-921.

25. Healey, P. (2007). The collaborative planning’ project in an institutionalist and relational perspective: a note. Critical policy analysis, 1(1), 123-130.

26. Hoch, C. (1996). A pragmatic inquiry about planning and power, in explorations in planning theory, pp 30-44, Routledge.

27. Innes, J. E. (1992). Group processes and the social construction of growth management: florida, vermont, and new jersey. Journal of the american planning association, 58(4), 440-453.

28. Innes, J. E. (1995). Planning theory's emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of planning education and research, 14(3), 183-189.

29. Kennedy, M. (1996). Transformative community planning: new solutions: a journal of environmental and occupational health policy: NS, 6(4), 93-100.

30. Lafever, M. (2011). Empowering native americans: communication, planning, and dialogue for eco-tourism in gallup, new mexico. Journal of international and intercultural communication, 4: 2, 127-145.

31. Louth county development plan 2015-2021 (2015), available on: http://sm-node01.test.do.adapt.dk/draft_louth_county_development_plan_2015_2021.pdf , Comhairle Contae Lú Louth County Council, Ireland.

32. Machler, L., Milz, D. (2015). The evolution of communicative planning theory. Groningen, the netherland, AESOP YA Booklet Series InPlanning.

33. Mandelbaum, S. (1996). The talk of the community. Explorations in planning theory, 3-10.

34. Martens, K. (2001). Communicative planning theory: change needed to change practice. Reflections, 5(3), 283-306.

35. Matovu, G. (2006). Capacity building for participatory planning and budgeting in Africa: Initiatives and strategic perspectives. In Presentation to the Pan African Conference of Ministers of Local Government, Maseru, Lesotho.

36. McCall, Michael K. (2003). Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: a review of processes and governance dimensions in applying gis to participatory spatial planning, Habitat international 27, 549–573.

37. Njoh, A. J. (2011). Municipal councils, international ngos and citizen participation in public infrastructure development in rural settlements in Cameroon. Habitat international, 35(1), 101-110.

38. O'Bannon, B. R. (2003). Confronting the development dilemma: decentralized cooperation, governance and local responses to neoliberal reform in rural senegal (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University)

39. Ogu, V. I. (2000). Stakeholders’ partnership approach to infrastructure provision and management in developing world cities: lessons from the sustainable ibadan project. Habitat international, 24(4), 517-533.

40. Ondrik, R. S. (1999). Participatory approaches to national development planning. Framework for mainstreaming participatory development processes into bank operations, ADB, 15.

41. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001). The dac guidelines strategies for sustainable development guidance for development co-operation, Available at: https://www.oecd.org/dac/environment-development/2669958.pdf.

42. Paul, S. (1987). Community participation in development projects. Washington, DC: World Bank.

43. Rezapour, M., Bahrainy, H., Tabibian, M. (2018). Analysis and assessment of communicative action indicators and variables; a case of tehran city, Iran. Space ontology international journal, 6(4), 49 – 58.

44. Rist, S., Chidambaranathan, M., Escobar, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zimmermann, A. (2007). Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: the role of social learning processes in rural india, bolivia and mali. Journal of rural studies, 23(1), 23-37.

45. Ristić, L. (2013). Strategic management of sustainable rural development in the Republic of Serbia. Ekonomski horizonti, 15(3), 229-243.

46. Rokneddin Eftekhari, A. R., & Behzadnasab, J. A. (2004). The communication planning, a critical approach to planning theory; emphasis on rural development planning. Spatial planning (modares human sciences), 8(1), 1-22. [In Persian].

47. Rossberger, R. J., & Krause, D. E. (2015). Participative and team-oriented leadership styles, countries’ education level, and national innovation: the mediating role of economic factors and national cultural practices. Cross-cultural research, 49(1), 20-56.

48. Shafiei Sabet, N., & Azharianfar, S. (2017). Urban-rural reciprocal interaction potential to develop weekly markets and regional development in Iran. Habitat international, 61, 31-44.

49. Shan, C., & Yai, T. (2011). Public involvement requirements for infrastructure planning in China. Habitat international, 35(1), 158-166.

50. Shen, L., Jiang, S., & Yuan, H. (2012). Critical indicators for assessing the contribution of infrastructure projects to coordinated urban–rural development in China. Habitat international, 36(2), 237-246.

51. Snelgrove, J. W., Pikhart, H., & Stafford, M. (2009). A multilevel analysis of social capital and self-rated health: evidence from the British Household Panel Survey. Social Science & medicine, 68(11), 1993-2001.

52. Soliman, A. M. (2004). Regional planning scenarios in South Lebanon: the challenge of rural–urban interactions in the era of liberation and globalization. Habitat International, 28(3), 385-408.

53. Spath, L., Scolobig, A. (2017). Stakeholder empowerment through participatory planning practices: The case of electricity transmission lines in France and norway. Energy research & social science, 23, 189-198.

54. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of management journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.

55. Statistical center of iran, general population and housing census (1391/2012). Tehran, Statistical center of Iran. [In Persian].

56. Steinberg, F., & Sara, L. M. (2000). The peru urban management education programme (pegup)linking capacity building with local realities. Habitat international, 24(4), 417-431.

57. Tacoli, C. (1998). Bridging the divide: rural urban interactions and livelihodd strategies. International institute for environment and development (IIED).

58. Tacoli, C. (2004, June). Rural-urban linkages and pro-poor agricultural growth: an overview. In prepared for OECD dac povnet agriculture and pro-poor growth task team helsinki workshop (pp. 17-18).

59. Tacoli, C., & Mabala, R. (2010). Exploring mobility and migration in the context of rural—urban linkages: why gender and generation matter. Environment and urbanization, 22(2), 389-395.

60. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of management review, 15(4), 666-681.

61. Twitchen, C., & Adams, D. (2011). Increasing levels of public participation in planning using web 2.0 technology. Birmingham City University, Centre for Environment and Society Research, Faculty of Technology, Engineering and the Environment.

62. Umenoto, K. (2001). Walking in another’s shoes: epistemological challenges in participatory planning, journal of planning education and research, 21, 17–31.

63. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA). (2006). African regional implementation review for the 14th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-14). Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/ecaRIM_bp.pdf.

64. United Nations. (2005). Decentalization: powerty reduction, empowerment and participation, Depatment of Economic and Social Affairs.

65. Wellbrock, W., Roep, D., Mahon, M., Kairyte, E., Nienaber, B., Garcia, M. D. D., & Farrell, M. (2013). Arranging public support to unfold collaborative modes of governance in rural areas. Journal of rural studies, 32, 420-429

66. Zahedi, M., Ghaffari, G., Ebrahimilouye, A. (1392/2013). Theoretical Deficiencies of Rural Development in Iran. Journal of Rural Research, 3(12), 7-30. [In Persian].