سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

فروغی, مهدا, نوروزیان ملکی, سعید, حاجی مقصودی, معین. (1396). موانع اصلی استفاده از رویکرد طراحی مشارکتی منظر (با تمرکز بر دیدگاه متخصصان طراحی). , 15(4), 193-214.
مهدا فروغی; سعید نوروزیان ملکی; معین حاجی مقصودی. "موانع اصلی استفاده از رویکرد طراحی مشارکتی منظر (با تمرکز بر دیدگاه متخصصان طراحی)". , 15, 4, 1396, 193-214.
فروغی, مهدا, نوروزیان ملکی, سعید, حاجی مقصودی, معین. (1396). 'موانع اصلی استفاده از رویکرد طراحی مشارکتی منظر (با تمرکز بر دیدگاه متخصصان طراحی)', , 15(4), pp. 193-214.
فروغی, مهدا, نوروزیان ملکی, سعید, حاجی مقصودی, معین. موانع اصلی استفاده از رویکرد طراحی مشارکتی منظر (با تمرکز بر دیدگاه متخصصان طراحی). , 1396; 15(4): 193-214.

موانع اصلی استفاده از رویکرد طراحی مشارکتی منظر (با تمرکز بر دیدگاه متخصصان طراحی)

فصلنامه علوم محیطی
مقاله 13، دوره 15، شماره 4، دی 1396، صفحه 193-214    اصل مقاله (1.11 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
مهدا فروغی1؛ سعید نوروزیان ملکی* 2؛ معین حاجی مقصودی3
1گروه معماری منظر، دانشکده معماری، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2گروه معماری منظر، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
3گروه مدیریت تولید، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
سابقه و هدف:
امروزه توجه به کاربران طرح در پروژه‌های معماری اهمیت بیشتری یافته و بعد اجتماعی به‌عنوان یکی از مهم‌ترین ابعاد تاثیرگذار بر طرح مورد توجه طراحان قرار گرفته است. اهمیت این موضوع در طراحی معماری منظر، با توجه به بعد ذهنی و مخاطب‌محور بودن آن، دوچندان است. یکی از مهم‌ترین رویکردها در معماری که به مخاطبان طرح توجه دارد، رویکرد طراحی مشارکتی است. مبحث طراحی مشارکتی، اولین بار در سال 1980 در آمریکا در اعتراض به قدرت زیاد طراحان و بی‌توجهی آنها به نیازهای حقیقی مردم در پروژه‌‌های معماری مطرح شد. به‌تدریج طراحی مشارکتی در سایر کشورها نیز رواج یافت و در دهه 1990 شاهد اوج اهمیت آن در حوزه معماری بودیم. در این زمان منابع متعدد اثرات گسترده و تکنیک‌های این رویکرد را بررسی کردند و بدین ترتیب انتظارات زیادی نسبت به طراحی مشارکتی پدید آمد. با عدم تحقق تمام این انتظارات در پروژه‌های طراحی مشارکتی اجرا‌شده در آن زمان، موضوع موانع طراحی مشارکتی طرح شد. با این حال نوشتارهای زیادی طراحی مشارکتی را لازمة دنیای امروز دانسته‌اند. اگرچه طراحی مشارکتی در معنای جدید آن و مباحث نظری مطرح‌شده در این زمینه از آمریکا آغاز شد ولی در ایران سابقه طراحی مشارکتی به‌طور سنتی به سال‌ها پیش برمی‌گردد. امروزه پروژه‌های طراحی مشارکتی در شهرهای ایران به‌صورت محدود و اغلب غیرموثر انجام می‌شود. در این راستا، هدف این مقاله بررسی موانع استفاده از طراحی مشارکتی منظر و تعیین درجه اهمیت آنها در ایران از دیدگاه متخصصان امر است.
مواد و روش‌ها:
در این راستا، ابتدا موانع اصلی استفاده از رویکرد طراحی مشارکتی منظر، از منابع متعدد استخراج و دسته‌بندی شده است و سپس به کمک روش دلفی و انجام مصاحبه‌هایی با معماران منظر، میزان تأثیر موانع استخراج‌شده بر استفاده از رویکرد طراحی مشارکتی منظر در ایران، ارزیابی و اولویت‌بندی شد. اعضای پانل دلفی شامل ده نفر از متخصصان منظر، شش نفر از متخصصان معماری و چهار نفر از متخصصان شهرسازی شاغل در دانشگاه‌ها، پژوهشکده‌ها یا شرکت‌های مرتبط با طراحی معماری منظر هستند.
نتایج و بحث:
در نهایت گروه موانع سیاسی و تکنیکی به‌عنوان مهم‌ترین دسته موانع منظر مشارکتی شناخته شدند و در زیرشاخه‌های این موانع، بی‌علاقگی کارفرما در شرکت در فرایند مشارکتی طراحی، به‌عنوان مهم‌ترین مانع با ضریب روایی صددرصد و کمبود وقت آزاد جامعه معاصر به‌عنوان کم‌‌اهمیت‌ترین مانع شناخته شده است. در میان زیرشاخه‌های موانع تکنیکی، به ترتیب مرحله زمانی مشارکت مردم در فرایند طراحی مشارکتی، فقدان رابطه باز و مستقیم بین مردم، طراح و کارفرما با ضریب روایی 60 درصد و تجربه و مهارت کم متخصصان در فرایند طراحی مشارکتی و دانش و مهارت کم مردم شرکت‌کننده در فرایند طراحی مشارکتی با ضریب روایی 40 درصد و از میان زیرشاخه‌های موانع اجرایی، عدم ‌مطلوبیت سیستم‌های اداری و اجرایی با ضریب روایی 80 درصد و زمان‌بر بودن شرکت دادن مردم در فرایند طراحی منظر مشارکتی با ضریب روایی 40 درصد به‌عنوان مهمترین موانع شناخته شده‌اند.
نتیجه‌گیری:
با توجه به اینکه موانع تکنیکی از دیدگاه متخصصان بسیار مهم ارزیابی شده است، باید ارزیابی مدونی درباره این تکنیک‌ها انجام شود. توصیه می‌شود این تحقیقات دارای جنبه‌های نظری و عملی باشند و طی پژوهش‌ها به مسائل مرحله زمانی مشارکت مردم و وجود رابطه باز و مستقیم بین مردم، طراح و کارفرما توجه بیشتری شود. همچنین پیشنهاد می‌شود تحقیقاتی برای ارزیابی روش‌های طراحی مشارکتی به‌کار گرفته‌شده صورت گیرد. بدین ترتیب می‌توان از تجربیات کشورهای غربی در طراحی مشارکتی مدرن استفاده کرد و از سوی دیگر برخی سنت‌های گذشته ایران که مرتبط با طراحی مشارکتی بوده را احیا کرد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
طراحی مشارکتی منظر؛ معماری منظر؛ فضاهای عمومی؛ تکنیک دلفی
عنوان مقاله [English]
The barriers of participatory landscape design approaches based on experts’ opinions
نویسندگان [English]
Mahda Foroughi1؛ Saeid Norouzian-Maleki2؛ Moeen Hajimaghsoudi3
1Department of Landscape Architecture, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3Department of Production Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction: Nowadays, it is not acceptable to design an unchangeable plan, especially in landscape architecture where end-users should be at the center of any design. Much literature discusses the influence of public involvement in landscape design process and its necessity in today’s life. However, the implementation of public participatory design has proved to be challenging and even problematic in many cases in the world. Initiated, civic leaders and professional experts generally develop and manage open space planning and design with a relatively limited depth of public participation considering what is possible. The range of creativity from those who participate is limited for a range of reasons, premises and constraints, which will be discussed in the literature review. The need exists for landscape architects to work from an understanding of the ranges of participation and the ranges of creativity that can be elicited in order to deliver sustainable designs. For several decades the theories of public participation were discussed in Europe and America, but the application of this in many other countries remained under-researched. Of specific interest in this article, public participatory design has been used in Iran for the past few centuries (until a few decades ago) as a common solution. This practice has continued in many villages, however, public participation is not practiced often in Iran’s cities anymore and the few attempts at using it were not successful. So the aim of this article is to find the public participation’s barriers specifically in Iran and to classifying these barriers by Iranians architecture designers. Materials and methods: A mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods has been used in this study. First, main barriers were extracted from different literature, then they classified to five groups contains technical, cultural, social, economic and political. After classifying the barriers, these barriers have been assessed by interviewing Iranian landscape designers, with the help of Delphi method. The Delphi method is a structured communication technique or method, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts. The experts answer questionnaires in two or more rounds. After each round, a facilitator or change agent provides an anonymous summary of the experts’ forecasts from the previous round as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments. Thus, experts are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the replies of other members of their panel. It is believed that during this process the range of the answers will decrease and the group will converge towards the "correct" answer. Finally, the process is stopped after a predefined stop criterion and the mean or median scores of the final rounds determine the results. In this research Panel of Delphi involves ten landscape architectures, six architectures and four urban designers whom work at laboratories and companies which depended to landscape architecture. Their assessment emerged in a table and its content validity ratio (CVR) was calculated and interpreted. Results and discussion: Main barriers were extracted from different literature, then they classified to five groups contains technical, cultural, social, economic and political. Each of these groups contain a few barriers and there are twenty two elements entirely. Technical barriers contain finding the right members who represent people and end users, the age of step which participating people in the design process, lack of experts knowledge and experience in public participatory landscape design, lack of people knowledge and experience in public participatory landscape design, inefficiency of public participatory landscape design methods, uncertainty of  how people ideas and decides affect the last decision and the design and not being a free and comfortable relationship between end users, employers and designers. Executive barriers contain increasing argues between participants of public participatory landscape design, inefficiency of executive systems and public participatory design time consuming. Cultural barriers contain unwillingness of people to involve in participatory design process, unwillingness of employers to involve in participatory design process, unwillingness of designers to involve in participatory design process. Social barriers contain lack of free time of contemporary society, divergent orientations and interests of contemporary society, division of contemporary society from social activity, lack of people power to prove what they want in participatory design process, selfishness at contemporary society and prioritization at making decision which depends on social outreach.Economic barrier contains high expense of participatory design process. Political barriers contain panic from public participation and wrong and inefficient policies. At last, technical and political groups of barriers got the highest rank in respect of experts’ opinions. From twenty two barriers, respectively, unwillingness of employers to involve in participatory design process, the age of step which participating people in the design process, not being a free and comfortable relationship between end users, employers and designers, wrong and inefficient policies and lack of people power to prove what they want in participatory design process distinguished as the most important barriers.  Conclusion: Based on the research foundations, we presented a few suggestions to improve participatory design process in Iran. In one hand, unwillingness of employers to involve in public participatory design process distinguishes as the first and main barrier. In Iran employers of public landscape designs are almost government. In the other hand, wrong and inefficient policies distinguish as the third barrier and in Iran this refers to government regulations. So these statements emerge the important role of government and its regulations in improving participatory design process and it shows that there is a need of promotion and correction in government’s regulations and policies. Developed countries have special regulations and policies which encourage public participatory landscape design and guide the process to be more efficient.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Participatory landscape design, Landscape architecture, Public spaces, Delphi Method
مراجع
  1. Ahmed, S.A. and Ali, S.M., 2006. People as partners: Facilitating people's participation in public–private partnerships for solid waste management. Habitat International. 30(4), 781-796. Anuar, M.I.N.M. and Saruwono, M. (2012). Barriers of user's involvement in the design process of public parks as perceived by landscape architects. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 35, 253-259. Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners. 35(4), 216-224. Barber, B., 2003. Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Berman, E.M., 1997. Dealing with Cynical Citizens. Public Administration Review. 57(2), 105-112. Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E., 2017. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley and Sons. Bond, S. and Thompson-Fawcett, M., 2007. Public participation and new urbanism: a conflicting agenda?. Planning Theory and Practice. 8(4), 449-472. Botterill, L.C. and Fisher, M., 2002. Magical thinking: The rise of the community participation model. In Jubilee conference of the Australasian Political Studies Association, Australian National University, Canberra. Britell, J., 1997. Partnerships, roundtables and Quincy-type groups are bad ideas that cannot resolve environmental conflicts. Usual Suspects Essay, 10. Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J. and Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 100(14), 8086-8091. Charnley, S. and Engelbert, B., 2005. Evaluating public participation in environmental decision-making: EPA’s superfund community involvement program. Journal of Environmental Management. 77(3), 165-182. Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J.L., Phillips, T. and Bonney, R., 2008. Science explicitly for nonscientists. Ecology and Society. 13(2), r1.
  2. Crewe, K., 1997. Landscape architects and citizen participation: A study of the Boston Southwest Corridor (1976-1986). Doctoral Dissertations. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
  3. Crosby, N., Kelly, J.M. and Schaefer, P., 1986. Citizens panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public Administration Review. 46(2), 170-178.
  4. Dane, E., 2010. Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. Academy of Management Review. 35(4), 579-603. Davis, G., 1996. Consultation, public participation and the integration of multiple interests into policy making. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris, France. DeLeon, L. and Denhardt, R.B., 2000. The political theory of reinvention. Public Administration Review. 60(2), 89-97. Dietz, T. and Stern, P.C., 2008. Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Academies Press. Doelle, M. and Sinclair, A.J., 2006. Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: Promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 26(2), 185-205. Dola, K. and Mijan, D., 2006. Public participation in planning for sustainable development: operational questions and issues. International Journal on Sustainable Tropical Design Research and Practice. 1(1), 1-8. Eccleston, C.H., 2000. Environmental impact statements: A comprehensive guide to project and strategic planning. John Wiley & Sons. Echeverria, J.D., 2000. No success like failure: The Platte River collaborative watershed planning process. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. 25(3), 559-604. Fainstein, S.S., 2000. New directions in planning theory. Urban affairs review. 35(4), 451-478. Forester, J., 1999. The Deliberative Practioner, Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Francis, M. and Lorenzo, R., 2002. Seven realms of children’s participation. Journal of environmental psychology. 22(1-2), 157-169. Heiko, A., 2012. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: review and implications for future quality assurance. Technological forecasting and social change, 79(8), 1525-1536. Hester, R., 2011. Afterword. Landscape Journal. 30(1), 148-150. Hickey, S. and Mohan, G., 2004. Participation: from tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development. New York: Zed books. Huang, G., 2015. PM 2.5 opened a door to public participation addressing environmental challenges in China. Environmental Pollution. 197, 313-315. Hutchison, R., 2010. Encyclopedia of urban of studies. London: Sage publications.
  5. International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), 2010, Public participation: state of the practice, Australasia, IAP2, viewed 28 October 2016, http://www.iap2.org.au/resource-bank/area?command=record&id=174.
  6. Irvin, R.A. and Stansbury, J., 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?. Public administration review. 64(1), 55-65. Juarez, J.A. and Brown, K.D., 2008. Extracting or empowering? A critique of participatory methods for marginalized populations. Landscape Journal. 27(2), 190-204. Julian, D.A., Reischl, T.M., Carrick, R.V. and Katrenich, C., 1997. Citizen participation—Lessons from a Local United Way Planning Process. Journal of the American planning association. 63(3), 345-355.
  7. Kaner, S., Berger, D. and Lind, L., 2014. Facilitator's guide to participatory decision-making. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kathlene, L. and Martin, J.A., 1991. Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives, and policy formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 10(1), 46-63. Kegan, R. and Lahey, L.L., 2009. Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press. Kenney, D.S., 2000. Arguing About Consensus: Examining the Case against Western Watershed Initiatives and Other Collaborative Groups Active in Natural Resources Management. Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado. King, C. S., Feltey, K.M. and Susel, B.O.N., 1998. The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public administration review. 58(4), 317-326. Lawrence, R.L. and Deagen, D.A., 2001. Choosing Public Participation Methods for Natural Resources: A Context-Specific Guide. Society & Natural Resources. 14(10), 857-872. Levy, J.M., 1995. Essential Microeconomics for Public Policy Analysis. Westport, CT: Praeger. Loures, L. and Crawford, P., 2008. Democracy in progress: using public participation in post-industrial landscape (re)-development. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development. 4(9), 794-803. Magnusson, P.R., 2003. Benefits of involving users in service innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management. 6(4), 228-238. Markeson, G., 2007. A tale of two greenways: A comparative study of greenway projects. Fordham Urban Law Journal. 34(5), 1489. Michaels, S., 2001. Making collaborative watershed management work: the confluence of state and regional initiatives. Environmental management. 27(1), 27-35. Miessen, M., 2007. The violence of participation: Spatial practices beyond models of consensus. Eurozine, 1º ago. Available from: http://www.eurozine.com/pdf/2007-08-01-miessen-en.pdf. [Accessed 22 August 2013]. Omar, D.B. and Leh, O.L.H., 2009. Malaysian Development Planning System: Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan and Public Participation. Asian Social Science. 5(3), 30-36. Ostrom, E., 2015. Governing the commons. New York: Cambridge University Press. Palerm, J.R., 2000. An Empirical‐Theoretical Analysis Framework for Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment. Journal of environmental planning and management. 43(5), 581-600. Persons, G.A., 1990. Defining the public interest: Citizen participation in metropolitan and state policy making. National Civic Review. 79(2), 118-131.
  8. Pour Ahmad, A., Habibi, L. and Jafari Mehrabadi, M., 2012. Analysis of Farabi’s Ideas and its application in citizenship participation. Bagh-e Nazar. 9(21), 13-20. Prins, E., 2005. Framing a conflict in a community-university partnership. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 25(1), 57-74. Reilly, R.C., 2008. Is expertise a necessary precondition for creativity? A case of four novice learning group facilitators. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 3(1), 59-76. Rowe, G. and Wright, G., 1999. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International journal of forecasting. 15(4), 353-375. Russell, S. and Vidler, E., 2000. The rise and fall of government-community partnerships for urban development: grassroots testimony from Colombo. Environment and Urbanization. 12(1), 73-86.
  9. Saeedi Rezvani, H., 2005. Participation design of Abkooh castle of Mashhad, Thesis for Master of Urban Design, Faculty of Fine Art, University of Tehran. Smith, P.D. and McDonough, M.H., 2001. Beyond Public Participation: Fairness in Natural Resource Decision Making. Society and Natural Resources. 14(3), 239-249. Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., Brady, H. and Nie, N.H., 1993. Citizen Activity: Who Participates? What Do They Say?. American Political Science Review. 87(2), 303-318. Walker, A.M. and Selfe, J., 1996. The Delphi method: a useful tool for the allied health researcher. British Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation. 3(12), 677-681. Weber, E.P., 2000. A New Vanguard for the Environment: Grass-Roots Ecosystem Management as a New Environmental Movement. Society & Natural Resources. 13(3), 237-259. Williams, B.L., Suen, H.K., Brown, S., Bruhn, R., De Blaquiere, R. and Rzasa, S.E., 2001. Hierarchical Linear Models of Factors Associated with Public Participation among Residents Living near the US Army’s Chemical Weapons Stockpile Sites. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 44(1), 41-65. Yao, B.W., 2006. Technology and public participation in environmental decisions. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ziarek, E.P., 2001. An ethics of dissensus: Postmodernity, feminism, and the politics of radical democracy. Stanford University Press.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 9,564
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 4,662