Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 37, Issue 4 (2022)
GeoRes 2022, 37(4): 477-486 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2022/07/8 | Accepted: 2022/09/20 | Published: 2022/11/1
Received: 2022/07/8 | Accepted: 2022/09/20 | Published: 2022/11/1
How to cite this article
Nazemi A, Seyedolhoseyni S, Daneshvar M, Saghatoleslami A. Theory of Developmental and Coordinated Legal Structure for the Formulation of Rules for Iran's Urban Development Plans. GeoRes 2022; 37 (4) :477-486
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1371-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1371-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
Full-Text (HTML) (146 Views)
Introduction
This research began with the concern that urban planning laws, particularly the regulations of urban development plans, lack sufficient effectiveness. A review of previous studies revealed that urban plans exhibit inefficiencies both in terms of legal framework and regulatory provisions. Some of these inefficiencies stem from the “legal structure and legislation,” the most significant of which is the “absence of an integrated legal framework” [Nazemi et al., 2020]. Urban development plans are generally prepared and approved in two parts: the plan maps and documents, and the plan regulations, usually presented in a booklet format. The regulations section contains directives and mandatory rules that guide the implementation of the plan, and these directives are legally binding. For the formulation of comprehensive plan regulations in the approvals of the High Council of Urban Planning, a uniform model applicable to all cities across the country has been established. As a result, the regulations of urban development plans are limited to the aforementioned cases, and no specific legal structure exists for the development of rules and regulations (for further study, see the “Regulations on the Review and Approval of Local, Regional, and National Development and Urban Plans and Urban and Architectural Regulations,” approved by the Council of Ministers, dated 02/01/2000).
Giddens (1984) argues that, due to issues of testing and empirical verifiability, universal laws in social sciences are practically unattainable [Nazemi et al., 2021]. Such laws, by defining their own operational frameworks without considering other institutions, create inconsistencies within urban management systems, generating various problems that, by exacerbating existing urban issues, ultimately lead to public dissatisfaction. Under the current structure, no improvement can be expected in addressing these issues [Latifi, 2008]. Meanwhile, laws and regulations can legitimize the planning frameworks and activities conducted by governmental, semi-public, and other relevant authorities. Laws primarily play a supervisory, guiding, and supportive role, establishing general recommendations and mandatory requirements for implementation [Bonakdar et al., 2012].
Several studies have explored concepts of citizenship, urban rights, regulations related to urban planning, and issues linked to urban law. However, research specifically addressing the legal structure for the formulation of regulations in urban development plans, the focus of this study, has not been conducted. The inefficiency of conventional urban development plans has been well documented. Nevertheless, the independent role of urban planning laws and regulations in this matter appears to have received limited attention [Salehi, 2007], and issues related to regulations have rarely been examined and analyzed as a separate component [Elyaszadeh Moghadam, 2011].
Regulations are drafted by urban plan preparers, and given their legal nature, this process constitutes a form of legislation. Regarding the importance of focusing on the process and methodology of drafting regulations, the High Council of Urban Planning stated on 05/5/1986: “The establishment of an urban planning system requires the existence and utilization of laws and regulations aligned with the specific political-legal system of the Islamic Republic and grounded in the rich foundations of Islamic culture.” Accordingly, the architectural and urban planning system is directly linked to culture, and any disruption in this system can pose significant challenges to cultural and social structures. The entire urban intervention system relies on comprehensive plans, and its components, laws and regulations, organizational structures, and procedures, are based on the premise that the comprehensive plan serves as a legal and technical instrument for urban governance [Ghorbani et al., 2014].
Furthermore, legislation and the preparation of plan regulations are closely associated with criteria such as social justice, elimination of discrimination, accountability of relevant institutions, public trust, and the realization of good urban governance [Adinehwand & Aliyan, 2016]. Governance derives from two words: hokm (command or decree) and ravā (legitimacy, prevalence, or appropriateness) (see Dehkhoda Dictionary and Amid Persian Dictionary). Hence, governance refers to legitimizing and implementing a command or law, which in urban plans is manifested through regulations. The formulation and implementation of regulations constitute a form of governance. Therefore, the present study aims to analyze the legal structure of the process for drafting regulations in Iran’s urban development plans and to propose a theory for its improvement.
Methodology
This qualitative study employed a critical approach and was conducted using grounded theory methodology within the context of urban planning in Iran. Participants and documentary sources were selected purposively, and all data were analyzed using content analysis along with techniques such as inductive-interpretive, causal-comparative, and constant comparison. Data collection continued through a snowball sampling method until theoretical saturation was reached.
Initially, written documents from the years 2001 to 2003 were examined. Codes were extracted and their identifiers analyzed. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 recognized experts in the field, holding doctoral and master’s degrees. To achieve theoretical saturation and enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, related texts in the field of law were also reviewed and notes were taken, followed by discussions with three specialists in the legal domain.
For organizing and categorizing the codes, Microsoft Access software was utilized, and codes were manually recorded and structured. Various categories and thematic domains emerged, which were then ranked based on their emphasis and significance in the interviews and their recurrence in written documents. The prioritization was further refined with the assistance of three academic experts.
Finally, to assess the reliability of the findings, in addition to cross-checking with the specialized literature, the ten-question method developed by Carswell [Danaeifard & Emami, 2007] was employed. Interviewees evaluated the assessment table, thereby validating both the process and the results of the study.
Findings
The analysis of codes obtained from interviews and document reviews revealed that urban plan regulations suffer from numerous inefficiencies and criticisms. The most significant issue was identified as the category “legal structure of the regulation drafting process,” with the core code being “fragmented and inconsistent structure.” The current legislative workflow in Iran follows the sequence of “drafting and proposal submission,” “consultation, negotiation, and approval,” “implementation and supervision,” and “law revision” (often delayed). In most stages of urban plan preparation, a dedicated legal expert responsible for drafting regulations is absent, and legal review occurs only in the final stage.
Moreover, ministries and executive agencies involved in the process operate under their own laws, circulars, executive regulations, instructions, judicial precedents, and sector-specific rules, which often overlap with other domains of urban planning. The plan consultant, as the drafter of regulations, faces a vast range of overlapping regulations, which are difficult to reconcile without a competent coordinating authority. At the same time, legal experts are not formally included in the consultant qualification structure. After plan approval, the approval of regulations is carried out in separate meetings, where legal experts are generally absent and legal aspects are often overlooked.
The regulatory drafting process in cities with populations over 200,000 and provincial centers is characterized by a hierarchical legal structure that begins with the Constitution and extends to lower levels. The legal structure for drafting urban plan regulations is a component of this system and must operate in full interaction with other structures while respecting the national legal hierarchy. The current legal structure of urban planning in Iran can be described as a multi-agency system (with multiple legislative authorities) operating without an overarching coordinating institution. Its components are generally scattered across multiple agencies, resulting in structural deficiencies, inconsistencies, and incompatibilities.
Regulation drafting and program preparation are asynchronous and non-homogeneous, while legal oversight and feasibility assessments should flow continuously throughout all stages. After reorganizing and categorizing the codes to identify the root causes of legal structural inefficiencies, the regulation drafting process was clarified. This structure exhibits theoretical, structural, and procedural deficiencies. Based on the identified problems and criticisms, a proposed process for drafting regulations was formulated.
Following the collection and categorization of 1,529 codes, including inefficiencies, criticisms, suggestions, and weaknesses, the essential features of a proper legal structure were extracted. Specifically, codes related to three domains of “general characteristics of the drafting system,” “process characteristics and methods,” and “decision-making characteristics” were directly relevant to the structure and process of drafting urban plan regulations.
Within these domains, the core codes were identified as follows: for the drafting system, “integrated structure”; for the process, “coordination”; and for decision-making, “development- and problem-oriented approach.” These core codes, alongside other features, have the greatest impact on improving the legal structure of regulation drafting, depending on the type of plan, program, and its objectives. The term “coordination,” appearing across all domains, refers to the essential principle that regulations, their drafting process, the legal structure, decisions, structural elements of planning, micro- and macro-level structures, human resources, methods, processes, other laws, upstream plans, executive agencies, and resources must all function in harmony to achieve the overarching goals of plans and programs. This necessitates the presence of a “comprehensive and integrated coordinating institution.”
Upon further analysis and reorganizing of the codes, two key issues—“lack of coordination” and “non-developmental nature of regulations” emerged as the most prominent concerns, capturing the attention of both researchers and interview participants. After consultation with interviewees, these were selected as the foundational codes, representing the central phenomenon of the study. In other words, the theoretical core of the research is defined as a “coordinated, development-oriented legal structure,” which forms the basis for theory development.
Using grounded theory methodology, the literature was revisited to validate the research outcomes. The primary data, through coding, led to the emergence of the theory of the “coordinated, development-oriented legal structure,” which aligns with key terms identified in documents and interviewees’ perspectives. This theoretical outcome also corresponds with the organizational and inter-organizational dynamics of Iran’s formal urban planning structure.
Discussion
A review of the approvals issued by the High Council and the reasons for their annulment indicates that some resolutions not only conflict with higher-level laws but also exhibit formal structural inconsistencies and misalignments with the Council’s responsibilities [Hashemi Toghrajerdi, 2016]. Urban planning laws inherently possess both legal and planning dimensions, which are complementary [Kamiyar, 2015]; thus, they must align not only with higher-level legislation but also with legal philosophy and urban planning logic. Many of the existing urban inefficiencies can be attributed to the lack of coordination among relevant institutional regulations, ambiguities, conflicts in legislation, inadequacy of laws relative to urban needs, or deficiencies in enforcement and oversight. These issues create opportunities for exploitation by various stakeholders, provide leeway for implementers, and ultimately undermine citizens’ rights [Afsharniya & Mirzadeh, 2016].
The multiplicity of legislative authorities, the breadth and dispersion of laws [Barati, 2006], the presence of repealed and obsolete regulations [Majedi, 2012], and the absence of comprehensive urban planning legislation, coupled with the lack of legal experts (M13), varying interpretations (M6), discretionary decisions by managers and staff (M9), and vertical and horizontal misalignment of laws [Salehi, 2007], have made the proper implementation of regulations challenging. Moreover, when drafting urban regulations, insufficient attention has been paid to the city’s economic, social, and cultural conditions, and executive and supervisory bodies have a very limited role in the drafting and approval process [Salehi, 2007]. Another challenge is that most urban planning laws focus on drafting, formulating, and approving plans, while executable regulations are neither cohesive nor well-aligned with the planning system [Jamhiri et al., 2008].
Additionally, in Iran, structural deficiencies and dispersed decision-making centers, abrupt and non-expert decisions without public and local organizational participation, contribute to the inefficiency of relevant regulations [Daneshvar & Bandarabad, 2013]. There is also no specialized coordinating authority [Nazemi et al., 2021] or shared language and concepts [Elyaszadeh Moghaddem, 2011]. These shortcomings, alongside the absence of a comprehensive and cohesive legal-organizational system [Salehi, 2007; Hosseinzadeh et al., 2012] and the fundamental issue of “deficient legal planning processes” [Nazemi et al., 2020], allow approving authorities to sanction plans without consulting technical committees, leading to inefficient regulations and undesirable outcomes [Mosavi & Rafieian, 2005].
Conflicts between modern management approaches and traditional structures [Sayafzadeh & Badrifar, 2008], the mismatch of Western standards in master plans with local realities [Majedi, 2012], the unique legislative structures of each country necessary for sustainable development [Nazarian & Rahimi, 2012], and the inefficiency of urban planning laws [Nazemi et al., 2020] highlight the necessity for “coordination and a coordinating institution” and for aligning the objectives of all elements involved in regulation drafting.
The importance of “coordination” is supported by the theory of coordinated planning [Nazemi et al., 2020]. In Iran, existing regulations are misaligned with the planning system [Jamhiri & Majedi, 2008] and lack vertical and horizontal integration [Salehi, 2007]. The principle of “development orientation” is supported by references to sustainable development [Nazarian & Rahimi, 2012], the link between urban environmental quality and sustainability [Seyed-al Hoseini et al., 2012], participatory urban development approaches [Sarvar et al., 2015], and the importance of sequential legislation for urban development [UN-HABITAT, 2015].
Since urban law originates from society, with its rules rooted in the social necessities of urban life, it is inherently dynamic and evolving [Mashhoodi, 2011] and should respond to emerging urban needs [Shakouri & Rafieian, 2016]. Laws must address both current (ex-post) and future (ex-ante) urban requirements. Unfortunately, urban management agencies tend to react to problems and crises after they arise, rather than proactively addressing urban development and future challenges (M24). Even when early signs of issues are visible, attention is often limited to immediate problems, with day-to-day management routines dominating (M17). Cities are complex, dynamic, and living environments [Razavian & Khazaei, 2011], necessitating anticipatory regulations and rules that manifest in both governance legitimizing the regulation, and administration implementing it. Consequently, the overall legal structure of urban planning and its governance are interdependent (M1).
It is recommended that future researchers first identify the adequacy and sufficiency of governance components in planning, followed by urban governance, while acknowledging the fundamental distinction between governance and administration.
Conclusion
The legal structure for drafting urban development regulations, which can be conceptualized as a governance or regulatory drafting framework, exhibits inefficiencies and shortcomings. Its core codes are “lack of coordination” and “non-developmental orientation,” and its central phenomenon is the “coordinated, development-oriented legal structure.” The reorganization of codes and categories, along with the emergence of this dual central phenomenon of coordination and development orientation—and the influence of causal, contextual, and intervening conditions, clarified the research theory.
The practical implication of this theory is the development of coordinated regulations within Iran’s urban planning system. By applying theoretical strategies such as “coordinated urban governance, integrated legal and executive structures, and structural coordination,” alongside practical strategies including “establishment of a coordinating legal institution, integration of subsystem coordinators, and refinement of structural features and elements,” the “coordinated, development-oriented legal structure” can progressively evolve toward an “integrated, development-oriented legal structure.”
Acknowledgments: The authors express their gratitude to the participants in the interviews, the supervising and advisory professors, the esteemed reviewers, and the Urban Planning Department at Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, for their support and collaboration.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues are reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
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 and is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author entitled “Analysis of the Legal Structure of the Regulation Drafting Process in Urban Development Plans of Iran with a Good Urban Governance Approach,” under the supervision of the second and third authors and consultation by the fourth author.
This research began with the concern that urban planning laws, particularly the regulations of urban development plans, lack sufficient effectiveness. A review of previous studies revealed that urban plans exhibit inefficiencies both in terms of legal framework and regulatory provisions. Some of these inefficiencies stem from the “legal structure and legislation,” the most significant of which is the “absence of an integrated legal framework” [Nazemi et al., 2020]. Urban development plans are generally prepared and approved in two parts: the plan maps and documents, and the plan regulations, usually presented in a booklet format. The regulations section contains directives and mandatory rules that guide the implementation of the plan, and these directives are legally binding. For the formulation of comprehensive plan regulations in the approvals of the High Council of Urban Planning, a uniform model applicable to all cities across the country has been established. As a result, the regulations of urban development plans are limited to the aforementioned cases, and no specific legal structure exists for the development of rules and regulations (for further study, see the “Regulations on the Review and Approval of Local, Regional, and National Development and Urban Plans and Urban and Architectural Regulations,” approved by the Council of Ministers, dated 02/01/2000).
Giddens (1984) argues that, due to issues of testing and empirical verifiability, universal laws in social sciences are practically unattainable [Nazemi et al., 2021]. Such laws, by defining their own operational frameworks without considering other institutions, create inconsistencies within urban management systems, generating various problems that, by exacerbating existing urban issues, ultimately lead to public dissatisfaction. Under the current structure, no improvement can be expected in addressing these issues [Latifi, 2008]. Meanwhile, laws and regulations can legitimize the planning frameworks and activities conducted by governmental, semi-public, and other relevant authorities. Laws primarily play a supervisory, guiding, and supportive role, establishing general recommendations and mandatory requirements for implementation [Bonakdar et al., 2012].
Several studies have explored concepts of citizenship, urban rights, regulations related to urban planning, and issues linked to urban law. However, research specifically addressing the legal structure for the formulation of regulations in urban development plans, the focus of this study, has not been conducted. The inefficiency of conventional urban development plans has been well documented. Nevertheless, the independent role of urban planning laws and regulations in this matter appears to have received limited attention [Salehi, 2007], and issues related to regulations have rarely been examined and analyzed as a separate component [Elyaszadeh Moghadam, 2011].
Regulations are drafted by urban plan preparers, and given their legal nature, this process constitutes a form of legislation. Regarding the importance of focusing on the process and methodology of drafting regulations, the High Council of Urban Planning stated on 05/5/1986: “The establishment of an urban planning system requires the existence and utilization of laws and regulations aligned with the specific political-legal system of the Islamic Republic and grounded in the rich foundations of Islamic culture.” Accordingly, the architectural and urban planning system is directly linked to culture, and any disruption in this system can pose significant challenges to cultural and social structures. The entire urban intervention system relies on comprehensive plans, and its components, laws and regulations, organizational structures, and procedures, are based on the premise that the comprehensive plan serves as a legal and technical instrument for urban governance [Ghorbani et al., 2014].
Furthermore, legislation and the preparation of plan regulations are closely associated with criteria such as social justice, elimination of discrimination, accountability of relevant institutions, public trust, and the realization of good urban governance [Adinehwand & Aliyan, 2016]. Governance derives from two words: hokm (command or decree) and ravā (legitimacy, prevalence, or appropriateness) (see Dehkhoda Dictionary and Amid Persian Dictionary). Hence, governance refers to legitimizing and implementing a command or law, which in urban plans is manifested through regulations. The formulation and implementation of regulations constitute a form of governance. Therefore, the present study aims to analyze the legal structure of the process for drafting regulations in Iran’s urban development plans and to propose a theory for its improvement.
Methodology
This qualitative study employed a critical approach and was conducted using grounded theory methodology within the context of urban planning in Iran. Participants and documentary sources were selected purposively, and all data were analyzed using content analysis along with techniques such as inductive-interpretive, causal-comparative, and constant comparison. Data collection continued through a snowball sampling method until theoretical saturation was reached.
Initially, written documents from the years 2001 to 2003 were examined. Codes were extracted and their identifiers analyzed. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 recognized experts in the field, holding doctoral and master’s degrees. To achieve theoretical saturation and enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, related texts in the field of law were also reviewed and notes were taken, followed by discussions with three specialists in the legal domain.
For organizing and categorizing the codes, Microsoft Access software was utilized, and codes were manually recorded and structured. Various categories and thematic domains emerged, which were then ranked based on their emphasis and significance in the interviews and their recurrence in written documents. The prioritization was further refined with the assistance of three academic experts.
Finally, to assess the reliability of the findings, in addition to cross-checking with the specialized literature, the ten-question method developed by Carswell [Danaeifard & Emami, 2007] was employed. Interviewees evaluated the assessment table, thereby validating both the process and the results of the study.
Findings
The analysis of codes obtained from interviews and document reviews revealed that urban plan regulations suffer from numerous inefficiencies and criticisms. The most significant issue was identified as the category “legal structure of the regulation drafting process,” with the core code being “fragmented and inconsistent structure.” The current legislative workflow in Iran follows the sequence of “drafting and proposal submission,” “consultation, negotiation, and approval,” “implementation and supervision,” and “law revision” (often delayed). In most stages of urban plan preparation, a dedicated legal expert responsible for drafting regulations is absent, and legal review occurs only in the final stage.
Moreover, ministries and executive agencies involved in the process operate under their own laws, circulars, executive regulations, instructions, judicial precedents, and sector-specific rules, which often overlap with other domains of urban planning. The plan consultant, as the drafter of regulations, faces a vast range of overlapping regulations, which are difficult to reconcile without a competent coordinating authority. At the same time, legal experts are not formally included in the consultant qualification structure. After plan approval, the approval of regulations is carried out in separate meetings, where legal experts are generally absent and legal aspects are often overlooked.
The regulatory drafting process in cities with populations over 200,000 and provincial centers is characterized by a hierarchical legal structure that begins with the Constitution and extends to lower levels. The legal structure for drafting urban plan regulations is a component of this system and must operate in full interaction with other structures while respecting the national legal hierarchy. The current legal structure of urban planning in Iran can be described as a multi-agency system (with multiple legislative authorities) operating without an overarching coordinating institution. Its components are generally scattered across multiple agencies, resulting in structural deficiencies, inconsistencies, and incompatibilities.
Regulation drafting and program preparation are asynchronous and non-homogeneous, while legal oversight and feasibility assessments should flow continuously throughout all stages. After reorganizing and categorizing the codes to identify the root causes of legal structural inefficiencies, the regulation drafting process was clarified. This structure exhibits theoretical, structural, and procedural deficiencies. Based on the identified problems and criticisms, a proposed process for drafting regulations was formulated.
Following the collection and categorization of 1,529 codes, including inefficiencies, criticisms, suggestions, and weaknesses, the essential features of a proper legal structure were extracted. Specifically, codes related to three domains of “general characteristics of the drafting system,” “process characteristics and methods,” and “decision-making characteristics” were directly relevant to the structure and process of drafting urban plan regulations.
Within these domains, the core codes were identified as follows: for the drafting system, “integrated structure”; for the process, “coordination”; and for decision-making, “development- and problem-oriented approach.” These core codes, alongside other features, have the greatest impact on improving the legal structure of regulation drafting, depending on the type of plan, program, and its objectives. The term “coordination,” appearing across all domains, refers to the essential principle that regulations, their drafting process, the legal structure, decisions, structural elements of planning, micro- and macro-level structures, human resources, methods, processes, other laws, upstream plans, executive agencies, and resources must all function in harmony to achieve the overarching goals of plans and programs. This necessitates the presence of a “comprehensive and integrated coordinating institution.”
Upon further analysis and reorganizing of the codes, two key issues—“lack of coordination” and “non-developmental nature of regulations” emerged as the most prominent concerns, capturing the attention of both researchers and interview participants. After consultation with interviewees, these were selected as the foundational codes, representing the central phenomenon of the study. In other words, the theoretical core of the research is defined as a “coordinated, development-oriented legal structure,” which forms the basis for theory development.
Using grounded theory methodology, the literature was revisited to validate the research outcomes. The primary data, through coding, led to the emergence of the theory of the “coordinated, development-oriented legal structure,” which aligns with key terms identified in documents and interviewees’ perspectives. This theoretical outcome also corresponds with the organizational and inter-organizational dynamics of Iran’s formal urban planning structure.
Discussion
A review of the approvals issued by the High Council and the reasons for their annulment indicates that some resolutions not only conflict with higher-level laws but also exhibit formal structural inconsistencies and misalignments with the Council’s responsibilities [Hashemi Toghrajerdi, 2016]. Urban planning laws inherently possess both legal and planning dimensions, which are complementary [Kamiyar, 2015]; thus, they must align not only with higher-level legislation but also with legal philosophy and urban planning logic. Many of the existing urban inefficiencies can be attributed to the lack of coordination among relevant institutional regulations, ambiguities, conflicts in legislation, inadequacy of laws relative to urban needs, or deficiencies in enforcement and oversight. These issues create opportunities for exploitation by various stakeholders, provide leeway for implementers, and ultimately undermine citizens’ rights [Afsharniya & Mirzadeh, 2016].
The multiplicity of legislative authorities, the breadth and dispersion of laws [Barati, 2006], the presence of repealed and obsolete regulations [Majedi, 2012], and the absence of comprehensive urban planning legislation, coupled with the lack of legal experts (M13), varying interpretations (M6), discretionary decisions by managers and staff (M9), and vertical and horizontal misalignment of laws [Salehi, 2007], have made the proper implementation of regulations challenging. Moreover, when drafting urban regulations, insufficient attention has been paid to the city’s economic, social, and cultural conditions, and executive and supervisory bodies have a very limited role in the drafting and approval process [Salehi, 2007]. Another challenge is that most urban planning laws focus on drafting, formulating, and approving plans, while executable regulations are neither cohesive nor well-aligned with the planning system [Jamhiri et al., 2008].
Additionally, in Iran, structural deficiencies and dispersed decision-making centers, abrupt and non-expert decisions without public and local organizational participation, contribute to the inefficiency of relevant regulations [Daneshvar & Bandarabad, 2013]. There is also no specialized coordinating authority [Nazemi et al., 2021] or shared language and concepts [Elyaszadeh Moghaddem, 2011]. These shortcomings, alongside the absence of a comprehensive and cohesive legal-organizational system [Salehi, 2007; Hosseinzadeh et al., 2012] and the fundamental issue of “deficient legal planning processes” [Nazemi et al., 2020], allow approving authorities to sanction plans without consulting technical committees, leading to inefficient regulations and undesirable outcomes [Mosavi & Rafieian, 2005].
Conflicts between modern management approaches and traditional structures [Sayafzadeh & Badrifar, 2008], the mismatch of Western standards in master plans with local realities [Majedi, 2012], the unique legislative structures of each country necessary for sustainable development [Nazarian & Rahimi, 2012], and the inefficiency of urban planning laws [Nazemi et al., 2020] highlight the necessity for “coordination and a coordinating institution” and for aligning the objectives of all elements involved in regulation drafting.
The importance of “coordination” is supported by the theory of coordinated planning [Nazemi et al., 2020]. In Iran, existing regulations are misaligned with the planning system [Jamhiri & Majedi, 2008] and lack vertical and horizontal integration [Salehi, 2007]. The principle of “development orientation” is supported by references to sustainable development [Nazarian & Rahimi, 2012], the link between urban environmental quality and sustainability [Seyed-al Hoseini et al., 2012], participatory urban development approaches [Sarvar et al., 2015], and the importance of sequential legislation for urban development [UN-HABITAT, 2015].
Since urban law originates from society, with its rules rooted in the social necessities of urban life, it is inherently dynamic and evolving [Mashhoodi, 2011] and should respond to emerging urban needs [Shakouri & Rafieian, 2016]. Laws must address both current (ex-post) and future (ex-ante) urban requirements. Unfortunately, urban management agencies tend to react to problems and crises after they arise, rather than proactively addressing urban development and future challenges (M24). Even when early signs of issues are visible, attention is often limited to immediate problems, with day-to-day management routines dominating (M17). Cities are complex, dynamic, and living environments [Razavian & Khazaei, 2011], necessitating anticipatory regulations and rules that manifest in both governance legitimizing the regulation, and administration implementing it. Consequently, the overall legal structure of urban planning and its governance are interdependent (M1).
It is recommended that future researchers first identify the adequacy and sufficiency of governance components in planning, followed by urban governance, while acknowledging the fundamental distinction between governance and administration.
Conclusion
The legal structure for drafting urban development regulations, which can be conceptualized as a governance or regulatory drafting framework, exhibits inefficiencies and shortcomings. Its core codes are “lack of coordination” and “non-developmental orientation,” and its central phenomenon is the “coordinated, development-oriented legal structure.” The reorganization of codes and categories, along with the emergence of this dual central phenomenon of coordination and development orientation—and the influence of causal, contextual, and intervening conditions, clarified the research theory.
The practical implication of this theory is the development of coordinated regulations within Iran’s urban planning system. By applying theoretical strategies such as “coordinated urban governance, integrated legal and executive structures, and structural coordination,” alongside practical strategies including “establishment of a coordinating legal institution, integration of subsystem coordinators, and refinement of structural features and elements,” the “coordinated, development-oriented legal structure” can progressively evolve toward an “integrated, development-oriented legal structure.”
Acknowledgments: The authors express their gratitude to the participants in the interviews, the supervising and advisory professors, the esteemed reviewers, and the Urban Planning Department at Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, for their support and collaboration.
Ethical Permission: No ethical issues are reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
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 and is derived from the doctoral dissertation of the first author entitled “Analysis of the Legal Structure of the Regulation Drafting Process in Urban Development Plans of Iran with a Good Urban Governance Approach,” under the supervision of the second and third authors and consultation by the fourth author.
References
1. Adinehwand A, Aliyan M (2016). Good urban governance: The prioritization of components and indicators.The Scientific Journal of 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. 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. Danaeifard H, Emami SM (2007). Strategies of Qualitative Research: A reflection on grounded theory. Strategic Management Thought. 1(2):69-97. [Persian] [Link]
6. Daneshvar M, Bandarabad AR (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]
7. Elyaszadeh Moghaddam N (2011). Surveying and feasibility of replacement of structural-strategic model with urban comprehensive planning model in Iran. Armanshahr Architecture and Urban Development. 4(6):35-48. [Persian] [Link]
8. Ghorbani R, Jam-e-Kasra M, Mirzabaki M (2014). Evaluation of spatial adaptation ratio on urban comprehensive plans implementation process (Case study: Bonab city). Geography and Planning. 18(49):191-216. [Persian] [Link]
9. Hashemi Toghr Oljerdi SM (2016). Assessment and criticism of the decisions of the supreme council for urbanism and architecture about Islamic identity of urbanism and Iranian architecture. Journal of Research in Islamic Architecture Iran University of Science and Technology. 4(3):22-39. [Persian] [Link]
10. Hosseinzadeh Dalir K, Sadr Mousavi M S, Heydari Chinay R, Rezatabe SK (2012). An introduction to the new approach of urban development strategy (CDS) on the urban planning process with emphasis on the challenges of master plans in Iran. Journal of Geographical Space. (36):173-210. [Persian] [Link]
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. Kamiyar G (2015). City planning and redevelopment law. Tehran: Majd Publications. pp. 1-277. [Persian] [Link]
13. Latifi G (2008). Urban Management. Tehran: Publications of Organization of Municipalities and Villages. pp. 1-167. [Persian] [Link]
14. Majedi H (2012). Structural-strategic planning theory. Hoviatshahr. 6(11):17-26. [Persian] [Link]
15. Mashhoodi S (2011). Fluid urban plans. Tehran: Urban Planning and Processing Company. pp. 1-86. [Persian] [Link]
16. Mosavi A, Rafieian M (2005). Evaluation of the feasibility of comprehensive and detailed plans of East Azarbaijan cities. Journal of Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. 10(3):177-201. [Persian] [Link]
17. Nazarian A, Rahimi M (2012). Managerial analysis of Tehran city. 81(3)125-138. [Persian] [Link]
18. Nazemi G, Rezazadeh R, Saghatoleslami A, Sarvari H (2020). Review and survey of inefficiencies of Iran urban construction and development plans (Urban master plans). Journal of Strategic Studies of public policy. 10(36):16-38. [Persian] [Link]
19. 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]
20. Nazemi G, Rezazadeh R, Saghatoleslami A, Sarvari H (2020). Evaluation of the application of the "master plan model" in Iranian urban planning environment. Geographical Research. 35 (4):377-386. [Persian] [Link]
21. Razavian, MT, Khazaei M (2011). Effects of logical positivism on geography and urban planning. Example: Iranian cities from the years (1390-1300). Zagros Landscape Geography and Urban Planning Quarterly. 3(10):129-149. [Persian] [Link]
22. Sarvar R, Sharif Jahed S, Tavakkolan A (2015). Tehran urban development plans ranking based on the principles of planning. Geography. 13(46):155-179. [Persian] [Link]
23. Seyed-al Hoseini SM, Habib F, Majedi H (2012). Application of design-based planning as interactional approach in macro and micro scale plans. Bagh-e Nazar. 9(22):45-54. [Persian] [Link]
24. 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]
25. Shakouri Asl S, Rafieian M (2016). Usage of spatial decision support systems in urban planning. Hoviatshahr. 9(24):35-42. [Persian] [Link]
26. Unhabitat [Internet]. International guidelines on urban and territorial planning. [Cited 2015 Dec 13]. Available form: https://unhabitat.org/. [Persian] [Link]