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
Full-Text (HTML) (8 Views)
Background
Rapid urbanization and the limitation of urban land have led to challenges such as pollution, traffic congestion, and decreased quality of life. Horizontal expansion alone is insufficient to address these issues, and the sustainable utilization of underground spaces has emerged as an effective strategy to alleviate land scarcity, reduce environmental pressures, and enhance urban resilience, although it is accompanied by technical, social, and legal challenges.
Previous Studies
Previous studies have extensively highlighted the role of underground spaces in alleviating pressures resulting from rapid urbanization. Sterling et al. (2012) and Guohua & Zhili (2022) have introduced underground development as a sustainable approach to enhancing urban resilience. Reviews by Ronka et al. (1998) and Sterling & Carmody (1993) indicate that, although underground spaces are often perceived negatively, they can foster a sense of safety and protection (Bobylev & Sterling, 2016). Furthermore, studies such as Kishii (2015) and Zongchao et al. (2019) emphasize the extensive potential of these spaces for transportation, parking, and other urban infrastructures. From a safety perspective, research by Nishi et al. (2010) and Besner (2016) demonstrates that underground spaces are more resistant to earthquakes and fires. At the same time, Admiraal & Cornaro (2016) highlight the risks associated with aimless development of these spaces and the necessity for scientific management. Finally, recent studies, including Xu et al. (2023) and Li et al. (2023), stress the importance of comprehensive and multidimensional approaches in sustainable subsurface development.
Aim(s)
The aim of the present study was to conduct a comparative analysis of international experiences and to propose a conceptual model for urban underground development.
Research Type
This study was qualitative in nature.
Research Society, Place and Time
This research was conducted on a study population consisting of international scholarly articles related to urban subsurface development. Data were collected from reputable scientific databases, including Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Springer, and Google Scholar. The geographical scope of the study encompassed the global literature on urban subsurface development and planning. The research process was carried out in 2024 using a qualitative approach, systematic review, and content analysis.
Sampling Method and Number
The sampling method in this study was a systematic screening based on inclusion and exclusion criteria for scientific articles. Initially, 609 articles were identified. After removing duplicates and articles without full-text access, 238 articles remained. Subsequently, applying the inclusion criteria led to the exclusion of 212 articles, resulting in a final sample of 26 articles selected for analysis.
Used Devices & Materials
The tools and materials used in this study included reputable scientific databases (Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Springer, and Google Scholar) for data collection, specialized keywords related to urban underground development (such as Underground Development, Subsurface Urban Planning, Urban Infrastructure, and related combinations), and qualitative content analysis software and tables for data organization. Additionally, the SWOT analytical framework was employed to systematically categorize and evaluate the findings into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
Findings by Text
This study, through a systematic review, examined the experiences of underground urban development in ten cities across different countries. The characteristics, objectives, challenges, solutions, and outcomes of these experiences are summarized in Table 1.
The findings indicated that projects in Montreal and Toronto (Canada), by creating extensive pedestrian networks and integrating with metro systems, successfully reduced surface traffic and established unified commercial centers. Helsinki (Finland), with a knowledge-based master plan, utilized over 200 km of tunnels to enhance urban quality of life. Paris (France) increased tourist attraction by linking underground cultural-commercial complexes to the metro. Sydney and Singapore focused on commercial centers and underground pedestrian networks. Moscow and Chicago faced significant technical and managerial challenges but still developed thriving commercial spaces. In Madrid, relocating highways underground reduced noise pollution and restored green spaces (Table 1).
SWOT analysis identified key strengths, including connectivity to public transport, traffic and pollution reduction, integrated commercial centers, improved urban quality of life, and tourism attraction. Weaknesses involved managerial complexity, spatial limitations, technical and financial challenges, and the need for coordination with future developments. Opportunities included gradual development, increased user capacity, enhanced urban quality of life, and sustainability goals, while threats encompassed geological issues, lack of coordination, financial constraints, and competition with surface-level development.
Finally, a staged conceptual process for underground urban development was proposed, comprising:
Rapid urbanization and the limitation of urban land have led to challenges such as pollution, traffic congestion, and decreased quality of life. Horizontal expansion alone is insufficient to address these issues, and the sustainable utilization of underground spaces has emerged as an effective strategy to alleviate land scarcity, reduce environmental pressures, and enhance urban resilience, although it is accompanied by technical, social, and legal challenges.
Previous Studies
Previous studies have extensively highlighted the role of underground spaces in alleviating pressures resulting from rapid urbanization. Sterling et al. (2012) and Guohua & Zhili (2022) have introduced underground development as a sustainable approach to enhancing urban resilience. Reviews by Ronka et al. (1998) and Sterling & Carmody (1993) indicate that, although underground spaces are often perceived negatively, they can foster a sense of safety and protection (Bobylev & Sterling, 2016). Furthermore, studies such as Kishii (2015) and Zongchao et al. (2019) emphasize the extensive potential of these spaces for transportation, parking, and other urban infrastructures. From a safety perspective, research by Nishi et al. (2010) and Besner (2016) demonstrates that underground spaces are more resistant to earthquakes and fires. At the same time, Admiraal & Cornaro (2016) highlight the risks associated with aimless development of these spaces and the necessity for scientific management. Finally, recent studies, including Xu et al. (2023) and Li et al. (2023), stress the importance of comprehensive and multidimensional approaches in sustainable subsurface development.
Aim(s)
The aim of the present study was to conduct a comparative analysis of international experiences and to propose a conceptual model for urban underground development.
Research Type
This study was qualitative in nature.
Research Society, Place and Time
This research was conducted on a study population consisting of international scholarly articles related to urban subsurface development. Data were collected from reputable scientific databases, including Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Springer, and Google Scholar. The geographical scope of the study encompassed the global literature on urban subsurface development and planning. The research process was carried out in 2024 using a qualitative approach, systematic review, and content analysis.
Sampling Method and Number
The sampling method in this study was a systematic screening based on inclusion and exclusion criteria for scientific articles. Initially, 609 articles were identified. After removing duplicates and articles without full-text access, 238 articles remained. Subsequently, applying the inclusion criteria led to the exclusion of 212 articles, resulting in a final sample of 26 articles selected for analysis.
Used Devices & Materials
The tools and materials used in this study included reputable scientific databases (Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Springer, and Google Scholar) for data collection, specialized keywords related to urban underground development (such as Underground Development, Subsurface Urban Planning, Urban Infrastructure, and related combinations), and qualitative content analysis software and tables for data organization. Additionally, the SWOT analytical framework was employed to systematically categorize and evaluate the findings into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
Findings by Text
This study, through a systematic review, examined the experiences of underground urban development in ten cities across different countries. The characteristics, objectives, challenges, solutions, and outcomes of these experiences are summarized in Table 1.
The findings indicated that projects in Montreal and Toronto (Canada), by creating extensive pedestrian networks and integrating with metro systems, successfully reduced surface traffic and established unified commercial centers. Helsinki (Finland), with a knowledge-based master plan, utilized over 200 km of tunnels to enhance urban quality of life. Paris (France) increased tourist attraction by linking underground cultural-commercial complexes to the metro. Sydney and Singapore focused on commercial centers and underground pedestrian networks. Moscow and Chicago faced significant technical and managerial challenges but still developed thriving commercial spaces. In Madrid, relocating highways underground reduced noise pollution and restored green spaces (Table 1).
SWOT analysis identified key strengths, including connectivity to public transport, traffic and pollution reduction, integrated commercial centers, improved urban quality of life, and tourism attraction. Weaknesses involved managerial complexity, spatial limitations, technical and financial challenges, and the need for coordination with future developments. Opportunities included gradual development, increased user capacity, enhanced urban quality of life, and sustainability goals, while threats encompassed geological issues, lack of coordination, financial constraints, and competition with surface-level development.
Finally, a staged conceptual process for underground urban development was proposed, comprising:
- Prerequisites: geological analysis, urban needs assessment, alignment with future plans
- Core elements: underground transport, commercial-administrative spaces, environmental sustainability, resource management
- Implementation process: gradual development, inter-sectoral communication, technological innovation
- Evaluation and feedback: user engagement, environmental impact, social satisfaction
- Strategies: phased development, public-private collaboration, sustainable economic models
This framework demonstrates that, when managed comprehensively and coherently, underground development can serve as an effective tool to enhance urban quality of life and sustainability.
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The findings of this study align with previous research in the field of underground development. In most of the examined cities, such as Montreal and Toronto [Demers, 2016; Bélanger, 2007], Singapore [Zhou & Zhao, 2016], and Helsinki [Vähäaho, 2016], the direct connection of underground spaces to public transport networks emerged as a key factor for success, consistent with Das et al. (2021), who have emphasized the importance of integrating transportation infrastructure with commercial spaces. From an environmental perspective, the restoration of green spaces and reduction of noise pollution in Madrid and Paris aligns with the findings of Richter et al. (2024) and Von Der Tann et al. (2018) regarding underground green infrastructure. Geological challenges in Moscow and Madrid similarly reflect the geotechnical vulnerability concerns reported by Shirlaw et al. (2001). The stark contrast between Helsinki’s success and Chicago’s shortcomings demonstrates that institutional coordination and comprehensive planning, beyond financial resources, are critical for effective underground development, as also is emphasized by Raposo & Carlos (2021). Overall, this study not only corroborated prior research but also offered a more integrated and comparative framework.
Suggestions
For future studies, three areas warrant deeper investigation: first, examining the impact of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, on optimizing the design of underground spaces; second, conducting long-term economic analyses of underground development projects, considering both construction costs and social benefits; and third, exploring strategies to reduce social resistance to underground development initiatives. From a practical perspective, it is recommended that cities establish an integrated database of global experiences to avoid repeating past mistakes. Additionally, forming multidisciplinary teams composed of engineers, urban planners, and social scientists can facilitate the design of underground spaces that are both technically feasible and socially acceptable.
Conclusion
Underground development in cities worldwide has emerged as a multidimensional approach, simultaneously revealing significant potentials for spatial optimization, environmental sustainability, and infrastructural resilience, while also exposing challenges such as high costs, legal considerations, and technical complexities.
Acknowledgments: None reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This article is derived from the first author’s dissertation. No conflicts of interest exist regarding the writing or publication of this article.
Authors’ Contributions: Houshmand M (First author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer/Methodologist (30%); Saeideh Zarabadi ZS (Second author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (30%); Majdi H (Third author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Noori SA (Fourth Author), Discussion Writer/Methodologist (20%)
Funding: None reported by the authors.
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The findings of this study align with previous research in the field of underground development. In most of the examined cities, such as Montreal and Toronto [Demers, 2016; Bélanger, 2007], Singapore [Zhou & Zhao, 2016], and Helsinki [Vähäaho, 2016], the direct connection of underground spaces to public transport networks emerged as a key factor for success, consistent with Das et al. (2021), who have emphasized the importance of integrating transportation infrastructure with commercial spaces. From an environmental perspective, the restoration of green spaces and reduction of noise pollution in Madrid and Paris aligns with the findings of Richter et al. (2024) and Von Der Tann et al. (2018) regarding underground green infrastructure. Geological challenges in Moscow and Madrid similarly reflect the geotechnical vulnerability concerns reported by Shirlaw et al. (2001). The stark contrast between Helsinki’s success and Chicago’s shortcomings demonstrates that institutional coordination and comprehensive planning, beyond financial resources, are critical for effective underground development, as also is emphasized by Raposo & Carlos (2021). Overall, this study not only corroborated prior research but also offered a more integrated and comparative framework.
Suggestions
For future studies, three areas warrant deeper investigation: first, examining the impact of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, on optimizing the design of underground spaces; second, conducting long-term economic analyses of underground development projects, considering both construction costs and social benefits; and third, exploring strategies to reduce social resistance to underground development initiatives. From a practical perspective, it is recommended that cities establish an integrated database of global experiences to avoid repeating past mistakes. Additionally, forming multidisciplinary teams composed of engineers, urban planners, and social scientists can facilitate the design of underground spaces that are both technically feasible and socially acceptable.
Conclusion
Underground development in cities worldwide has emerged as a multidimensional approach, simultaneously revealing significant potentials for spatial optimization, environmental sustainability, and infrastructural resilience, while also exposing challenges such as high costs, legal considerations, and technical complexities.
Acknowledgments: None reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This article is derived from the first author’s dissertation. No conflicts of interest exist regarding the writing or publication of this article.
Authors’ Contributions: Houshmand M (First author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer/Methodologist (30%); Saeideh Zarabadi ZS (Second author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (30%); Majdi H (Third author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer (20%); Noori SA (Fourth Author), Discussion Writer/Methodologist (20%)
Funding: None reported by the authors.
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]