Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 40, Issue 2 (2025)
GeoRes 2025, 40(2): 151-160 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2025/03/5 | Accepted: 2025/05/11 | Published: 2025/05/20
Received: 2025/03/5 | Accepted: 2025/05/11 | Published: 2025/05/20
How to cite this article
Houshmand M, Zarabadi Z, Majdi H, Noori S. Redefining the Design Process of Urban Subsurface Spaces in Iran Based on International Studies. GeoRes 2025; 40 (2) :151-160
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1691-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1691-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Urban Development, North Tehran Center (NT.C.), Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Urban Development, Science and Research Center (SR.C.), Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Architecture, Kermanshah Center (K.C.), Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
2- Department of Urban Development, Science and Research Center (SR.C.), Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Architecture, Kermanshah Center (K.C.), Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran
Abstract (696 Views)
Aims: A comparative analysis of international experiences in subsurface development can help identify the key factors contributing to the success or failure of underground urban projects. The present study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of global experiences and propose a conceptual model for urban subsurface development.
Methodology: This qualitative research was conducted in 2024 using a systematic review approach and content analysis. Out of 609 articles identified from reputable databases, 26 articles were selected for final analysis after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were analyzed using the SWOT method, examining strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, and were used to formulate strategies for subsurface urban development.
Findings: This study examined subsurface development experiences in 10 cities across 8 countries: Canada, Singapore, Finland, France, Australia, Russia, the United States, and Spain. These cities have adopted diverse approaches to address urban challenges through the utilization of underground spaces. The main opportunities identified include reduction in traffic and pollution, improved quality of urban life, enhanced public transportation, commercial development, and increased tourism. Most projects were implemented with gradual, technology-driven, and multifunctional approaches. Conversely, key challenges included institutional coordination, spatial limitations, geological issues, high costs, and ownership complexities. Ultimately, a conceptual model based on five main components was developed to localize and implement similar projects in other cities.
Conclusion: The comparative analysis reveals that countries adopting data-driven strategies, continuous feedback mechanisms, and participatory policymaking have achieved greater success in sustainable subsurface development.
References
1. Admiraal H, Cornaro A (2016). Why underground space should be included in urban planning policy-And how this will enhance an urban underground future. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 55:214-220. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tust.2015.11.013]
2. Bélanger P (2007). Underground landscape: The urbanism and infrastructure of Toronto's downtown pedestrian network. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 22(3):272-292. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tust.2006.07.005]
3. Beneventi DA (2012). Montreal underground. Journal of Canadian Studies. 46(3):263-286. [Link]
4. Besner J (2016). Underground space needs an interdisciplinary approach. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 55:224-228. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tust.2015.10.025]
5. Bobylev N, Sterling R (2016). Urban underground space: A growing imperative. Perspectives and current research in planning and design for underground space use. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology Incorporating Trenchless Technology Research. 55:1-4. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tust.2016.02.022]
6. Canadian Infrastructure Report (2019). Monitoring the State of Canada's core public infrastructure. Canada: The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card. [Link]
7. Chow R (2023). Planning the future of the underground: Taking Toronto's PATH to the next level [dissertation]. Canada: York University. [Link]
8. Cui J, Broere W, Lin D (2021). Underground space utilisation for urban renewal. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 108:103726. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tust.2020.103726]
9. Das D, Kalbar PP, Velaga NR (2021). Framework for comparative evaluation of car-sharing alternatives for urban and suburban regions: Case study of Mumbai, India. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 147(3):05021022. [Link] [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000705]
10. Demers C (2016). Over & underground spaces & networks integrations a case study: The international district of Montreal. Procedia Engineering. 165:726-729. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.770]
11. Fesselmeyer E, Liu H (2018). How much do users value a network expansion? Evidence from the public transit system in Singapore. Regional Science and Urban Economics. 71:46-61. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2018.04.010]
12. Guohua Z, Zhili T (2022). Connotation, path and suggestion of integrated development of urban underground space. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering. 18(3):701-713. [Chinese] [Link]
13. Kishii T (2015). Utilization of underground space in Japan. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 55:320-323. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tust.2015.12.007]
14. Lee HS, Zho Y (2018). Status and issues for underground space development in Singapore. Tunnel and Underground Space. 28(4):304-324. [Korean] [Link]
15. Li S, Hong Z, Xue X, Liu X, Shi W (2023). Comprehensive evaluation of the underground space resources in Xianyang city. Scientific Reports. 13(1):17348. [Link] [DOI:10.1038/s41598-023-44657-8]
16. Nishi J, Tanaka T, Seiki T, Ito H, Okuyama K (2010). Estimation of the value of the internal and external environment in underground space use. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 15(1):79-89. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0886-7798(00)00032-8]
17. Raposo DM, Carlos L (2021). The implementation of network governance for sustainable urban underground usage, a comparative analysis of the case studies of the cities of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and Helsinki, Finland. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 703(1):012017. [Link] [DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/703/1/012017]
18. Richter M, Heinemann K, Meiser N, Dickhaut W (2024). Trees in sponge cities-a systematic review of trees as a component of blue-green infrastructure, vegetation engineering principles, and Stormwater management. Water. 16(5):655. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/w16050655]
19. Ronka K, Ritola J, Rauhala K (1998). Underground space in land-use planning. Tunnelling & Underground Technology. 13(1):39-49. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0886-7798(98)00029-7]
20. Shirlaw N, Zhao J, Krishnan R (2001). Underground space for sustainable urban development. Proceedings of the 30th ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress. Singapore: Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. [Link]
21. Sterling RL, Admiraal H, Bobylev N, Parker H, Godard JP, Vähäaho I, et al (2012). Sustainability issues for underground space in urban areas. Urban Design and Planning. 165(4):241-254. [Link] [DOI:10.1680/udap.10.00020]
22. Sterling RL, Carmody J (1993). Underground space design: Part 1: Overview of subsurface space utilization Part 2: Design for people in underground facilities. Hoboken: Wily. [Link]
23. Vähäaho I (2016). An introduction to the development for urban underground space in Helsinki. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 55:324-328. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tust.2015.10.001]
24. Von Der Tann L, Metje N, Admiraal H, Collins B (2018). The hidden role of the subsurface for cities. Civil Engineering. 171(6):31-37. [Link] [DOI:10.1680/jcien.17.00028]
25. Von Winterfeldt D, Prager F, Asay GB, Lee B, Fasolo B, Ni Z, et al (2010). Estimating behavioral changes for transportation modes after terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, and Tokyo. Los Angeles: METRANS. [Link]
26. Wang G, Gang AJ, Lu D, Du X (2023). Low-carbon development strategy of urban underground infrastructure. Strategic Study of Chinese Academy of Engineering. 25(1):30-37. [Link] [DOI:10.15302/J-SSCAE-2023.01.012]
27. Wang J, Duan H, Chen K, Chan I, Xue F, Zhang N, et al (2025). Role of urban underground-space development in achieving carbon neutrality: A national-level analysis in China. Engineering. 45:212-221. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.eng.2024.07.012]
28. Xiaobo Z, Kai L, Peng J, Wuhui J (2023). Geological suitability evaluation of underground space development in the Nanshan District of Shenzhen based on constraint conditions. Hydrogeology & Engineering Geology. 50(4):213-224. [Link]
29. Xu Z, Zhou S, Zhang C, Yang M, Jiang M (2023). A Bayesian network model for suitability evaluation of underground space development in urban areas: The case of Changsha, China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 418:138135. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138135]
30. Zhang P, Jin T, Wang M, Zhou N, Jia X (2025). Evaluation of the suitability of urban underground space development based on multi-criteria decision-making and geographic information systems. Applied Sciences. 15(2):543. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/app15020543]
31. Zhou Y, Zhao J (2016). Assessment and planning of underground space use in Singapore. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 55:249-256. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tust.2015.12.018]
32. Zongchao G, Toshihiro O, Wei L (2019). Simulating pedestrians' spatio-temporal distribution in underground spaces. Sustainable Cities and Society. 48:101552. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101552]