Preipheral Urban Spaces Development

Preipheral Urban Spaces Development

The Role Of Public Interest In The Renewal Of Masshad's Peri-Urban Fabric: A Study Of The Challenges Faced By Facilitation Offices

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Fawad Ghafoori 1
Iman Ghalandarian 2
1 Master's student in urban design, Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Mashhad, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
10.22034/jpusd.2024.469488.1314
Abstract
Introduction
Urbanization, particularly in peri-urban areas, often leads to unplanned interventions that exacerbate spatial inequalities. The concentration of resources in certain urban locales—shaped by historical settlement patterns and specific geographical, political, or economic contexts—can disrupt the equitable circulation of capital, resulting in imbalanced growth and uneven resource distribution (Ghafoori & Ghalandarian, 2023). This imbalance is further complicated by interdepartmental inconsistencies and a lack of a unified framework among urban managers and specialists regarding intervention terminology. Such fragmentation diminishes the effectiveness of urban initiatives, often leading to resident displacement. The central aim of this study is to explore how public interest can be effectively integrated into the renewal of Mashhad's peri-urban fabric. Public interest is a complex and pivotal concept in urban planning theory and practice, serving as a legitimizing force for spatial and land-use planning and development control (Dadashpoor & Sheydayi, 2022; Alexander, 2002; Maidment, 2016; Lennon, 2016; Foroughifar, Noorian, & Jaberi Moghadam, 2020). When public interest is thoughtfully considered in development measures, community engagement increases, enhancing project acceptability as communities recognize their stake in the outcomes. This involvement fosters organizational and democratic revitalization skills within the community (Johnston, 2017). However, a significant challenge arises from the ambiguity surrounding the definition and rationale of public interest. This lack of clarity can complicate efforts to identify which interventions genuinely serve the public good and who has the authority to make such determinations. Stakeholders, influenced by their values and beliefs, often have divergent opinions on what constitutes public interest. This variability can lead to discrepancies and disagreements regarding the most suitable interventions for the reconstruction of peri-urban fabric (Searle & Legacy, 2021). Moreover, the failure to adequately address public interests in urban development over time can disrupt social order, diminishing the effectiveness of interventions (Kheyroddin, Kamyar, & Dalaei Milan, 2017).
Methodology
This research adopted an interpretive paradigm and employed qualitative methods with an interrogative strategy. A systematic study based on the meta-synthesis method, following the Sandelowski and Barroso model, was utilized to extract a theoretical framework. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using MAXQDA software.
Results and discussion
The findings revealed a stark contrast between high-performance and low-performing content within responsible organizations and institutions. A significant issue identified was the excessive dependence on central decisions, which has led to a disconnect between higher institutions and the local community's needs and demands. This disconnection fosters a sense of ignorance regarding local issues, resulting in decreased trust in responsible institutions and increased social tensions.
From the community's perspective, this situation is perceived as a neglect of local needs and concerns, often leading to feelings of inattention and rejection. The deficiencies in decision-making and the implementation of local development plans, coupled with a lack of timely awareness of local realities, can have severe negative consequences.
Moreover, the absence of integrated policies and mechanisms for managing and developing inefficient tissues contributes to insecurity and uncertainty in the implementation of plans. This creates gaps and incapacities in both decision-making and execution, further eroding public trust in responsible institutions. Structural instability and frequent changes in management institutions were also identified as significant factors contributing to inefficiencies in planning and public confidence. Each change in management structures tends to disrupt planning and implementation processes, often resulting in unmet community needs and expectations.
Conclusion
Achieving public benefit necessitates a collaborative and interactive process between the community and executive management institutions. Establishing a space where both parties are actively and transparently involved in decision-making and implementation can yield outcomes that address local community needs while considering the goals and limitations of executive institutions. This win-win approach not only enhances citizens' quality of life but also strengthens public trust and mitigates social tensions.
The realization of public interest in the redevelopment and regeneration of peri-urban fabrics demands efficient management structures, effective functional practices, and interdisciplinary specializations. The study's findings indicate that, despite ongoing efforts, facilitation offices have struggled to significantly address the deeper layers of public interest due to structural, operational, and specialized constraints. To enhance the efficiency of facilitation offices, reduce inconsistencies, and advance the realization of public interest at a deeper level, recommendations are proposed across three dimensions: structural, functional, and specialized.
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
Keywords
Public Interest
Facilitation Offices
Peri-Urban Fabrics
Mashhad

  1. آمارنامه شهر مشهد. (1399). مرکز آمار ایران.

    انصاری، باقر.( 1401). مدیریت تعارض منافع در بخش عمومی. فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی دانشگاه تهران، 52(1)، 297-321. https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2020.292517.2235

    ایزدپناه ، محبوبه و حبیبی، میترا .(1400). تحلیلی بر تعارضات مراکز خرید بزرگ‌مقیاس شهر تهران از منظر منفعت عمومی. نشریه معماری و شهرسازی آرمانشهر، 14(35 )، 257-274. https://doi.org/10.22034/aaud.2020.218130.2107

    پورعزت، علی‌اصغر، صدیقه دمر چی لو و مینا هاشمی کاسوایی.(1394). منافع ملی و حل مسئله عمومی به‌مثابه شاخص ارزیابی عملکرد دولت.کتاب مدیریت ایران ( کشورداری الکترونیکی ) 1، 1 (1394): 356-387.

    چاره­جو، فرزین ، احمدی، عاطفه و جوان، فرهاد. (1399). تحلیل و ارزیابی رابطه حکمروایی خوب شهری و کیفیت زندگی (مورد: محلات شهر سنندج). فصلنامه جغرافیا (برنامه­ریزی منطقه­ای)، 10(38)، 171-184.

    حاج علی‌اکبری، کاوه.(1390). مرور تجارب دوساله تسهیلگری سازمان نوسازی شهر تهران در دفترهای محلی نوسازی. نوسازی، 2(13)،

    حبیبی ، میترا و توانگر، محمدرضا.(1401). قدرت و منفعت عمومی: تحلیلی انتقادی از صورت‌بندی منفعت عمومی در طرح ساماندهی خیابان قیام یزد. نامه معماری و شهرسازی، 14(34): 71-92. https://doi.org/10.30480/aup.2021.3175.1661

    حسین‌آبادی، مصطفی، و شریف زادگان، محمدحسین.(1400). تحلیلی بر تضاد منافع در نهاد دولت به‌مثابه متولی برنامه‌ریزی فضایی شهری. فصلنامه مطالعات شهری، 10(39)، 3-14. https://doi.org/10.34785/J011.2021.810

    خیرالدین، رضا؛کامیار، غلامرضا و دلایی میلان، ابراهیم. تعادل بخشی بین حقوق مالکانه و منافع عمومی در اقدامات نوسازانه شهری (از تعارض منافع تا تعادل حقوق در قوانین سلب و تأمین حقوق مالکانه). (1395). پژوهش‌های معماری اسلامی، ۴ (۴)، 22-39.

    دهخدا، علی‌اکبر. (1343). لغت­نامه دهخدا. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.

    دیاریان، نیره، و نوریان، فرشاد. (1401). قانونی سازی: روایتِ مشروعیت بخشی به تخلفات ساختمانی (مطالعه موردی مگامال­های شهر تهران). هنرهای زیبا: معماری و شهرسازی، 27(3)، 35-44 https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2023.345103.672779

    زندیه، سمیه و صرافی، مظفر. (1401). به‌سوی چارچوبی برای مفهوم‌پردازی از منفعت عمومی در برنامه‌ریزی فضایی.  فصلنامه برنامه‌ریزی توسعه شهری و منطقه‌ای، 7(22)، 1- 43 https://doi.org/10.22054/urdp.2022.69943.1475

    شفیعی‌دستجردی، مسعود. (1391). نوسازی بافت‌های فرسوده و ضرورت تغییر نگرش در تهیه و اجرای طرح‌های جامع و تفصیلی (نمونه موردی : شهر اصفهان)، .باغ نظر10(24)، 91-104.

    صادقی، محمود و خاکپور، منصور. (1386). موجبات اعطای مجوز اجباری بهره‌برداری از حقوق مالکیت فکری. پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی، ۱۱ (۴)، ۱۳۲-۱۶۲ https://doi.org/20.1001.1.22516751.1386.11.4.3.6

    طرهانی، حسین، و  پرتوی، پروین. (1397). سازوکارهای تحقق منفعت عمومی در طرح‌های موفق توسعة شهری با تأکید بر نظریه‌های شهرسازی نیمة دوم سدة بیستم. صفه، 28(3)، 91-112 https://doi.org/20.1001.1.1683870.1397.28.3.5.6

    علی، بقایی سرابی. (1394). عوامل مؤثر بر تقدم منافع فردی بر منافع جمعی در شهر زنجان. مدیریت شهری، 14(38)، 197-214.

    غفوری، فواد و قلندریان، ایمان. (1402). بازآفرینی خیابان چهارباغ هرات باهدف ارتقاء هویت مکان. باغ نظر، 20(123)، 43-54. https://doi.org/10.22034/bagh.2023.332189.5141

    فروغی فر، مهران؛ نوریان، فرشاد؛ و جابری مقدم، مرتضی هادی. (1399). فهم مفهوم منفعت عمومی در نظام شهرسازی ایران. دانش شهرسازی، 4(1)، 1-18 https://doi.org/10.22124/upk.2020.15172.1348

    قاسمی، الهام، و رفیعیان، مجتبی. (1399). تحلیلی بر تعارض منافع در پروژه‌های بزرگ‌مقیاس مشارکتی در شهر با تأکید بر مدل شراکت عمومی-خصوصی-مردمی (مطالعه موردی: پروژه ارگ جهان نمای اصفهان). فصلنامه مطالعات شهری، 9(34)، 90-104 https://doi.org/10.34785/J011.2021.887

    قلندریان، ایمان، و قائم‌مقامی فراهانی، گلبرگ. (1402). بازطراحی مدل ارتقا تحقق‌پذیری پروژه‌های خردمقیاس مشارکتی (نمونه موردی: پروژه محله ما شهرداری مشهد). فصلنامه مطالعات شهری، 12(48)، 83-98.  https://doi.org/10.22034/urbs.2023.62604

    کاظمیان، غلامرضا؛ بحرینی، سید حسین؛ و حسینی دهاقانی، مهدی. (1396). تحلیل چالش‌های تصمیم‌گیری اخلاقی مدیران شهری در طرح‌های توسعه شهری؛ مورد مطالعاتی: طرح جامع اراضی عباس‌آباد تهران (مصوب سال 1384). هنرهای زیبا: معماری و شهرسازی، 22(2)، 29-42https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2017.63991

    کریم­زاده، حسین؛ خالقی، عقیل و ولائی، محمد. (1398). آسیب‌شناسی اجتماعی حاشیه‌نشینی کلان‌شهر تبریز با رویکرد توانمندسازی. توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، 1(2)، 15-34 .  https://doi.org/20.1001.1.26764164.1398.1.2.2.4

    محمدی، کاوه؛ رضویان، محمدتقی؛ و صرافی، مظفر. (1392). نقش دفاتر تسهیل­گری در سرعت بخشی به شهرسازی مشارکتی در بافت­های فرسوده شهری (موردپژوهی: منطقه 9 شهرداری تهران). فصلنامه برنامه­ریزی منطقه­ای، 3(11)، 43-54.  3https://doi.org/20.1001.1.22516735.1392.3.11.6.3.

    معین، محمد. (1386). فرهنگ معین. تهران: زرین.

    نوری نشـاط، سـعید. (1389). آشـنایی بـا ابزارهـای توانمندسـازی اجتمـاع­محـور در جهـت توسـعه محلـی. مؤسسـه توانمندسازی فرهیخته، سازمان بهزیستی کشور، تهران.

    Alexander, Ernest. 2002. The Public Interest in Planning: From Legitimation to Substantive Plan Evaluation. Planning Theory. 1. 226-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100303.

    Bitonti, Alberto.(2020. Where it all starts: Lobbying, democracy and the Public Interest. Journal of Public Affairs. 20. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2001.

    Brunner, Brigitta & Smallwood, Amber. 2019. Prioritizing public interest in public relations: Public interest relations. Public Relations Inquiry. 8. 2046147X1987027. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X19870275.

    Danilovic Hristic, Natasa & Stefanovic, Nebojsa. 2013. The role of public insight in urban planning process: Increasing efficiency and effectiveness. Spatium. 2013. 33-39. https://doi.org/10.2298/SPAT1330033D.

    David B. Resnik, Kevin C. Elliott, Aubrey K. Miller. 2015. A framework for addressing ethical issues in citizen science. Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.008.

    Dayarian, N., & NOURIAN, F. (2022). Legalization: A Look at the Legitimation of Violations in the Construction Phase (Case Study: Megamalls in the City of Tehran, Iran). Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning, 27(3), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.22059/jfaup.2023.345103.672779. [In Persian].

    1. Murphy, L. Fox-Rogers, 2015. Perceptions of the common good in planning. Cities, Volume 42, Part B,Pages 231-241, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.07.008.

    Johnston, Jane. 2017. The public interest: A new way of thinking for public relations?. Public Relations Inquiry. 6. 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X16644006.

    Lennon, Mick. 2016. On 'the Subject' of Planning's Public Interest. Planning Theory. In Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215621773.

    Lindsey B. Anderson. 2021. Serving public interests and enacting organizational values: An examination of public interest relations through AARP’s Tele-Town Halls. Public Relations Review 47(5): 102109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102109

    MacDonald, Heather. 2019. Planning for the Public Benefit in the Entrepreneurial City: Public Land Speculation and Financialized Regulation. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 43. 0739456X1984751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X19847519.

    Maidment, Christopher. 2016. In the public interest? Planning in the Peak District National Park. Planning Theory. 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216662093.

    Mark Wiering, Madelinde Winnubst. 2017. The conception of public interest in Dutch flood risk management: Untouchable or transforming?. Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.002.

    Mattila, Hanna. 2016. Can collaborative planning go beyond locally focused notions of the "public interest? The potential of Habermas concept of generalizable interest" in pluralist and trans-scalar planning discourses. Planning Theory. 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216640568.

    Rasmussen, Anne & Carroll, Brendan & Lowery, David. 2013. Representatives of the public? Public opinion and interest group activity. European Journal of Political Research. 53. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12036.

    Searle, Glen & Legacy, Crystal. 2020. Locating the public interest in mega infrastructure planning: The case of Sydney’s WestConnex. Urban Studies. 58. 004209802092783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020927835.

    Sheydayi, Ailin & Dadashpoor, Hashem. 2022. The public interest- schools of thought in planning. Progress in Planning. 165. 100647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2022.100647.

    Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

    UN‐Habitat .2004. The challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements 2003. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 15(3): 337-338.

Preipheral Urban Spaces Development
Volume 7, Issue 1 - Serial Number 15
Spring
Spring 2025
Pages 193-216