Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 37, Issue 3 (2022)
GeoRes 2022, 37(3): 305-312 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2022/04/30 | Accepted: 2022/07/6 | Published: 2022/07/1
Received: 2022/04/30 | Accepted: 2022/07/6 | Published: 2022/07/1
How to cite this article
Nazemi A, Seyedalhoseni S, Daneshvar M, Saghatoleslami A. Discovering the Roots of the Inefficiencies of the Rules and Regulations of Iran's Urban Development Plans. GeoRes 2022; 37 (3) :305-312
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1346-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1346-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 Planning, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran, Mashhad, Amoozgar Boulevard, Amoozgar 27, No. 7, 6th floor, Unit 16
2- Department of Urban Planning, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
2- Department of Urban Planning, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (140 Views)
Introduction
Urban planning rules and regulations influence all urban activities [Salehi, 2007] and provide a legal framework for planning. These laws, which should primarily serve guiding, controlling, and supervisory functions [Bonakdar et al., 2012], at times overlook the rights of certain groups. In such cases, their demands must evolve into an informal source of rights; in other words, needs constitute the foundation of both formal and customary rights [Jabareen, 2017]. Following the dynamic nature of cities, urban planning regulations must also be updated and replaced with the emergence of new issues (abrogation and supersession). For example, the “right to work on the street” [Meneses-Reyes & Caballero-Juárez, 2014], which has recently gained attention, remains in Iran under the jurisdiction of the law on the removal of street obstructions. In other words, not only have these regulations failed to be updated, but there is also no mechanism for addressing new phenomena [Sayyaf Zadeh & Badrifar, 2009], and while flexibility ensures societal benefits [Daneshvar & Bandarabad, 2013], inflexibility persists even at decision-making levels.
Urban planning regulations have faced extensive criticism, much of which stems from inconsistencies, ambiguity and conflict among laws, weak enforceability, insufficient oversight, and the mismatch between existing regulations and contemporary needs [Afshrniya & Mirzadeh, 2016]. For instance, in Commission Article 5, urban lands are rezoned contrary to the approved urban development plans [Rezaei & Rahimi, 2013]. Such problems, contradictions, and institutional multiplicity undermine public trust and reduce willingness to participate [Barat, 2006]. Although courts, the Guardian Council, and the Administrative Justice Court intervene in some cases, the absence of a specialized coordinating authority [Nazemi et al., 2021], the lack of a coherent legal and organizational system [Hoseynzadehdalir et al., 2012], and the absence of a shared linguistic and conceptual framework [Elyaszadeh Moghaddem, 2011] are among the root causes of these disruptions, which remain underexplored.
The theoretical basis for preparing urban development plans originates from the approvals of the Supreme Council of Urban Planning and Architecture and the Law on Renaming the Ministry of Housing and Development [Zangiabadi et al., 2013]. These plans consist of two parts: “maps and analytical studies of the plan” and “regulatory provisions of the plan.” The present study focuses on the latter. In drafting regulatory provisions, plan developers effectively engage in lawmaking, and “lawmaking and the formulation of regulatory provisions are closely tied to criteria such as social justice, the elimination of discrimination, and the accountability of responsible institutions” [Adinehwand & Aliyan, 2016], most of which lack clear definitions or established mechanisms for determining indicators and evaluation criteria. These provisions “on the one hand, a locus for expressing the environmental and urban development goals that address various public and private needs, and on the other, a locus for expressing legal aspirations regarding the reconciliation of diverse societal interests” [Salehi, 2007], are formulated within a system that itself suffers from numerous shortcomings.
Furthermore, a review of the decisions of the Supreme Council reveals that some of its key approvals contain structural contradictions and deviate from the Council’s mandated responsibilities [Hashemi Toghrajerdi, 2017]. The lack of legislative revision in urban planning, insufficient attention to citizenship and neighborhood rights, inconsistencies between local needs and construction standards, and the neglect of legal considerations are among the key reasons behind the annulment of the Council’s approvals [Afshrniya & Koolabadi, 2016]. The diversity of these criticisms and a review of the specialized literature highlight the need for foundational inquiry into the origins of these inefficiencies, whether structural, organizational, or otherwise, which has yet to be undertaken.
This study was thus conceived with the goal of identifying inefficiencies within urban planning rules and regulations, particularly those serving as standards in urban development plans. Although these issues have drawn widespread criticism from professionals, urban planning laws and regulations themselves have received limited attention [Salehi, 2007] and have not yet been investigated as an independent subject [Elyaszadeh Moghaddam, 2011]. Ultimately, the aim of the study became the analysis and identification of the roots and underlying factors contributing to the deficiencies and ineffectiveness of regulatory provisions in Iran’s urban development plans.
Methodology
This qualitative study, conducted in Mashhad in 2021, adopted a critical approach and employed the grounded theory method. Document selection and interviewee sampling were purposive, document review and interviews were analyzed through content analysis, and data were processed using the causal–comparative method. Data collection proceeded through documentary studies and interviews until theoretical saturation was achieved using the snowball sampling technique.
First, written documents from 2000 to 2021 were examined, open codes were extracted, and conceptual identifiers were analyzed. Subsequently, semi-structured purposive interviews were conducted with 18 recognized experts in the field, holders of PhD and master’s degrees, including academic specialists, consulting engineers, officials responsible for reviewing and approving development plans, and experienced mayors. To achieve theoretical saturation, relevant legal texts were reviewed and indexed, and interviews were conducted with three legal scholars.
Data organization and coding were performed manually using Access 2016, resulting in identifiable categories and thematic domains. These categories were ranked based on emphasis and frequency in interviews and documents. Three academic experts were consulted to finalize the prioritization of categories. Finally, to assess the reliability of the findings, Creswell’s ten-question method [Danaeifard & Emami, 2007] was applied. Among the 21 interviewees, seven individuals (one from law and six from urban planning) participated in the evaluation and scored the assessment table. The results from all seven evaluators confirmed the accuracy of both the research process and its outcomes.
Findings
The open codes extracted from the documents were continuously and iteratively analyzed and then coded and categorized using the adopted research method. The codes obtained from documentary studies and interviews (a total of 1,529 open codes) were classified into six categories. The hierarchical order of these thematic domains, from macro to micro, did not correspond to their importance ranking or the frequency of criticisms. The most significant and overarching domain was the paradigm shaping the general societal context, as changes within this domain influence all others, whereas modifications in other domains exert limited influence upon it. The least significant domain was the legislative authority, represented primarily by the frequently mentioned issue of the multiplicity of legislative bodies. Although the highest proportion of criticisms and suggestions (25%) pertained to the domain of laws, norms, and regulations, the ranking of importance indicated only a moderate level of significance. It should be noted that subsequent sections are presented from the macro level to the micro level.
First Domain: Paradigm
This domain ranked first in terms of inefficiencies. Its core category is the theoretical foundation, situated between an Iranian–Islamic worldview, traditional perspectives, and modern approaches, reflecting a paradigmatic transitional period. This transition manifests in inconsistencies and disorder across methodologies, viewpoints, approaches, theories, and values. As the source domain from which others derive their roles and functions, it leads to consequences such as misalignment with dynamic issues, fragmented and isolated treatment of sectoral and general matters, and the absence of a comprehensive theory of justice. Although this paradigm shift is underway, the prevailing paradigm remains positivistic, characterized by top-down, prescriptive, and inflexible tendencies. The dominant concept in this domain is the notion of a paradigmatic transition.
Second Domain: Governance structure and organization
This domain ranked second in importance. It comprises four fundamental categories, among which human resources is the most critical. Key issues include insufficient attention to meritocracy, self-centeredness among senior managers and staff, incompleteness of managerial chains, extensive turnover in non-political positions, sudden interference by power actors, lack of a legal framework for collaboration and coordination among governmental bodies and their personnel, and politicization. The central concept within this domain is politicization and lack of cooperation and coordination among staff and executive agencies.
Third Domain: Legislative authority
This domain ranked sixth in importance. Its principal category is conceptual and theoretical deficiencies, and changes in other concepts largely depend on improvements in this category. Key codes include the absence of appropriate mechanisms for legislating on emerging issues, inconsistent and contradictory behavior among formal legislative bodies, and the lack of a coherent and comprehensive legal system for urban planning.
Fourth Domain: Planning institution
Ranking fifth in importance, this domain encompasses four categories, the most significant of which is deficiencies in institutional components. This includes shortcomings in inter-institutional coordination and the role of planners, both of which represent key codes in this domain. Other highly significant codes—such as the absence of a specialized coordinating body, creation of local legislative committees, inconsistent positions taken by official legislative entities, preparation of development plans by multiple, uncoordinated authorities, and lack of centralized plan preparation—are consequences of these two subcategories.
Fifth Domain: Laws, norms, and regulations
This domain ranked fourth in importance. Its primary category is deficiencies in higher-order laws. Key issues include outdated and unreviewed legal provisions, the coexistence of repealing and repealed laws, and a lack of alignment with emerging issues as well as insufficient comprehensiveness. The most critical code is noncompliance with and delays in the implementation of higher-order laws, such as those concerning zoning, spatial planning, and the establishment of urban and rural councils. The absence of shared language and concepts between urban planning and related fields is also noteworthy, though this matter is rooted in higher-level domains.
Sixth Domain: System of formulation, approval, and implementation
This domain ranked third in importance and consists of three groups: theoretical shortcomings, structural shortcomings, and process shortcomings. The most significant is theoretical shortcomings, largely attributable to the interdisciplinary nature of urban planning laws. These shortcomings emerge in the legal aspects as well as in the subject-specific expertise required for such laws, which inherently rely on interactions among various fields including urban planning, law, geography, and environmental studies. The most critical code is the derivation of rules from within society and in alignment with the planning context. Structural shortcomings stem from the governance structure and organization, whereas process-related shortcomings originate from the domains of paradigm, planning institution, and laws and regulations.
Discussion
The rules and regulations of urban development plans are formulated within a broader context that itself suffers from deficiencies encompassing both subjective aspects, such as the “paradigm”, and objective dimensions, including the “legislative authority,” the “planning institution,” the “process of formulation, approval, and implementation,” as well as their outcome, namely the “laws, rules, and regulations.” Elements such as the “obscurity of foundational concepts including justice, responsibility, social discipline, citizenship rights, public rights, and the right to the city”; the “lack of clarity regarding linguistic elements appropriate for legal and planning texts”; “politicization and expediency-driven decision making”; the “absence of clear criteria for spiritual and value-based principles”; and the “emphasis on the three-step process of assessment, analysis, and design, combined with the lack of coordination among influential sectors and unilateral decision-making” [Barati, 2006; Elyaszadeh Mighaddam, 2011] all stem from the current paradigm in Iran.
Another root cause is the “governance structure and organization,” which, alongside the paradigm, exerts the greatest influence on inefficiencies in other domains, including “laws, rules, and regulations.” Issues such as “the misalignment between urban management goals and priorities and the existing laws and regulations,” “individualistic and discretionary interpretations of rules” [Talebi et al., 2021], the absence of “public participation in legislation” [Dabirnia & Naghavi, 2018], “a centralized administrative system characterized by top-down planning that leaves no formal role for local governments, municipalities, and city councils” [Bonakdar et al., 2012], and the inherently ambiguous nature of the development program laws within the national planning legal framework [Tahanzarif & Hadizadeh, 2018], which themselves underpin a number of inefficiencies in less significant domains, are rooted in this category.
The third-ranked domain is the “system of formulation, approval, and implementation,” which is itself affected by other domains. Its inefficiencies contribute to issues such as “the marginalization of citizens, NGOs, and even municipalities in the preparation and approval of urban plans” [Majedi, 2013]; insufficient attention to the legal dimensions of urban planning; the absence of legal experts and subject-matter specialists in the legislative process; the limited role of city councils, experts, plan developers for related territories, local organizations, stakeholders, and influential groups; the disregard for legislative procedures and principles; and the lack of transparency in decision-making processes. The central concept in this domain is the “dominance of the state and the neglect of public participation, expert contribution, and engagement of public institutions.” At the local level, “public participation and citizen presence in decision-making sessions alongside the city council and other planning bodies” [Kazemian et al., 2020] could prevent rushed and poorly justified decisions and guide collaborative actions between urban management and the private sector [Mostofi et al., 2022].
The fourth domain, in terms of importance, is “laws, rules, and regulations.” Given that “the method of drafting laws and regulations is inherently shaped by the political and administrative system of a country” [Sarrafi & Abdollahi, 2008], this domain is directly influenced by the paradigm and the governance structure. Its central codes are the “absence of a shared language and conceptual framework among academic and professional urban planners and responsible institutions” [Barati, 2006], and “the lack of coherence between the regulations of the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development and those of municipalities” [Jamhiri et al., 2008].
The fifth domain is the “planning institution,” whose core codes include the “necessity of establishing an integrated body responsible for coordinating planning, policymaking, drafting, and ratifying general urban planning and architectural regulations and communicating them to relevant agencies” [Bonakdar et al., 2012], and the “lack of a coordinating institution that includes legal experts, city councils, citizens, stakeholders, and influential actors in the process of preparing and approving regulations” [Yazdani et al., 2021]. Another significant theme is the “importance of the planner’s role and position” [Sarrafi & Abdollahi, 2008]. Although planners inevitably face decision-making under uncertainty [Shakouri Asl & Rafieian, 2016] and varying degrees of independence, in Iran the planner is regrettably perceived through the code “governmental or serving the government.”
The sixth and least significant domain is the “legislative authority.” Due to the multiplicity of legislative bodies operating at different levels, the core issue here is the “absence of a unified or competent coordinating authority” capable of ensuring alignment between the laws drafted by various institutions and urban planning regulations. Misaligned laws impede urban planning processes and “enable misuse, broaden the discretionary power of implementers, and ultimately violate citizens’ rights” [Afsharniya & Mirzadeh, 2016].
Conclusion
The identified inefficiencies stem from broad underlying causes with both subjective and objective origins, categorized within the domains of paradigm, with the core code of “theoretical foundation” and the concept of “paradigmatic transition”; governance structure and organization, with the core code of “human resources” and the concept of “politicization and lack of cooperation and coordination”; system of formulation, approval, and implementation, with the core code of “theoretical shortcomings” and the concept of “absence of participation”; laws, rules, and regulations, with the core code of “deficiencies in higher-order laws” and the concept of the “interdisciplinary nature of urban planning legislation”; planning institution, with the core code of “institutional deficiencies” and the concept of “lack of coordination among institutional components”; and legislative authority, with the core code of “approach- and theory-related shortcomings” and the concept of “inconsistency in perspectives and approaches.” These categories, reinforced by pervasive issues such as “deficiencies in terminology and the absence of a shared language,” collectively constitute the contextual foundations that give rise to the observed inefficiencies.
Acknowledgments: The authors express their sincere appreciation to the participants, supervisors and advisors, the esteemed reviewers, and the Department of Urban Planning at Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, for their valuable cooperation.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues have been reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This manuscript is derived from the first author’s doctoral dissertation entitled “Analysis of the Legal Structure of the Process of Formulating Standards and Regulations in Urban Development Plans in Iran with an Urban Good Governance Approach”, conducted under the supervision of the second and third authors and the advisory of the fourth author at the Mashhad branch of Islamic Azad University.
Authors’ Contributions: Nazemi A (First Author), Main Researcher (50%); Seyedolhoseyni SM (Second Author), Discussion Writer (25%); Daneshvar M (Third Author), Methodologist (15%); Saghatoleslami A (Fourth Author), Introduction Writer (10%).
Funding: This article received no financial support.
Urban planning rules and regulations influence all urban activities [Salehi, 2007] and provide a legal framework for planning. These laws, which should primarily serve guiding, controlling, and supervisory functions [Bonakdar et al., 2012], at times overlook the rights of certain groups. In such cases, their demands must evolve into an informal source of rights; in other words, needs constitute the foundation of both formal and customary rights [Jabareen, 2017]. Following the dynamic nature of cities, urban planning regulations must also be updated and replaced with the emergence of new issues (abrogation and supersession). For example, the “right to work on the street” [Meneses-Reyes & Caballero-Juárez, 2014], which has recently gained attention, remains in Iran under the jurisdiction of the law on the removal of street obstructions. In other words, not only have these regulations failed to be updated, but there is also no mechanism for addressing new phenomena [Sayyaf Zadeh & Badrifar, 2009], and while flexibility ensures societal benefits [Daneshvar & Bandarabad, 2013], inflexibility persists even at decision-making levels.
Urban planning regulations have faced extensive criticism, much of which stems from inconsistencies, ambiguity and conflict among laws, weak enforceability, insufficient oversight, and the mismatch between existing regulations and contemporary needs [Afshrniya & Mirzadeh, 2016]. For instance, in Commission Article 5, urban lands are rezoned contrary to the approved urban development plans [Rezaei & Rahimi, 2013]. Such problems, contradictions, and institutional multiplicity undermine public trust and reduce willingness to participate [Barat, 2006]. Although courts, the Guardian Council, and the Administrative Justice Court intervene in some cases, the absence of a specialized coordinating authority [Nazemi et al., 2021], the lack of a coherent legal and organizational system [Hoseynzadehdalir et al., 2012], and the absence of a shared linguistic and conceptual framework [Elyaszadeh Moghaddem, 2011] are among the root causes of these disruptions, which remain underexplored.
The theoretical basis for preparing urban development plans originates from the approvals of the Supreme Council of Urban Planning and Architecture and the Law on Renaming the Ministry of Housing and Development [Zangiabadi et al., 2013]. These plans consist of two parts: “maps and analytical studies of the plan” and “regulatory provisions of the plan.” The present study focuses on the latter. In drafting regulatory provisions, plan developers effectively engage in lawmaking, and “lawmaking and the formulation of regulatory provisions are closely tied to criteria such as social justice, the elimination of discrimination, and the accountability of responsible institutions” [Adinehwand & Aliyan, 2016], most of which lack clear definitions or established mechanisms for determining indicators and evaluation criteria. These provisions “on the one hand, a locus for expressing the environmental and urban development goals that address various public and private needs, and on the other, a locus for expressing legal aspirations regarding the reconciliation of diverse societal interests” [Salehi, 2007], are formulated within a system that itself suffers from numerous shortcomings.
Furthermore, a review of the decisions of the Supreme Council reveals that some of its key approvals contain structural contradictions and deviate from the Council’s mandated responsibilities [Hashemi Toghrajerdi, 2017]. The lack of legislative revision in urban planning, insufficient attention to citizenship and neighborhood rights, inconsistencies between local needs and construction standards, and the neglect of legal considerations are among the key reasons behind the annulment of the Council’s approvals [Afshrniya & Koolabadi, 2016]. The diversity of these criticisms and a review of the specialized literature highlight the need for foundational inquiry into the origins of these inefficiencies, whether structural, organizational, or otherwise, which has yet to be undertaken.
This study was thus conceived with the goal of identifying inefficiencies within urban planning rules and regulations, particularly those serving as standards in urban development plans. Although these issues have drawn widespread criticism from professionals, urban planning laws and regulations themselves have received limited attention [Salehi, 2007] and have not yet been investigated as an independent subject [Elyaszadeh Moghaddam, 2011]. Ultimately, the aim of the study became the analysis and identification of the roots and underlying factors contributing to the deficiencies and ineffectiveness of regulatory provisions in Iran’s urban development plans.
Methodology
This qualitative study, conducted in Mashhad in 2021, adopted a critical approach and employed the grounded theory method. Document selection and interviewee sampling were purposive, document review and interviews were analyzed through content analysis, and data were processed using the causal–comparative method. Data collection proceeded through documentary studies and interviews until theoretical saturation was achieved using the snowball sampling technique.
First, written documents from 2000 to 2021 were examined, open codes were extracted, and conceptual identifiers were analyzed. Subsequently, semi-structured purposive interviews were conducted with 18 recognized experts in the field, holders of PhD and master’s degrees, including academic specialists, consulting engineers, officials responsible for reviewing and approving development plans, and experienced mayors. To achieve theoretical saturation, relevant legal texts were reviewed and indexed, and interviews were conducted with three legal scholars.
Data organization and coding were performed manually using Access 2016, resulting in identifiable categories and thematic domains. These categories were ranked based on emphasis and frequency in interviews and documents. Three academic experts were consulted to finalize the prioritization of categories. Finally, to assess the reliability of the findings, Creswell’s ten-question method [Danaeifard & Emami, 2007] was applied. Among the 21 interviewees, seven individuals (one from law and six from urban planning) participated in the evaluation and scored the assessment table. The results from all seven evaluators confirmed the accuracy of both the research process and its outcomes.
Findings
The open codes extracted from the documents were continuously and iteratively analyzed and then coded and categorized using the adopted research method. The codes obtained from documentary studies and interviews (a total of 1,529 open codes) were classified into six categories. The hierarchical order of these thematic domains, from macro to micro, did not correspond to their importance ranking or the frequency of criticisms. The most significant and overarching domain was the paradigm shaping the general societal context, as changes within this domain influence all others, whereas modifications in other domains exert limited influence upon it. The least significant domain was the legislative authority, represented primarily by the frequently mentioned issue of the multiplicity of legislative bodies. Although the highest proportion of criticisms and suggestions (25%) pertained to the domain of laws, norms, and regulations, the ranking of importance indicated only a moderate level of significance. It should be noted that subsequent sections are presented from the macro level to the micro level.
First Domain: Paradigm
This domain ranked first in terms of inefficiencies. Its core category is the theoretical foundation, situated between an Iranian–Islamic worldview, traditional perspectives, and modern approaches, reflecting a paradigmatic transitional period. This transition manifests in inconsistencies and disorder across methodologies, viewpoints, approaches, theories, and values. As the source domain from which others derive their roles and functions, it leads to consequences such as misalignment with dynamic issues, fragmented and isolated treatment of sectoral and general matters, and the absence of a comprehensive theory of justice. Although this paradigm shift is underway, the prevailing paradigm remains positivistic, characterized by top-down, prescriptive, and inflexible tendencies. The dominant concept in this domain is the notion of a paradigmatic transition.
Second Domain: Governance structure and organization
This domain ranked second in importance. It comprises four fundamental categories, among which human resources is the most critical. Key issues include insufficient attention to meritocracy, self-centeredness among senior managers and staff, incompleteness of managerial chains, extensive turnover in non-political positions, sudden interference by power actors, lack of a legal framework for collaboration and coordination among governmental bodies and their personnel, and politicization. The central concept within this domain is politicization and lack of cooperation and coordination among staff and executive agencies.
Third Domain: Legislative authority
This domain ranked sixth in importance. Its principal category is conceptual and theoretical deficiencies, and changes in other concepts largely depend on improvements in this category. Key codes include the absence of appropriate mechanisms for legislating on emerging issues, inconsistent and contradictory behavior among formal legislative bodies, and the lack of a coherent and comprehensive legal system for urban planning.
Fourth Domain: Planning institution
Ranking fifth in importance, this domain encompasses four categories, the most significant of which is deficiencies in institutional components. This includes shortcomings in inter-institutional coordination and the role of planners, both of which represent key codes in this domain. Other highly significant codes—such as the absence of a specialized coordinating body, creation of local legislative committees, inconsistent positions taken by official legislative entities, preparation of development plans by multiple, uncoordinated authorities, and lack of centralized plan preparation—are consequences of these two subcategories.
Fifth Domain: Laws, norms, and regulations
This domain ranked fourth in importance. Its primary category is deficiencies in higher-order laws. Key issues include outdated and unreviewed legal provisions, the coexistence of repealing and repealed laws, and a lack of alignment with emerging issues as well as insufficient comprehensiveness. The most critical code is noncompliance with and delays in the implementation of higher-order laws, such as those concerning zoning, spatial planning, and the establishment of urban and rural councils. The absence of shared language and concepts between urban planning and related fields is also noteworthy, though this matter is rooted in higher-level domains.
Sixth Domain: System of formulation, approval, and implementation
This domain ranked third in importance and consists of three groups: theoretical shortcomings, structural shortcomings, and process shortcomings. The most significant is theoretical shortcomings, largely attributable to the interdisciplinary nature of urban planning laws. These shortcomings emerge in the legal aspects as well as in the subject-specific expertise required for such laws, which inherently rely on interactions among various fields including urban planning, law, geography, and environmental studies. The most critical code is the derivation of rules from within society and in alignment with the planning context. Structural shortcomings stem from the governance structure and organization, whereas process-related shortcomings originate from the domains of paradigm, planning institution, and laws and regulations.
Discussion
The rules and regulations of urban development plans are formulated within a broader context that itself suffers from deficiencies encompassing both subjective aspects, such as the “paradigm”, and objective dimensions, including the “legislative authority,” the “planning institution,” the “process of formulation, approval, and implementation,” as well as their outcome, namely the “laws, rules, and regulations.” Elements such as the “obscurity of foundational concepts including justice, responsibility, social discipline, citizenship rights, public rights, and the right to the city”; the “lack of clarity regarding linguistic elements appropriate for legal and planning texts”; “politicization and expediency-driven decision making”; the “absence of clear criteria for spiritual and value-based principles”; and the “emphasis on the three-step process of assessment, analysis, and design, combined with the lack of coordination among influential sectors and unilateral decision-making” [Barati, 2006; Elyaszadeh Mighaddam, 2011] all stem from the current paradigm in Iran.
Another root cause is the “governance structure and organization,” which, alongside the paradigm, exerts the greatest influence on inefficiencies in other domains, including “laws, rules, and regulations.” Issues such as “the misalignment between urban management goals and priorities and the existing laws and regulations,” “individualistic and discretionary interpretations of rules” [Talebi et al., 2021], the absence of “public participation in legislation” [Dabirnia & Naghavi, 2018], “a centralized administrative system characterized by top-down planning that leaves no formal role for local governments, municipalities, and city councils” [Bonakdar et al., 2012], and the inherently ambiguous nature of the development program laws within the national planning legal framework [Tahanzarif & Hadizadeh, 2018], which themselves underpin a number of inefficiencies in less significant domains, are rooted in this category.
The third-ranked domain is the “system of formulation, approval, and implementation,” which is itself affected by other domains. Its inefficiencies contribute to issues such as “the marginalization of citizens, NGOs, and even municipalities in the preparation and approval of urban plans” [Majedi, 2013]; insufficient attention to the legal dimensions of urban planning; the absence of legal experts and subject-matter specialists in the legislative process; the limited role of city councils, experts, plan developers for related territories, local organizations, stakeholders, and influential groups; the disregard for legislative procedures and principles; and the lack of transparency in decision-making processes. The central concept in this domain is the “dominance of the state and the neglect of public participation, expert contribution, and engagement of public institutions.” At the local level, “public participation and citizen presence in decision-making sessions alongside the city council and other planning bodies” [Kazemian et al., 2020] could prevent rushed and poorly justified decisions and guide collaborative actions between urban management and the private sector [Mostofi et al., 2022].
The fourth domain, in terms of importance, is “laws, rules, and regulations.” Given that “the method of drafting laws and regulations is inherently shaped by the political and administrative system of a country” [Sarrafi & Abdollahi, 2008], this domain is directly influenced by the paradigm and the governance structure. Its central codes are the “absence of a shared language and conceptual framework among academic and professional urban planners and responsible institutions” [Barati, 2006], and “the lack of coherence between the regulations of the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development and those of municipalities” [Jamhiri et al., 2008].
The fifth domain is the “planning institution,” whose core codes include the “necessity of establishing an integrated body responsible for coordinating planning, policymaking, drafting, and ratifying general urban planning and architectural regulations and communicating them to relevant agencies” [Bonakdar et al., 2012], and the “lack of a coordinating institution that includes legal experts, city councils, citizens, stakeholders, and influential actors in the process of preparing and approving regulations” [Yazdani et al., 2021]. Another significant theme is the “importance of the planner’s role and position” [Sarrafi & Abdollahi, 2008]. Although planners inevitably face decision-making under uncertainty [Shakouri Asl & Rafieian, 2016] and varying degrees of independence, in Iran the planner is regrettably perceived through the code “governmental or serving the government.”
The sixth and least significant domain is the “legislative authority.” Due to the multiplicity of legislative bodies operating at different levels, the core issue here is the “absence of a unified or competent coordinating authority” capable of ensuring alignment between the laws drafted by various institutions and urban planning regulations. Misaligned laws impede urban planning processes and “enable misuse, broaden the discretionary power of implementers, and ultimately violate citizens’ rights” [Afsharniya & Mirzadeh, 2016].
Conclusion
The identified inefficiencies stem from broad underlying causes with both subjective and objective origins, categorized within the domains of paradigm, with the core code of “theoretical foundation” and the concept of “paradigmatic transition”; governance structure and organization, with the core code of “human resources” and the concept of “politicization and lack of cooperation and coordination”; system of formulation, approval, and implementation, with the core code of “theoretical shortcomings” and the concept of “absence of participation”; laws, rules, and regulations, with the core code of “deficiencies in higher-order laws” and the concept of the “interdisciplinary nature of urban planning legislation”; planning institution, with the core code of “institutional deficiencies” and the concept of “lack of coordination among institutional components”; and legislative authority, with the core code of “approach- and theory-related shortcomings” and the concept of “inconsistency in perspectives and approaches.” These categories, reinforced by pervasive issues such as “deficiencies in terminology and the absence of a shared language,” collectively constitute the contextual foundations that give rise to the observed inefficiencies.
Acknowledgments: The authors express their sincere appreciation to the participants, supervisors and advisors, the esteemed reviewers, and the Department of Urban Planning at Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, for their valuable cooperation.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues have been reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This manuscript is derived from the first author’s doctoral dissertation entitled “Analysis of the Legal Structure of the Process of Formulating Standards and Regulations in Urban Development Plans in Iran with an Urban Good Governance Approach”, conducted under the supervision of the second and third authors and the advisory of the fourth author at the Mashhad branch of Islamic Azad University.
Authors’ Contributions: Nazemi A (First Author), Main Researcher (50%); Seyedolhoseyni SM (Second Author), Discussion Writer (25%); Daneshvar M (Third Author), Methodologist (15%); Saghatoleslami A (Fourth Author), Introduction Writer (10%).
Funding: This article received no financial support.
References
1. Adinehwand A, Aliyan M (2016). Good urban governance: The prioritization of components and indicators.strategy. 25(4):305-338. [Persian] [Link]
2. Afsharniya A, Mirzade S (2016). Solutions to determine the optimum level and size of the city limit in the master plans of the cities with a population of less than 50 thousand inhabitants. Motaleate Shahri. 5(20):65-78. [Persian] [Link]
3. Barati N (2006). Challenges have to be faced in the context of urbanism in Iran at the beginning of the 21th century. The Scientific journal in the Field of Theoretical Studies of Art and Architecture (BAGH-E NAZAR). 3(6):5-29. [Persian] [Link]
4. Bonakdar A, Gharai F, Barakpur N (2012). Urban design documents in the planning system in Iran and England: A comparative study. Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning. 4(8):147-167. [Persian] [Link]
5. Daneshvar M, Bandarabad A (2013). Studying about adaptation new master plan with specifications of structural strategic plan (Case study: Mashhad's comprehensives Plan). Hoviatshahr. 7(14):83-92. [Persian] [Link]
6. Dabirnia A, Naghavi F (2018). Application of the legislative process in the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the theory of legislation as planning in order to implement the divine laws. Quarterly Journal of Public Law Knowledge. 7(19):113-134. [Persian] [Link]
7. Elyaszadeh Moghaddam N (2011). Surveying and feasibility of replacement of structural-strategic model with urban comprehensive planning model in Iran. Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development. 4(6):35-48. [Persian] [Link]
8. Hashemi Toghroljerdi S M (2017). Evaluation and analysis of jurisprudential-legal entities in the structure of high council of urbanism with a corrective proposal in the courts of inquiry and the specialized commission of the council. Journal of Researches in Islamic Architecture Iran University of Science & Technology. 5(2):34-54. [Persian] [Link]
9. Hoseynzadehdalir K, Sadrmusavi M, Heydarichiyaneh R, Rezatabe S (2012). An introduction to the new approach to urban development strategy (CDS) in the urban planning process with emphasis on the challenges of comprehensive plans in Iran. Journal of Geographical Space. 0(36):173-210. [Persian] [Link]
10. Jabareen Y (2017). The right to space production and the right to necessity: Insurgent versus legal rights of palestinians in jerusalem. SAGE Journals. 16(1):6-31. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1473095215591675]
11. Jamhiri M, Zabihi H, Majedi H (2008). The executive system of the missing link of urban programs in Iran an analysis of the executive system of urban development plans and programs. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 10(2):87-98. [Persian] [Link]
12. Kazemian G, Kamyar G (2020). The impact of urban management financing methods on the right to the city in Tehran metropolis. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memary va Shahrsazi. 25(1):17-29. [Persian] [Link]
13. Majedi H (2013). Structural -Strategic planning theory. Hoviatshahr. 6(11):17-26. [Persian] [Link]
14. Meneses-Reyes R, Caballero-Juárez J A (2014). The right to work on the street: Public space and constitutional rights. SAGE Journal. 13(4):370-386. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1473095213503967]
15. Mostofi A, Sarvari H, Hanaee T, Mahdinia M (2022). Identifying urban planning incentive from the perspective of the private and public sector for the formation of public-private partnership in Mashhad. Geographical Research. 37(1):91-99. [Persian] [Link]
16. Nazemi G, Rezazadeh R, Saghatoleslami A, Sarvari H (2021). The coordinated planning theory (The interacted theory with official structural elements of Iran's urban planning environment). Geographical Research. 36(2):125-136. [Persian] [Link]
17. Rezaei M R, Rahimi E (2013). The causes of land use change and its impact on municipal services in urban detailed plans case study Marvdasht. Research and Urban Planning. 4(13):77-96. [Persian] [Link]
18. Salehi E (2007). The role of urban planning rules and regulations in realizing a good city and sustainable urban development (Case study: Tehran). Journal of Environmental Studies. 32(40):51-62. [Persian] [Link]
19. Sarrafi M, Abdollahi M (2008). Analysis of the concept of citizenship and evaluation of its status in the urban laws, regulations and management. Geographical Research Quarterly. 40(2):115-124. [Persian] [Link]
20. Sayyaf Zadeh A, Badri Far M (2009). The necessity to reform management of urban development in Tehran. Quarterly Geographical Journal of Territory. 5(18):35-53. [Persian] [Link]
21. Shakouri Asl S, Rafieian M (2016). Usage of spatial decision support systems in urban planning. HOVIATSHAHR. 9(24):35-42. [Link]
22. Tahanzarif H, Hadizade A (2018). The nature of the development plan laws in the legal system of Iran. Quarterly Journal of Public Law Knowledge. 7(21):101-124. [Persian] [Link]
23. Talebi M, Rahnemaei M, Ghorbaninezhad R (2021). Pathology of barriers to good urban governance in middle cities case study: Neyshabur city. Journal Sustainable City. 3(4):43-57. [Persian] [Link]
24. Yazdani S, Fattahizadeh F, Sheikholeslami A, Etemad G (2021). Presenting a model of sustainable urban regeneration in historical contexts with an integrated approach case study: Darvazeh Rey neighborhood and Qom bazaar area. Geographical Research. 36(4):437-446. [Persian] [Link]
25. Zangiabadi A, Abdollahi M, Salekghahgharokhi R, Ghasemzadeh G (2013). Evaluation of factors affecting the unfeasibility of comprehensive urban plans in Iran and related challenges case study: Historical-cultural axis of region 6 of Tabriz. Research and Urban Planning. 5(18):41-58 [Persian] [Link]