مهندسی شهرسازی
مهندسی شهرسازی ارشد مهندسی شهرسازی بازار کار شهرسازی 
طراحی سایت حرفه ای

 Smart city challenges


Meisam Shahbazi, Department of urban planning, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

Mohsen Dadkhah, Department of urban planning and Urban Design, Amin Institute of Higher Education, Isfahan, Iran

Majid Mozoon, MA. Student of urban planning, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

Mohammad Reza Amirzade, MA. Student of urban planning, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran




Smart City, smart world, smart place or in other words that all smart life today Smart City is expressed in metaphor become an integral part in discussions. The future of cities in this article will attempt despite all the uncertainty and lack of clarity over the whole of smart barriers and challenges in Smart and Implementation of measures and techniques designed to achieve these goals are ambitious and challenging worldwide, the measures and initiatives are often smart. This paper examines various aspects challenging Smart deals and the scale of the challenges in infrastructure, Finance and funding, management and organization, teaching and learning, urban design, and main shareholders, cooperation and the technology has been studied. Smart city before, during and after the Challenges that will face the realization and influenced their success and ignore those Smart cities due to failure or failure of the function.

Keywords: Smart City, Challenges of Smart City, Smart City Planning, Financial Challenges of Smart City, Educational Challenges of Smart City, Urban Design


Shahbazi, M., Dadkhah, M., Mozoon, M., & Amirzade, M. R. (2015). Smart City Challenges. Social Behaviour and Personality43(2).
Shahbazi, Meisam, Mohsen Dadkhah, Majid Mozoon, and Mohammad Reza Amirzade. "Smart City Challenges." Social Behaviour and Personality 43, no. 2 (2015).
Shahbazi, M., Dadkhah, M., Mozoon, M. and Amirzade, M.R., 2015. Smart City Challenges. Social Behaviour and Personality43(2).

download full article 

 Smart city challenges


Meisam Shahbazi, Department of urban planning, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

Mohsen Dadkhah, Department of urban planning and Urban Design, Amin Institute of Higher Education, Isfahan, Iran

Majid Mozoon, MA. Student of urban planning, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

Mohammad Reza Amirzade, MA. Student of urban planning, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran




Smart City, smart world, smart place or in other words that all smart life today Smart City is expressed in metaphor become an integral part in discussions. The future of cities in this article will attempt despite all the uncertainty and lack of clarity over the whole of smart barriers and challenges in Smart and Implementation of measures and techniques designed to achieve these goals are ambitious and challenging worldwide, the measures and initiatives are often smart. This paper examines various aspects challenging Smart deals and the scale of the challenges in infrastructure, Finance and funding, management and organization, teaching and learning, urban design, and main shareholders, cooperation and the technology has been studied. Smart city before, during and after the Challenges that will face the realization and influenced their success and ignore those Smart cities due to failure or failure of the function.

Keywords: Smart City, Challenges of Smart City, Smart City Planning, Financial Challenges of Smart City, Educational Challenges of Smart City, Urban Design



With the increasing awareness of environmental concerns, Urbanization and Technical development together with an urgent need and an opportunity are led to rethink about the How to build and manage our cities. In recent decades, the development of these issues are interconnected, as it has led to new "Smart cities" are closer together (Hӧjer & Wangel, 2015) and information technology Communications and IT infrastructure as a smart city platform is very important. It may be smart city but people are not able to use the facilities, services and training. The concept of smart cities, benchmarking and implementation major challenges faced during implementation. Failure to provide proper defined in smart cities failure and have access to mislead people and may even be therefore, the first step should be paid to the definition of a smart city. Smart access to known standards must consider all aspects and Refine by each city and, on the most important challenges facing smart cities they had been on the run. Smart cities have urban challenges of urbanism, Environmental pollution and technological challenges in fact, solving the challenges of today's cities will be the realization of smart cities in this study, and these challenges are discussed.

More than half the world's population now live in urban areas, The change of the rural population to urban population designed to another two decades will continue to be one of the remarkable density and Ultra lead to chaos and confusion felt helpless population in those places will be Cloud towns and cities also created new professionals Air pollution is a difficult process to manage scarce resources. Problems relating to human health. Congestion and traffic jams are: The deteriorated infrastructure and adequate instruments and Old of the most important technical and Physical problems that are materially different set of problems than technical, Physical, material and organizational population such problems arising from various stakeholders is very much dependent on each other for the purposes of Their values ​​together to compete to seek social and political problems This seems to be more complex urban problems. Ensure favorable conditions in the context of a rapidly growing urban population to understand the more the concept of smart leads. It is necessary to control conflicts many cities in the world to find smarter ways to manage them. The cities are described mainly with the tag smart city The way to achieve a stable and smart urban achieving urban life It was seen a dramatic increase in the frequency of use of the term smart city clear understanding of the concept is still at the forefront of education and the Kurds there Articles in this issue was mainly limited to systematically Start babes those related to the phenomenon of urbanization in the smart cities This paper aims to fill this gap by identifying the key processes involved and Research programs of the cities through investments to Smart offers them to study the total number of articles on a wide variety of disciplines Such as e-commerce. Information science, urban studies. And public administration Identify and assess the challenges and success factors influence the government initiative In order to reach our smart urban eight major components of Principles Smart cities and then to identify a coherent framework to guide Studies offer a smart city. (Shahbazi et al, 2013)

Redefining the smart city

Much of the literature on smart cities, Or on particular types of ICT (such as electronic services or travel planners), specific opportunities and challenges (Such as extensive data), or on specific fields of application (Such as smart transportation planning or scheduling Smart land use) stresses. Still, Examples of definitions can be found in smart. The definition Giffinger et al (2007) the word smart, Looking to the future-oriented manner that the future development of the smart city Issues such as awareness, flexibility, mobility, Self and includes strategic behavior.  Toppeta (2010) has emphasized the development and livability. Washburn et al (2010) consider that the smart city Includes a set of computational intelligence technologies and On the day of solidarity and networking technologies implies IT systems, a detailed knowledge of the real world advanced analytical calculations and operations provides that Optimize business processes makes the assumption comprehensiveness and breadth of perception of a smart city can be stated that Large organic systems, many subsystems and components are connected together. In a study by Harrison et al. (2010) Smart city, urban, useful, valuable and smart in all dimensions where with the use of tools and data integration, in the real world makes life meaningful. Smart word entry analytical process. Modeling, optimization and information refers to the process of smart building due to become operational decisions. In contrast to the above definition, Natural Resources Defense Council of Europe (2009), smarter word Receive urban, more efficient, more stable and more rational and more popular Defines. Dirks and Keeling (2009) defined a Smart City Organic compound that is known to the system the relationship between the central city of Smart Systems Smart system for attention In other words, no system alone does not mean System in a smart network together and find meaning. Kanter & Litow (2009) recognizes that smarter urban Organic is a continuous system and network. While the system is mainly in the industrial cities Skeleton not suitable for industrial-smart cities Like organisms that neural systems Evolve and cause them to be smarter performance and The most effective combination of smart  cities Digital Communication Networks, Comprehensive artificial intelligence (brain), detector, and Tags (organs detector or sensor) and  Software (ability perceptual awareness).

In other examples to make it clear that this concept, many researchers to study the regional knowledge center Vienna University of Technology was done, refer, where the concept city smart action in six areas or species considered (Hӧjer & Wangel, 2015):

·         Smart Economy

·         Smart Move

·         Smart Environment

·         Smart people

·         Smart Living

·         Smart governance

Smart City is an urban infrastructure, information and communication technology as a versatile, Reliable, flexible, accessible, secure and flexible, and have promoted thus elevate the quality of life of citizens, economic growth significantly (E.g. more and better jobs and higher living standards for its citizens) The realization of the health of citizens (including medical care, welfare, education and physical security) Improved stable (responding to the needs of tomorrow's needs today without damage) and Services based on physical infrastructure (such as transportation, water, public services (energy), Radio communications, and manufacturing sectors) have been developed, the prevention and Management of natural and man-made disasters (including the ability to predict the impact of climate change), Strengthened and moderation in government and policy enforcement mechanisms and Participatory processes are realized.

Obstacles hampering the creation of Smart cities

Factors inhibiting factors which lack access Realization of smart and always will be in cities as diverse as they are challenging. Immaturity or poor standards contributed to the creation of smart and Include lack of access to technology, lack of funds Due to the high administrative costs, lack of support for Management processes, lack of IT subsystem and communication, lack of coordination among the elements of design, implementation and Different sectors (lack of joint programs) and Lack of awareness of citizens and On the other hand, policy decisions made and fragile, Lack of public participation, and cross-hasty decision Neglect of stakeholders and interest are included (lee, 2012).

Smart urban planning challenges

Smart cities, a concept is developed. In the previous section, it was proposed definition the main inhibiting factors were examined. In this section, five challenges that need to be considered for planning the idea of Smart cities is offered.


Table 1: challenges planning Smart cities



Strategic Assessment

When you define a smart, sustainable cities, clearly, the assessments in relation to the concept is needed. Methods and techniques must be developed and to be applied. Approach is required that it can be to identify which solution is required to be used, and vision-system applied for evaluating the effects of proposed solutions. Otherwise, “Smart, sustainable cities" accepts the risk that As a term and content remain valid. Development of assessment methods, it is necessary to remember that In practice, the evaluation indicators employed In assessing the most important features of a smart, sustainable city Defines. Also, as notedIt is essential to bear in mind that the different objectives Conflicting interests, how to prioritize them. It is possible incompatibilities between dimensions of sustainability (E.g. inconsistency between biofuel and food production) or within (e.g. inconsistency between biofuels and biodiversity).

Reducing measures

Historically, the development of infrastructure and investment, Us to the substantial progress in the field of welfare and Wealth has led. Through the deployment of systems To manage transportation, power, water and wastewater, Has improved the lives of billions of people. As part of it, Infrastructure to develop efficient systems Have made it possible to trade and business types.  Infrastructure development, from different aspects, The backbone of modern society. However, the infrastructure, the destruction of ecosystems and Exploitation of natural resources (to the extent that the same life Threaten modern society) is also possible.  ICT as well as other infrastructure, somewhat similarly Operates today and maintenance of ICT in Community development, and plays an increasingly important role Have the potential to support a sustainable community Of resources is effective. However, Can modern society to become more efficient machine that On the ground, the excessive exploitation.An example of the use of ICT to increase Traffic flow in the city.  If steps are taken to make the journey easier, Traffic associated with negative environmental impacts of their Will increase. The development of traffic to Be seen alongside other measures. Similarly, Likely countermeasures will be required The potential sustainability of ICT to find other examples. Cities must simultaneously reducing measures Technology to improve productivity by encouraging operate, And the need to carefully consider how ICT can shape society.

Top-down and bottom-up

Products, services and systems, real smart, sustainable cities, Such offers may be large-scale, From major companies such as Cisco, Ericsson, Siemens IBM or their source. One of the potential benefits of such solutions, top to bottom, the Such giant corporations, financial ability to Full deployment assessments that have been described, And can be used as a real tool suppliers and Municipal service managers need to act. However, there is a risk that the power of giant corporations, empower them so smart, sustainable city development Partly triggered the creation of monopolies and Destroy creativity. Bottom-up approach can By small communities and other local communities or Small-scale initiatives represent Many cities, The creative potential through people's participation in the formulation and Solve problems are expected. One of the weaknesses of this approach, The solution is to transfer to the next level can be Is very difficult, so we are heading towards the solutions of small-scale pieces have in fact, Have the ability to make a big change. Another weakness of this approach,The identification and assessment of actual results can  Is very difficult. It may be that Supports multiple initiatives, the chances for the above Will increase. That may be true, But it is also likely that other cases of inappropriate sustainability perspective.


As mentioned earlier, the challenges, Initiatives emanating from massive investments can Very effective. Performance may be ways to Implementing appropriate solutions.  However, current knowledge of ICT companies Much higher than that in urban governance. The municipal government, being able to identify their needs adequately, Or suggestions they receive their correct value. This can take us to the wrong investment decisions, or lead to inappropriate decisions.  Possibly increasing urban management competence with regard to ICT solutions for smart, sustainable cities, City managers and ICT companies will be of interest. The need for smart cities by stakeholders in Europe Union, The guidelines for sustainable cities and Has been developed to attract the public eye, was diagnosed.


Sustainable Smart city is not only the needs of internal communication toolsBut the organizations in which actors should be revised The city also needs to be involved in planning and governance. In addition to the Types of ICT in the form of coordinated action, you must configure the role of coordinator. Another important point from the perspective of sustainability and the need to identify strategic and above Assess the impact of ICT investment. Lee et al., "A specialized group of smart With a variety of roles and skills, to promote the development of smart city By other public agencies, is also diagnosed "offer. By focusing on smart, sustainable cities, such as the group's mission is to promote smart, sustainable city development

Relinquished. In time, such a figure would be required competence To evaluate the proposals offered by ICT companies, as well as moderating role Top-down and bottom-up approaches, develop.

Source: Hӧjer & Wangel, 2015

Challenges of building Smart cities

Hollands (2008: 315) in his comments Smart cities The definition of " Wired cities" defines Although this cannot be the only criterion for determining that: Leading Smart cities need to be with people and On the other hand, the equation of human capital to start their own business Rather than blindly believe that information technology (IT) alone can Transform and improve cities.

Critical factor in the success of any society, company or traded risky, People and how they interact with each other. This is because For Avlandz most important thing is not about information technology capacity Smart cities are created for this type of communication, but also the ability to participate in social development, Environmental and cultural. Namely to act as smart  communication so that The use of technologies which enable cities to train and empower people Thus making it possible for them to be able to provide the community In discussions about the environment that are related not only to live but to participate. It should be emphasized that this in turn is possible only when the process of socialization within the community (ibid. 316):

Real change in the balance of power between the use of information technology by businesses, Governments, communities and people who live in cities, and they also seek to balance economic growth with stability. ... In short, Smart city "real" benefits of information technology Democratic debate about the kind of city that wants to be and type of people who wants to improve their lives.

Avlandz (2008: 316) suggests that to achieve this important they are really Smart cities have higher risk to be undertaken by technology, Power transfer, the following inequalities afford to lose and redefine the meaning of being Smart If you want to preserve it as a noble. (Quoted from: deakin, 2013)

In this study, in contrast to previous papers on a broad set of principles and Information technology programs such issues as the most important success factors or major challenges discussed, so management issues and Organization in a broad context for the success of e-government and smart information technology projects examined. For example, Garcia and emission Pardo list of success factors and challenges that were successfully trade Governments have been obtained by the use of ICT this paper provides definitions to better serve the rich. Perceptual at the same time offers a different set of factors to understand the principles and applications of smart . These factors together provide the framework for smart cities to study the factors determining the success of the program and principles used in smart  eight branches of these factors are:

First challenge: Smart city infrastructure

Dozens of service which has been created Dedicated to providing intelligence capabilities. In the city are smart , yet lack of standards and Or infrastructure projects that we can as the de facto standard in the specification and we are developing their services. One of the major efforts in the field of smart urban planning, Smart Santander project, which is where One of the biggest test of the origin of Santander is located. (Spain). This project as an urban-scale test can be considered that Research in the field of Smart City provides and to identify key technologies, services and Social and economic factors that are involved in the smart city's ecosystem.

One of the main issues in Smart problem "islands of information" when creating the service and expand services as standalone applications. Examples of this type of service, traffic management, human dynamics, bike paths, Measurement of cell population and so on. Requena, 2014

The availability and quality of ICT infrastructure is critical in smart cities the smart grid is in fact an essential role in building smart cities. ICT infrastructure including wireless infrastructure, fiber channels, WiFi networks, Centers, kiosks, wireless and service-oriented information systems. (Anthopoulos, 2010) Run a major role in the development of ICT infrastructure and smart. Also it depends on the availability and performance of the management and organization is done also refer to the limits of our technology and e-government Creative use of ICT for smart cities like e-government is a creative act. Abraham and Aran number of factors that are relevant to introduce ICT components. Table 6 presents a set of challenges that IT has accumulated in 3 dimensions shows (Infrastructure, IT, security, privacy and operational costs) Ebrahim and Irani, 2005


IT infrastructure 

Security and Privacy

Operating costs


Lack of integrity in the public system

Due to the built-in system integration capabilities are limited

Lack of knowledge about interoperability

Availability and compatibility with the system software and applications

Threat from hackers and intruders.

Within the threat of viruses and malware Crowe

Privacy of personal information

High cost of application security solutions


High cost of IT and consulting professionals

High cost of IT

Installation and running costs and maintenance information

Cost of Education

Ebrahim and Irani, 2005


Second challenge: Financial and Funding

Smart cities seeking to improve environmental quality and Of life, expensive communications infrastructure and have information, new technologies which are used in and they require a lot of funds, many of these costs will come running after But the challenge is that the costs of providing and Are the costs of providing the public with no help?

Way to becoming a Smart city requires continuous innovation and investment, the range of sectors such as infrastructure investment alone. Through public investment budget is not. Although the use of investment objectives will be achieved in the public interest and a lack of success in the market But it would be a risky investment, private sector investment is needed and More investment organizations. (Reviglio et al, 2013)

Examples of civic organizations and funding model used for smart applications

City of all the funds needed to provide Smart applications.

The municipal budget started working with technology suppliers or part of the funds to pay.

The cost of implementing smart city’s own, but other energy resources (such as senior government officials) provides.

The municipal budget does not provide the physical capital and labor to the organization and / or the supplier's technology.

COR, Rio de Janeiro

EDB Singapore, Budget Living lab projects

MONUM Boston;

SF Park San Francisco

AIM Amsterdam

IDA Singapore.

deakin, 2014


Smart design is a major factor in the city's economy and each city with a high degree of competitive economy, it seems that Feature of a smart city and it is also one of the key indicators to measure Competition growing cities in the capacity as an economic engine. Jerifitger and colleagues have the structure has 6 main components of the smart city (Economy, smart, smart people, smart government, Smart mobility, smart environment and smart living). (Giffinger et al, 2007) defines the operation of Smart economic factors, including general economic competition As innovation, entrepreneurship, trademarks, Productivity and labor market flexibility and integration Studies in many national and international markets by IBM (Institute for Business Value) reported that Trade as the main system defines smart  cities And include utilities, civil system, Business systems, transportation systems, Communications systems, water systems and energy systems. System capacity is smart business Of ICT and new processes and business intelligence the smart technology that is used by companies. Smart cities are designed in such a way that Capacity to develop information technology and Agenda for change with industrial action and Provide business development. Environment for Economic development is a central issue in smart (IBM, 2013). Economic results of the City Smart trade, employment, workforce development and Improvements in production.

Third challenge: the government and its relationship with Smart city

New challenges in the knowledge-based economy relies on changes Technological innovations are emerging. Two sets of forces and tendencies toward smart  communities Government increase the importance of strengthening the competitiveness city and new governance capabilities that are possible by ICT. However, to date only a few studies exist. Relations between the government and city looked Smart.

There are a vast number of studies worldwide Smart communities affected by recent thinking on their own. In 1994 Saksnyan key determinants of competitiveness described local and Silicon Valley's success is attributed to the establishment of networked systems highly competitive and simultaneously work on formal methods and informally with each other and with local institutions such as universities and government agencies. Since then it has been argued that the communication system provides a network of government agencies, Private and academic learning and collective intelligence of competitive advantage for local places. So it is said that the success of local places greatly influenced by the effectiveness of the collection and use all the knowledge and Technology community through sustainable transfer of knowledge - intensive relations, Network of individuals, companies and institutions that are connected to form a set. (Deakin, 2014 quoted Hourani and Wells, 2005)

At the beginning of the twentieth century challenges facing municipal governments in the countries of Europe Union Information and communication technology (ICT) to develop competitive cities in the world becoming more complex and more connected to one another. However, this requires not only technological innovation, but also reform and Institutional policy requires that citizens be involved in the democratic activities to improve the competitive advantage of urban and regional development. E-governance is generally in the form of rules, processes and Behavioral known that the exercise of power at various levels, particularly related to freedom, Participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence (the paradigm of "good governance") affect, Change has emerged as an important driving (Europe Commission, 2007). Europe Union's strategic priorities simultaneous development of "sustainability" and "competitiveness" strengthened and focused on enhancing the durability of the potential and capacity of local and global markets highly competitive locations (Europe Commission, 2002).

In response to the increasing pressures of globalization and ICT, Urban communities have begun to sketch Smart cities. The global-local context, the Smart city competitiveness, innovation requires collaboration and Students learn as well. Smart cities can be considered as a template How e-governance that provides the opportunity for local systems Global forces and to control their results to create new opportunities for social, political and economic use. (Deakin, 2014)

Table: Challenges and Strategies for the management and organization



Project size

Attitudes and behavior of urban management

Urban users and service provider diversity of citizenship

The lack of homogeneity of organizational goals and projects

Multiple and conflicting objectives

Resistance to Change

Contradictions and conflicts

Skills and expertise of the project team

Sophisticated management of IT (technical and social skills)

Clear objectives and rationale

Identification of relevant stakeholders

Intervention planning applications

Significant components of milestones and deliverables

Good communication

Development of business processes prior


Budgeting and creative enough

List of new and desirable

Gil-Garcia and Pardo, 2015

Fourth challenge: learning and teaching skills

Smart cities on technology and clever use of urban space and the location of the form, with its technology day by day and tries to discover and using their talents and creativity. The teaching and learning of citizens and How to achieve it, is a major challenge. The following review of the Intel practice largely this position is reflected. This review of cases Begins like the capacity created by the practice integrated model for the joint design of E-Government services and electronic technology that Electronics City is the underlying platform, a platform that as a solution to the learning needs of a virtual organization and knowledge transfer requirements are developed. It then Search for Solutions Based on Smart city Gradual and phased logic with which to deal with learning needs and challenges created by Knowledge transfer requirements of virtual organizations exist have been adopted. From this point on the platform E-learning management system Digital library for this purpose have been expressed.  After doing this, according to the characteristics of creative this platform, management systems and digital libraries have been paid and Features are consistent semantics of learning, provides a wealth of knowledge and will be reviewed. It pays to review it here How learning, knowledge management and digital library services All are available as e-government services Electronics City, combined with platform are available over the internet. (Deakin, 2014)


Fifth challenge: urban design in Smart cities

In the design of smart cities and achieve Quality of urban design, has several commercial companies like IBM, Zimens etc., operate, but the smart urban space is still unclear. The challenge is how smart cities Administrative levels and environmental quality are created? How does the city need to be smarter? Some of Beyond General principles of Resilient Urban Cells, New Mobility Systems – Electric, Resilient Energy Systems, Living Space on Demand, Urban Food Production, Responsive Technologies, Trust Networks, data is presented for the design of smart  cities (dadkhah & shabazi, 2015)

Sixth challenge: to predict possible Challenges of and identify solutions in cooperation

The study evaluated the cities, cities that work the way they Must challenges may arise from this partnership arose from  For example, attempts to predict the technological gap of "bottom up" All that was inappropriate for the collective thoughts of hackathon  The city has been unresponsive to community input. The involvement of the skeletal framework should Understand and engage in close cooperation and clear communication between partners simplify processes and applications. The common objectives clearly defined and Resolve gaps such as gaps in the level of confidence (seen in Singapore) Different running styles (seen in Boston that some sectors More than technology oriented and more focused on one) and Irrecoverable problems and data system (seen in Rio de Janeiro) In many of these examples, the human element as a critical factor in Maintain close cooperation and Rfh the gaps listed. While the dimensions of the crisis should be a key element of the framework partnership. (Ching, 2013)

Seventh challenge: the challenge of technology

A smart addition to the cases stipulated in Based on a set of smart computing technologies that the most important underlying components and services used. The new generation of smart computing hardware and software online male. And network technologies implies that Equipped with knowledge of information technology systems The real world of advanced computational process To help people more smart  decisions About choices and take actions that business processes It is desirable to optimize the commercial balance sheet. (Washburn e al, 2010) ICT important driving smart city the combination of CT with developmental urban landscape a lot of changes and social opportunities Offers they can manage despite the advantage of the development and performance of listed Of ICT in cities begin to increase and Digital to promote differentiation. (Odendaal, 2003) The city managers must be based on the performance of CT Availability of resources. The capacity and consent of society and it also varies according to culture and traditions into account certain factors are some challenges with the Technologies in small towns Table by Ebrahim and Irani (2005) has been proposed.

Several of the projects are the smart city projects with the aim of enhancing the quality of life and better services for citizens are done. So many stakeholders involved in the project in a number of cities in need of Better governance for the management and implementation of these projects rule defines: In fact, the rule of law, administrative law and judicial decisions that impose a series of activities, prescribed and implemented. At the same activities and production Distribution of public goods and services. The particular compound also includes processes that With regard to rules and standards to achieve the exchange of information. The study found that e-government is a key project challenges Statements concerning one of the major factors of progress or failure of the project. 4 main shareholder relations can be seen: Ability to establish cooperation between shareholders, management support, Create a unified structure and work under different jurisdictions. In some cities the advent of information and communication technology (ICT) to create a better government. The state in which the ICT is used Smart as a rule widely known that the set of Technology, people, policies, resources, and social norms and show us It also identifies the factors and information to support the activities of city government interact Foster said the main part of city is a smart smart  indeed. (Chourabi et al, 2012) Therefore, the major challenge for the design of smart Count. According to Muyj the management of government is necessary. Lemma also focuses on the hero who is working with all stakeholders and this factor recognizes as the main factor in a good state. Smart government plays an important role in the smart city. Smart government based on citizen participation and public-private partnerships can be built. According to Johnson and Hansen believes in smart government needs to implement a Transparent and accountable infrastructure have the infrastructure to collaborate, share information, Integration and communication services can help. Table 4. Shows Factors related government briefly. (Shahbazi et al, 2013)



IT curriculum

Failure to implement and integrate the skills and culture

IT skills

Lack of cross-sectorial cooperation

Lack of coordination among the group

Blurred vision IT management


Cultural issues




Source: Ebrahimi and Irani, 2005



The future challenges call for new ways of thinking, innovation, change, getting things done is to organize them. Not only strategies, Ideas and new ways of meeting the challenges of society, But also creatively active participation of a relationship crucial to the realization of A conversion of the show. This is not about who has the drive, But about finding a driver is mutual. A city of the future must A smart city social community that is able to convert a range of collaborative initiative where it occurs. A city that combines the best of both world. In a sense, a city-based society, which values ​​are active citizens and people and includes initiatives from the community and the city embraces smart and extent of future possibilities from technology related initiatives, including open data, Sites with a focus on innovation and technology.

Smart, sustainable cities, is a cumulative sense. In this paper we have shown that each of the main components of the concept -smart, stable and cities- to their size and in their place are important. Cities without the use of smart technology (ICT) for sustainable built, Smart Technology and Sustainable Development in cities that communication cannot be used. Sustainable technologies for sustainable development also can Used in cases of non-urban areas. Only when all three aspects are interwoven, when smart technologies (ICT) are used to make cities more sustainable, can smart, sustainable cities (SSC).

In fact, the concept of sustainable cities is Smart for all players and all perspectives. For example, from a sustainability perspective, it can be argued that a town, the use of ICT and what is not, is very important, and it is important to be a town. Thus, the concept of sustainable city will be enough. These views are correct, but from a broader perspective, the concept of Smart, sustainable cities precisely because of the above points will be needed.

Related to the concept of sustainable cities and towns are smart , increase awareness the potential use of ICT to promote urban sustainability among planners, IT companies and policymakers are. The concept of smart, sustainable cities can be described as a framework or a shared vision for new partnerships, create new business models and new ways to serve urban development. This, in turn, need to avoid entrapment of the technological challenges Smart, sustainable urban development, and in turn, highlights the use of an active approach for applications actor networks, government and politics.

Also, the definition of Smart, sustainable cities, because of the ongoing competition for the interpretation of this concept is important. It has positive connotations, and so his association with this concept, it seems useful. By focusing on the definition, development of ICT-based sustainability concerns can be a competitive advantage. With emphasis on both Smart and sustainable development of ICT, rather than pure technical development (Where the "solution" of new solutions to the problems facing not necessarily) more will be achieved through stability problems.

In this paper, we define the following definition for smart, sustainable cities:

A smart city, urban

• The needs of its current residents sees

• Without the ability of future generations to meet their own needs or for other people to affect, and so, from local or global environmental limits are not violated, and

• The relationship between top-down and bottom-up initiatives, more study is needed;

• Strategies to strengthen the competitiveness of urban governance is needed; and

• Development of sustainable models for smart narrative verdict must be considered.

• Where it is supported by ICT. However, even if such a definition of the actors in the private sector and Gained wide public acceptance, many challenges remain in the field of application of this concept:

• Assessment methods should be developed and used to ensure that cities are known as smart, sustainable cities, truly sustainable;

• Possibly reducing measures for the implementation of policies for sustainable cities Smart is required. Otherwise, the return effects (response), will neutralize the positive effects;

[ یکشنبه 24 بهمن‌ماه سال 1395 ] [ 09:05 ب.ظ ] [ کاره ] [ نظرات (0) ]

Cited: Shahbazi, Meisam, et al. "Collaborative planning as a way toward agreement." Advances in Environmental Biology, 2014, p. 191+. Academic OneFile, Accessed 12 Feb. 2017.

 Collaborative Planning as a Way toward Agreement


Meisam Shahbazi (corresponding author)

Ph.D. student in urban planning, Isfahan University of Arts, Isfahan, Iran

Mohsen Dadkhah

MSc. student in Urban Design, Isfahan University of Arts, Isfahan, Iran

Farzaneh Pirani

MSc. student in Urban planning, Isfahan University of Arts, Isfahan, Iran

Ayoub Iranshahi

MSc. student in Urban Design, Isfahan University of Arts, Isfahan, Iran

Mohammad Rezapour Aghdam

BSc in urbanism, Isfahan University of Arts, Isfahan, Iran




Along with rapid growth of the cities and urban problems and difficulties, citizens and the realities of the modern life are forgotten more than before are. As the most effective and affected urban players, people have been ignore in lots of communities while interventions in the cities should be carried out based on people’s needs. The function of people, groups, and institutes should be defined in line with public interest and appropriate strategies be devised. Collaborative planning approach has taken into account some concepts such as participation, interaction, and agreement and being all-inclusive as the effective dimensions and elements in planning process. The present study attempts to develop a framework for collaborative planning. Accordingly, it has been dealt with in four sections including history and origin of the collaborative planning, its definitions, the concept of understanding and the ways to achieve it, and its criticisms. Finally, preparing an appropriate context for the citizens’ presence within the planning, it could be said that collaborative planning would lead to a better comprehension of the more extended dimensions of urban problems and would propose appropriate options regarding a better execution of the plans.


Keywords: collaborative planning, providing context for agreement, democracy, citizen, communicative action.


download full article in my Academia (please click)


From 1950 to 1960, simultaneous with the movement of the middle class toward suburbs and consequently emptiness of the downtowns from people, an appropriate opportunity was provided for immigration of the poor population to these areas. Urban renewal was raised as the prevailing program of the government during this decade; despite of this substitution, these areas changed to high-cost commercial and residential centers by which interests of a particular group were guaranteed. Urban renewal and mere attention to structure led to ignorance of social and cultural dimensions in the process of planning (Sokol, 2012). Criticism of the authoritative approaches, top to bottom, revealed the public participation more than before. Therefore, social aspects were taken into account since the second half of 20 century. Many critics were theorizing about the effects of public on development of the plans. After emergence of the participatory processes people did not have a significant role in decision-making process, and beginning of the supportive and justice plans in line with participation of the deprived groups and it has applied instrumental rationality and in practice, participation was occurred mostly in a form of representative participation. In fact, no effective participations were revealed from people and participation was mostly imposed. Later on, participation was more developed and it was improved in the underlying levels of plans’ developments as well as the level of updating the plans. For instance, the State of Florida provided conditions for spreading the alternatives and suggestions, opportunities for written viewpoints, holding public meetings, public services, and responding the people’s viewpoints. Noticing the public opinions is one form of public participations which appears to be more appropriate than forum of political parties and a manifestation of sharing information ( Shakeri, 2011 , Chakrabort, 2012 , Vacik & etl, 2014,  ).Among the modern approaches regarding active and effective participation of the societies one can refer to Communicative Planning theory. For example, the state of Oregon instructed that every municipality is required to construct a consultative committee from public so that ideas, benefits, and requests of public could be reflected in plans and decisions. Although participation has increased public intervention, its effect on the results of the plans is less clear. Participation should be a component of analytic processes. This is where the change of attitude in scientific and technical methods toward experiential and practical knowledge is appeared. Therefore, the theory of instrumental rationality loses its validity and the theory of communicative rationality which leads to a sustainable participation of more people. Adopting the theory of communicative rationality, it seems that the collaborative planning approach is an effective step regarding the citizens’ function (Faehnele & Tirvainen, 2013; Rafiian & Maroofi, 2011; Eftekhari & Behzadnasab, 2004).


Significance of the Study 

Accepting the complexities of the current cities, even the comprehensive-rational plans applying developments such as technology, modern calculating models and usage of participatory methods of representation cannot resolve the increasing problems of the cities. Also, its final product was more than just definite and inflexible ways that are not capable to keep pace with rapid growth of cities and serious urban problems. 

Without considering effective participation of all of the stake holders of the society, comprehensive-rational planning has lost its efficiency. Decision-making process of this theory includes recognizing the problems, determining decision criterion in this regard, identifying the frameworks, evaluating and finally negotiating. Not only negotiation has been place in the last stage, but also it would practically be given up. Within such a kind of condition, collaboration will be fallen down and truthful social relationships will be decreased. In fact, as the largest stake holders, people would have a passive role in this process and in many cases they would be sacrificed by the disagreements between the parties’ representatives especially the political ones. It is here that there is a need to a new approach in the process of urban planning and decision-making so that the public, especially the deprived class could be participated in this process to meet the purpose of justice (Daneshpour, 2008; Eftekhari & Behzadnasab, 2004). During the last 20 years, critiques of the rational methods because of inefficiency in operation of alternatives, have led to new approaches about urban planning. These approaches have begun since 1980 with beginning of the social theories. Accordingly, with obsolescence of the centralized systems, social structures in planning system rise in importance. Consequently, the necessity of creating an efficient position for citizens’ presence in planning is appeared (Maroofi, 2001). It appears that the collaborative approach has the capacity to provide a process under which the stake holders, especially the public are not viewed as the secondary thought, but to be taken into account as an inseparable component of the decision-making process.


Purposes of the Study

Since 1980, planning theories have been directed toward more participation of the citizens and their position and importance have been considered. According to the importance of the public interaction and function in collaborative planning process, the following purposes are sought for:

v  Analyzing the role of social conditions in rise of collaborative methods

v  Analyzing the obstacles and problems in realization of desirable collaborative planning in practice

v  Analyzing the limitations in realization of mutual agreement in collaborative planning



The study has an analytical-descriptive approach and data collection was carried out through library research. Initially, the viewpoints of different scholars in respect of collaborative planning in various countries have been studied, after that, it was pointed out to evolution of theories of democracy to explicate the theoretical basis of the collaborative planning and finally, the obstacles on agreement are proposed and in order to improve and expand this planning, some criticisms have been mentioned.


Theoretical Foundation

Initially, it has been dealt with definitions of collaborative planning and then, its history and origin has been discussed.


Table 1. Concepts and definitions of collaborative planning.




The US

Collaborative planning is widely used in administrative, environmental, and neighboring plans. Collaborative planning which includes collaborative approaches for analyzing and managing the environment at the level of regional scale. Natural Resources Organization of Washington helped to discuss some problems with cooperation of organizations, local governments, the beneficiaries and society.  

Margerum, 2002: 2



Collaborative approaches in planning have emerged as approaches of management of water and rural lands. States of “South Wales” and “Quizland” embarked on managing the basins during late 80 and early 1990. In both states, governmental administrations, provider and commander groups i.e. those who make the committee members informed were selected. They include: governmental administrations, local governments, the beneficiary groups, and citizens.

. Margerum, 2002:3


The project of construction of the development center for children in the US.

School principal and staff were interested in participation. In the participation process, selection of architecture was in priority and the participants stated their aims and requests. And regarding design of the center, the teachers participated actively in group works by making replica.

Rafiian، M’aroofi، 1390: 117

Gadchok and Mill( 1996)

Supported the communicative and collaborative approach in planning that efficient planning should be based on the communicative road between public and planning institutes.

Margerum, 2002:1


It takes a society as a healthy civil society in which conflicts, encouragement to talk freely, challenging the government’s work and public political processes occur. Under these conditions, creativity, entrepreneurship, and learning will be ensued.  This states that we need to confront with various problems and to identify the policies as a method of strengthening the democratic civil society.



Mumford states that the ultimate goal of a city is increasing the conscious participation of people in historical and universal processes and this will be happened through emotional participation, rational relationship and technical skills. 

Dehghan،1388: 87

Bill Brahole et al.

They were effective in theories of planning. For them, involving different beneficiaries in the participatory processes is effective to achieve an effective agreement.

Dredge, 2006:9


He believes that foundation of a successful and effective planning is based on communicative methods and the prerequisite for providing a constructive relation is the fact that instrumental rationality be excluded as the only rational in planning and a wider range of reasons including technical-instrumental reason, ethical and emotional reason should be considered that are the same as emotional experience of people having from their environment.   

Eftekhari and Behzadnasab، 1383:8


Boher asserts that if structure of urban planning is changed to real open ones and all of the participants are committed to the collaborative participation principles and people’s attitude. They will be committed to individual and collective benefits and the result of their agreement will be led to creation of a strong social network.




Following development of local relationships, inclusive discussions are effective and this is beyond inclination toward certain groups. This style could develop the methods of practical perception and participatory discourse and it emphasizes on a collaborative public agreement. 

Maginn, 2007:3


In order to determine the position of collaborative planning, initially, the history of theories of democracy is mentioned followed by criticisms of 1980s influenced by Habermas’ theories about citizens’ role and collaborative planning approach.

History and Origin of Collaborative Planning

The comprehensive-rational theory was based on data collection and detailed analyzes to provide social development. Ground Lund believes that the idea of comprehensive-rational planning is based on the fact that governmental managers have the responsibility of defining public interests, dividing the responsibilities in local governments between the city councils who are responsible for policymaking and the executive managers who are responsible for execution (Mäntysalo&Bäcklund, 2010: 338). Accordingly, Bäcklund asserts that there is distinction between preliminary planning and decision-making. Therefore, it is regular to consider superiority of knowledge and opinions of planning along with citizens’ opinions (Mäntysalo&Bäcklund, 2010: 339).

In his book “City is not Tree”, Alexander states that the real cities have complex structures which include numerous relations and subscriptions while urban planning proposes very simple models in its plans. It was after these criticisms that since 1960s other alternatives of urban planning were appeared that in addition to physical aspects it was dealt with social and economic functions, too M’aroofi, 2009: 39).

“Cook” enumerates the most important problems of the comprehensive-rational planning as follows: firstly, authoritative centralism, according to which by various forms especially diluted forms of integrated participation, this problem has been covered up that is due to arbitrariness and bias of the decision-makers of this attitude. Secondly, physical determinism which will take the form of physical solutions even if the policies are based on social-economic studies (Daneshpoor, 2011: 172). There was no opportunity for the citizens to participate in planning, and because of inefficiency of government, it was emphasized on the citizens’ role. Hence, the citizens’ role has been taken into account as an element in this kind of planning.

From the viewpoint of planning theory, one of the main prominent critics of the comprehensive-rational planning is Lindbloom stating in his article in 1959 that the planners have to design their planning solutions based on knowledge. This was a part of the work and Lindbloom’s purpose was developing a realistic planning theory to be used as alternative of the comprehensive-rational planning. According to many decision-makers, participation ensures that there will be enough attention to the fundamental interests (Mäntysalo&Bäcklund, 2010: 339). Therefore, and one of the democratic theories, synergic model was proposed. Lindbloom’s synergic model opened a new path on the policies based on the interests. In the middle of 1970, the cities have moved toward modernization and industrialization. Immigration from rural areas to the urban ones led to economic crisis. In these conditions, there was less need to the large or long term scale plans and Lindbloom’s synergic theory was appropriate for these kinds of conditions. 

In fact, Lindbloom’s synergic model is a cumulative-democracy model and has put away the processes of negotiation, bargaining and reaching a compromise in political field reach a decision between the conflicts (Mäntysalo&Bäcklund, 2010: 340). In synergic planning, the division of the responsibilities is between the selected representatives and public managers and the beneficiary groups. Although the synergic planning and the comprehensive-rational planning are significantly different, they are similar in their democratic nature and both of them propose a cumulating model. 

Nevertheless, this synergistic theory was criticized by theorists of collaborative planning and those who developed their viewpoints in late 1980s and 1990s. “Sager” is one of the critics of synergistic theory. Settlements of disputes were created without any need to negotiation. For relationships and decision-making in planning, Lindbloom’s method is close to politics of pluralism that actors have not motivation to learn from each other and instead, they seek to legitimize their own knowledge. These criticisms imply a change in the concept of democracy.

We are living in a world with many complexities, fast changes and sharing power as well as a dependent world. Therefore, we come to this conclusion that the position of government authority for reaching democracy (a fair and efficient management in social affairs) should be lessened (Baptist, 2005: 4).

Theorists of collaborative planning stay away from the collective democracy model and have tendency toward conscious democracy and criticize both types of synergic and comprehensive-rational planning. In the conscious democracy model, the emphasis is on convincing and negotiating and a decision is legitimized when the all of the participants in that problem are involved equally throughout planning and decision-making processes. In this model, it is emphasized on focus on the process through various viewpoints for reaching mutual perception and agreement (Mäntysalo&Bäcklund, 2010: 34).

Encountering inabilities of the present institutes and also facing public problems, there is a need to change of attitude. Inspiring from postmodernism, phenomenology, critical theories, interpretive analyzes and seeking to understand various kinds of knowledge led to creation of convincing discourses. By going beyond the evaluation of the function of the processes, it was emphasized more on the cooperation of the group of actors. The scholars have also investigated that emergence of planning processes has led to creation of powerful relationship[s between the actors. Origin of the methods of collaborative planning refers to 1980s. To a large extent, the theory of collaborative or communicative planning has been taken from the theory of Haberms’ communicative action (Mäntysalo&Bäcklund, 2010: 341).  Based on this viewpoint, he has proposed communicative action instead of instrumental action based on which the communicative action is a negotiation in an environment without presence of any power of imposition and the actors reach an agreement through negotiation that they come to a correct perception of the problems with sharing their knowledge. Ficher and Foster were the firs ones who used the communicative concept in planning and policy and for them, values such as negotiation, debate, and cooperation were solutions of solving the complex problems in planning (Drdge, 2006: 8). 

Collaborative approaches have been used in other fields (including military, international relations, designing and developing, industrial and psychological products) for a long time. Many of the resources which used debate solutions have their origins in laboring management in the US and society’s debates in 1960s being inclined toward intermediary techniques. “Drak” states that the first application of these techniques in the US was used by “Glard” and “John” in environmental planning to construct the dam of Snoqualmie River by debate technique (Baptist, 2005: 4). Another obvious example is debating approach of “foundation” which expanded the discussions of laboring management to involve the communities and neighborhoods. Despite of overt conflicts, these techniques were developed soon and applied many contexts.

In 1990s, many planning researchers attempted to identify the existed gap between theory and practice. Using the communicative planning techniques, an environment was created for negotiation between the main actors in planning process. Therefore, the main foundation of the collaborative planning theory could be considered from 1990s onwards.

The researchers in collaborative planning used some ideas including negotiating theory, network analysis, collective action, consultative democracy, Gyds’s structural theory, Habermas’ communicative action, and Foucault’s notion of discourse.

The recent methods of participatory planning are a forward movement in relation to the previous planning purposes and are correspondent to the appropriate methods of planning. In fact, these methods are complements of the previous methods. By the end of the traditional planning, we can observe implications of the international planning theories (Bäcklund and Mäntysalo, 2009). Later, we will point to these theories especially from the viewpoint of citizens’ function.

Comprehensive approach of planning is efficient for the urban problems which have physical dimension and are failed to deal with social-economic problems. Therefore, this plan has been on the basis of a stable, serious, and strict administrative structure and has not paid attention to democracy principles and people participation. Accordingly, in the theory of comprehensive-rational planning, citizens are considered to be a subject from public administration. With complexity of the urban issues in the developed countries during late 1960s, some changes occurred in general attitudes and viewpoints of planning regarding consideration of democratic theories among which we can refer to the synergistic approach. In this approach, the participatory discussions came into the decision-making process but people still did not have active functions in decisions. The specific groups of beneficiaries such as the private section were contributed in participations. Finally, it could be said that in synergistic approach, citizens function as structured participants in planning. As it was mentioned before, serious discussions about effective participation of the public was proposed since 1980. In fact, avoiding individualistic behaviors in 1980s, the collaborative and communicative planning moved toward collective behaviors in 1990s. Like a democratic activity which intends to expand social justice, communicative planning aims at reaching a collective agreement. Therefore, the collaborative planning is reaching an agreement among the citizens equally. In the following figures, the citizens’ roles have been sketched throughout history.

Figure 1: paradigm shift of planning theories toward participatory and relationship change in citizens’ role (source: Mäntysalo & Bäcklund, 2010.344).

Figure 2: paradigm shift of theory and methods of planning (situation of some cities are shown as some examples)


Collaborative Planning

Collaborative planning has been widely accepted by scholars of planning. “Jones” and “Almendiger” believe that this planning is a developing method so that Ines talks about “paradigm emergence”. And this planning has not been proposed by one person but it seems to be the developed form of the previous discussions during late 20s. Nevertheless, some people who had roles in its development include American researchers such as Ines, Booher, Fastor, Freedman, Fischer, Hatch. And other European researchers such as Albert, Pesti Hill, Swingdo, Hajar, Davodi, Hoolart and the most prominent one is PetsiHili. For “Almendiger” and “Jones” the collaborative planning is known as a planning moving toward negotiation and discussion and for some others, it is known as a combination of planning in form of negotiation, conscious planning (Foster), Neoliberalism Thoughts (Harper and Stain), critical theory (Foster), Foucauldian Views and planning in Action (Hatch) (Gaffikin,Brand,2007:4).

For “Gadvin”, collaborative planning is usage of the society’s feeling to achieve collective action in the process of urban solving-problem. Connecting the knowledge with societies’ values, this planning attempts to percept the modern dimensions of urban planning problems (Hedayatifard, 2012: 3).

The collaborative planning is an approach for prevalent negotiations which functions with the aim of forming the social spaces (Brand&Gaffikin, 2007:3). We need to involve various beneficiaries in decision-making processes because negotiating cooperation among the beneficiaries happens with different interests and each one has common backgrounds for practice. The beneficiaries are defined as the people with certain interests and having common problems. The beneficiaries often include private citizens, governmental institutes, social service organization, student groups in schools and universities, the environment maintenance groups, industry and commerce (Hedayatifard, 2012: 5). And unlike the old views in which participation was between the central government  and investors, this approach attempts to provide creative environments for economic changes and the focus is on public areas and the purpose is making decisions in a participatory form (Brand&Gaffikin,2007:3). Hili also states that the background of collaborative planning is creation of location or capacity. In most of the cases, it is the government being able to create this space in that all of the involved institutes in the city which have roles in creation of various problems, also have cooperation to solve the problems of the city and problem-solving is not the duty of certain people with proposed solutions only by them (Dehghan, 2010: 90).

“Gray” (1989) asserted that at first, cooperation methods include sharing the capitals, participation of public and private sections, holding public meetings and other meetings that the beneficiaries attempt to identify the problems while consider their own interests. Mediation in disputes is a necessary element in the collaborative process. He believes that even when the collaboration for developing a common perspective is initiated, the beneficiaries are worried regarding their own interests. For this, he indicated that the effective participatory processes could decrease hostile relations and unequal interests among the beneficiaries (Goldstein, 2010: 3). When the political community creates actors with the same worldview and make committed with common purposes collaborative collective planning can reach to common purposes in negotiation process (Dredg, 2006: 9).

These kinds of actions and interactions do not reject the presence of competitive behaviors and usually, a kind of learning happens in the collaborating process. The participants develop new methods and creative solutions which were not existed in the previous participations. Therefore, collaborative planning processes often demand organizational spontaneous processes and cooperating structures. These kinds of structures are emerged in response to inability of hierarchical system of bureaucracy to solve the complex problems of planning and where the actions happen, the power and authority are distributed (Baptista,2005:4). Godvin emphasizes that there is no place for hierarchy in any cooperation (Baptista,2005:7).

There are both horizontal and vertical relations in collaborative planning. For instance, the governmental administrations which are responsible for managing water are made of committees including several governmental administrations, local governments, and NGOs. Although the governmental main administrations are final responsible for solving the problems, the authority of making decisions is given to the mentioned committees to make decisions and solve the problems (Baptista,2005:5).

As the most important content of this approach, the concept of relationship has the following effects:

1.      Makes participation and negotiation meaningful and applicable

2.      To participates all beneficiary and related groups to the development plan in planning.

3.      Strengthens the social networks and increases comprehension and knowledge of the groups in relation to each other and also increases the coefficient of responsibility and flexibility in the planning (Behzadnasab, 2010: 11).

Knowledge is necessary for efficiency of planning and also for legitimizing the professions. There is a significant difference between the previous planning with the collaborative ones which is the reality of social structure. While collaborative planners carry out analyses, provide plans, or develop policies, instead of using valid scientific data, they use other forms of knowledge. The planners use this form of knowledge (learning in practice or consultative methods) as information resources and this form includes technical data, the narrations stated by people (mythology, signs, etc.) practical insight and judgment, personal experience (the knowledge being achieved throughout life or doing certain activities).

According to logic of collaborative planning, the planners receive lots of information by listening to the participators’ narrations and also they can recognize what things are important for them. Another aspect which refers to collaborative planning is the relation between knowledge and practice. Like narration method, the frameworks are another method of knowledge in practice. The frameworks are tools of identifying the problems and solving them. In collaborative planning, both methods of frameworks and narrations are used that are called discourse by the collaborative planning researchers.

Discourse is the basis of our interaction and relationship with others in practice. Unlike instrumental rationality, collaborative planning is taken into account as an acquiring knowledge which is created continuously. Knowledge and interaction are not two separate categories and they build each other through practice. Accordingly, practical judgment and action are two important concepts which are kept in mind in collaborative planning. The relation between these two subjects is taken from the American pragmatist “Dewey”. He states that valid knowledge is the result of practice and experience. Practical interaction with people makes us to understand the participants’ discourses about their narrations, values, and worldview and based on practical judgment we classify conflicts and disagreements. Practical judgment is something more than rational reasons and technical skills(Baptista,2005:7).


Figure 3: key dimensions of collaborative planning

Source: Allmendiger& Jones, 2002:26

The process of collaborative planning could be summarized in the following three phrases:

1.      Presence of a problem between the beneficiaries leads to holding a meeting.

2.      In order to reach an agreement, the beneficiary groups deal with setting goals and interactive directions.

3.      Finally, the beneficiaries come to a conclusion through individual and common actions and execute it (Margerum,2002:3).

In this regard, Behzadnasab has proposed the following process for rural planning with a communicative approach.


Figure 4: urban planning with communicative approach








Defining the subject

Recognizing the basis and expertise explication

determining the main actors and areas of intervention

institutionalization for planning

Choosing the massage and communicative tool

Communicative education and facilitation of the planning

Social analysis and decision-making

Setting priorities

Execution of decisions

Control, evaluation, effects and feedback













Source: Behzadnasab, 2010: 17

Finally, many researchers such as Innes, Hili, Saskin, and Lamber emphasized that the solutions and perspective should be approved by consensus and agreement. Some collaborative programs are organized and executed by beneficiaries. Nevertheless, when the beneficiaries of the public and private sections aims at changing the rules, regulations, plans and policies, their collaboration depends on two types of skills to reach agreement. One of these skills is created by impartial facilitator i.e. the one who deals with identifying the beneficiaries or manages instructions, discussions, and negotiations and the second one is created by experts who are capable to help the beneficiaries in their problems. Although they are involved, they are not playing the role of elites to impose their opinions to the beneficiaries. They involve the beneficiaries in providing relationships and problem solving through mediation to carry out the execution of the plans (Goldestain, 2010:3).

Providing Context for Agreement and the Way of its Achievement

Considering the group processes, the one who is effectively advocate of sharing the information can understand the logic of action and communications. That is to say, knowledge is considered challenging. These rules of action and communication which could be found in practical attempts create a new perception among the beneficiaries. Sasskin calls these attempts providing context for agreement. Context providing for agreement is a method which attempts to find consensus among the beneficiaries during the process and applies facilities of negotiation based on the interests and solutions which are achieved through discussion (Baptista, 2005:11).

In the early 1990s, in a study about management of the environment conducted in the US, “Innes” asserts that agreement is an attempt being occurred in long terms. Since then, many attempts were made to provide context for making agreements and this turned to be the best method for achieving and implementing effective negotiations.

“Innes” determines eight conditions for providing context for agreement: (1) involving all of the beneficiaries including any strata or groups. (2) it is a duty with the meaning of participation which has an on time effect. (3) The participants are those who are effective in organizing the instructions, decision-making, and many other subjects. (4) It is a process beginning with mutual perception of the interests. (5) It is a discussion and discourse in which all of the participants are listened to and their opinions are being respected. (6) It is a spontaneous process without any limitations in meetings and it allows discussing all of the hypotheses. (7) The available data should be shared among all of the participants (8) in fact, any attempt to remove their worries.

Some authors have investigated many agreement processes. Innes and Saskin state that because of the type of inclination toward providing context for agreement, one or more of the above-mentioned conditions are ignored.

Collecting the experiences in management of agreement context and collaborative processes provides several laws for managing these processes. Several of the researchers have provided frameworks for collaborative planning processes in order to investigate the obstacles which are existed in theory and practice. In general, it is known for “Krislip” and “Saskin” that there are five effective cases for collaborative successes.


Many planning researchers are concerned about providing context for agreement; nevertheless, some researchers such as Innes, Hili, and Farster claimed that for many critics, theory has been taken equal to the experiences which were created in practice and they ignored a lot of the practical frameworks. However, the researchers believe that collaborative processes should not be considered as a magic that responds every problem or they take long time and are resource consumption (Babtista,2005:11).in the following, a sample of problems about providing context is proposed that was carried out by Richard Margerum (Margerum,2002:9).


Table 1: obstacles on providing context of agreement




Clarification of election process: electing the beneficiaries in flexible processes


Innes,Susskind &Cruikshank, Carlson






Need of inclusiveness: limited needs

Innes, Gray, Lowry, Adler,Milner

Individualism, technology complexity,

Historical obstacles, the past ineffective actions


Gray,Whetten,Bozeman, Gray







Need of sufficient resources, need of educational facilities

Need of agreement, need of identifying the interests, importance of agreement process




Innes, Susskind,Cruikshank,




Susskind &Ozawa, Pasquero,Innes

 Mckearnan & Fairman




The administrative authorities often see agreement free from power, limited view on political system, organizations might not support the cooperation

Gray,Susskind,Seline & Chavez,Gray

, McCarthy & Shorett

Organizations and interests

Process of power management, process of power perception, lateral action of power, existence of various powers

Gray,Amy,Bingam,WHetten & Bozeman,Susskind &Cruikshank

Power and capacity


The first problem of these obstacles is the way of election. In this study, inclusiveness and flexibility have been emphasized on (Margerum,2002:7) and the beneficiaries should be those who are related to the problem and people should participate without any dependency to a certain organization. However, the largest obstacle is political interference because of which this election might not be carried out correctly.

The second problem is related to agreement. For some researchers such as Gray, it is known that dynamism of social levels, historical barriers, and technology complexity are among the main obstacles of agreement.

The third problem is about the resources. Finding the resources is said to be the most important stage to support the agreement processes, but the long term nature of the collaborative planning has created particular problems. In studies conducted in the US and Australia, the participants were worried that their budgets would not have enough budget for execution since they cast doubt that the governmental beneficiaries would execute their strategies.


The fourth problem is regarding operation. Studies indicate that the participants have debate to reach agreement. The groups have significant difference. Some of groups were not satisfied that the process of decision making was not clear. Another problem is about skill that many participants do not have it. Therefore, it is stated that the process of effective agreement demands clear and obvious laws for decision as well as constructive management of problem-solving.

The fifth problem is about organizations and resources. The beneficiary groups have encountered several organizational obstacles. Often, the governmental organizations are not continuously committed to attempts of collaborative planning because organizational culture and political culture do not support the collaborations. Therefore, providing context for agreement among the beneficiaries needs to be widely intertwined to reach agreement in the society.

The sixth method is about power. Chawez and Silin have suggested that when there is power among the participants, it becomes the main obstacle in the process of agreement and “Gray” emphasized that power and injustice prevent collaboration. For instance, in “Southern Wales”, the committees’ representatives were worried about the power of the governmental administrations and industrial organizations which were effective on the processes. Although in the first glance, the citizens have more importance than the representatives in the committees, this did not happen because their presence was not always clear.


Criticism of Collaborative Planning

Emergence of the communicative, collaborative, and negotiating planning was an evolution in theory and practice. Not only was this theory developed but also it was criticized. The criticisms occurred at two levels both in theory of collaborative planning and in practice of planning. Most of the criticisms point to the feature of idealism. One of the main critics is Foucault who discusses power. According to him, power cannot be separated culture, society, and psychology. “Mafi” rejects the idea of communicative action of Habermas since its meaning is separated from power in rational discussions. According to Mafi, discussion and negotiation are always hand in hand with convincing and it is a part of politics which is vulnerable in relation to power. Therefore, agreement is the result of establishment of power relations. The idea of collaboration without power is inappropriate in relation to the conditions (Mäntysalo & Bäcklund, 2010.342) and since hypothesis of this theory is based on assumption of unanimity and agreement while the contemporary social relationships are encountered by problems such as class, racial and cultural gaps that this idea is originated only through power struggle among the people and the involved girl (Daneshpoor, 1390: 40).

Undoubtedly, planning has a political nature and it is often connected to power constructions. Here, the effect of focused power on planning is not always positive and sometimes bring about undesirable results not being compatible with some ethical and social criteria (Makrani, 2007:19). In addition to ignoring power, there might be an emphasis on the powerful actors in the process and even not giving power to the weaker situations. However, some critics believe that collaborative planning does not tell us how to conflict with different powers, while with creation of discourse and prevalent processes, power relations are still stable (Baptista,2005:6).

Perception of collaborative planning has been criticized often as a practice and knowledge. Collaborative planning easily rejects instrumental rationality and ignores the function of knowledge and science. Floberg asserts that is not just an ideal version about democracy based on communicative action. He has not an ideal image from democracy. According to him, the actors do not always act rationally. In other words, the actors are influenced by others’ opinions, as the rest of the beneficiaries might come to this problem (Baptista, 2005:6).

Other critics stated that consensus, agreement and perception among people are not enough for action and method of planning and it is a category beyond reaching agreement. By itself, agreement is a tool to move toward practice and implementation of planning, not the result and output of planning process.

As a critic, “Fine Eshtain” enumerates some weaknesses of collaborative planning as follows:

·         Instead of being a theory of social conflict it is based on functionalism.

·         In order to reach a nominal agreement, it has led to concealing the real problems and this would not reflect the reality.

·         Ignoring the function of power and its capability which limits the execution of agreement actions.

·         The planner or expert being only considered as facilitator, actor, new thought, and creativity, only the step by step solutions will be emerged.

·         This process is excessively long and according to limitation of the resources, it leads to pessimism.

·         Evidences show that experts propose a better solution in the process of planning.

“Penington” is another critic, whose criticisms are in the five following cases:

·         Logical: this claim that complexities relating to the whole should be managed based on the holistic view is illogical and makes no complete conclusion. However, it is obvious that in these systems which are related to all, making public aware is very difficult.

·         Epistemological: most of the things which conduct the people’s action are implicit. The data related to a specific place are not just created by discourse forms. This idea which is in line with discourse and its main source of data is public’s speaking, should not be void of knowledge.

·         Cognitive: the way of perception of human action is very complex and because human mind has limitation regarding cognition, this is inevitable to rely excessively to these actions as informing tools.

·         Discursive: technically, it is impossible to involve anyone. As a result, dominance of technical and specialized methods would not give more power to people.

·         Nature: consultative approach prevents innovation and creativity. Because of occurrence of discrepancies, the creation of innovative ideas may be decreased and people may be involved in disagreements and debates (www.oamk.fi/entracop)

Finally, it could be pointed that critics have challenged the legitimization of collaborative process by the following questions:

1.      What criteria are existed to identify the real beneficiaries?

2.      How could justice be implemented despite of variety in interests of the beneficiaries?

3.      How could it be possible to recognize the impartiality of the beneficiaries and facilitators? (Baptista, 2005:6).


Collaborative planning approach is an action process for creating agreement, understanding and applying all of the beneficiaries and also involving the citizens in planning process. Problems such as complexities of the modern life, contradictions, and disagreements, lack of complete implementation of the plans and programs and not noticing to the citizens’ function as the main actors of the scene and decision-making process are the reasons of researchers’ interest to communicative planning. Thus, in this approach citizens got a higher position in participation case. Consultative concepts, ways to achieve agreement, data, education, consultation, group action processes were appeared. Nevertheless, this theory was criticized like the other ones. In fact, the criticisms are proposed in two main areas of theory and practice and some critics questioned collaborative planning with noticing to subjects such as lack of attention to power in decision-making, policy in planning, the criteria for recognizing the real beneficiaries and their impartiality, the way of creating justice with existence of disagreements, position and function of the planners. However, one could not neglect the advantages such as: highlighting the citizens’ function in all stages of planning, identifying the social structures, collecting data, education, learning, skills, increase of plan implementation because of public’s participation which include resources of the society 






[ یکشنبه 24 بهمن‌ماه سال 1395 ] [ 08:44 ب.ظ ] [ کاره ] [ نظرات (0) ]

Urban Design Based on Smart City Criteria; the Case of Region 3 of Isfahan طراحی شهری بر اساس معیارهای شهر هوشمند؛ مورد مطالعه منطقه سه اصفهان

دانلود فهرست و فصل اول کلیک کنید


در سیر تکامل بشر عوامل مختلف زندگی او تحت تاثیر خود قرار داده و سبب ارتقاء کیفیت زندگی شده و گاه زندگی او را با تهدید روبرو کرده است. شاید بتوان گفت که بشر در سیر تکامل زندگی خود یکجانشینی، شهرنشینی و انقلاب صنعتی و تحول فناوری را تجربه کرده است. همانطور که ورود ماشین چهره شهرها را دگرگون ساخت، امروزه ورود فناوری و خدمات مجازی، آنان را متحول کرده است. نظریه شهرهوشمند، مبتنی بر فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات که در ابعاد مختلف سعی در هوشمندسازی لایه­های مختلف شهر دارد تا به عنوان یک اقدام به منظور حل مسائل کنونی و بهبود سطح زندگی عمل کند. هدف اصلی پژوهش طراحی شهری بر اساس معیارهای شهر هوشمند به منظور پاسخگویی به مشکلات کنونی شهرها و ارتقا کیفیت‌های زندگی می باشد. در این پژوهش ابتدا به مفهوم شهر هوشمند و چالش های آن مورد بررسی قرار گرفته و با توجه به منابع و گزارشات موجود در زمینه شهر هوشمند، 62 معیارها و 136 شاخص­های آن استخراج شده، فرمول­های نرمال سازی داده ها به منظور سنجش عملکرد شهرها در زمینه شهر هوشمند با استفاده از نرم افزار Matlab ارائه شده و در سه مقیاس خرد، میانی و کلان در شهر اصفهان، منطقه سه و محله نقش جهان توسط 386 پرسشنامه، مصاحبه از متخصصین امر، بررسی میدانی و بررسی اسناد سنجیده شده و در نهایت پیشنهادات و راهنمودهای طراحی به عنوان یک کاتالیزگر در میدان نقش جهان داده و به صورت سه بعدی طراحی شده است. از راهکارهای پیشنهادی می­توان به : استفاده از سلول­های خورشیدی، بهره بری از از سیستم عکس­برداری سه‌بعدی و فتوگرافی محیطی و آنلاین به منظور اشتراک­گذاری تصاویر در سطح جهانی، ایجاد فضای مناسب جهت گردهمایی شورای محلی، استفاده از مکان‌یابی نوین (مکان‌یابی دوازده معیاره) در شناسایی ایستگاه‌های حمل‌ونقل عمومی، استفاده از نرم‌افزار QCode و استفاده از عناصر خلاقانه به منظور ایجاد غنای حسی، سرزندگی و حضورپذیری اشاره کرد


کلیدواژه: شهر فردا، شهر هوشمند، طراحی فضای شهری، شاخص­های شهر هوشمند، شهر اصفهان






In the course of human evolution, several factors have influenced his life, improving the quality of life on the one hand, yet sometimes threating his life on the other. Perhaps we can claim that human life has experienced sedentism, urbanization, industrial revolution and technological development in its evolution. As automobiles changed the appearance of cities, today, technology and virtual services have transformed them as well. The theory of smart cities is based on information and communications technology and attempts at smartization of different levels of cities in various respects so as to act as a solution to the existing problems and improve the standard of living. In this study, first, the concept of smart city and the challenges it faces were discussed and then based on existing resources and reports on smart cities, criteria and indices were extracted. After that, data-normalization formulas were presented to evaluate the performance of cities in terms of smartness using MATlab software and the performances were assessed in three scales, small, medium and large, in Region 3 of Isfahan, and Naqsh-e Jahan neighborhood by questionnaire, interviews with experts, survey and reviewing documents. In the end, design guidelines were offered as a catalyst in Naqsh-e Jahan Square and were designed in 3D graphic format.



Keywords: smart city, urban space design, indices of smart cities, Region 3 of Isfahan

فهرست مطالب

1-    فصل اول: کلیات پژوهش... 1

1-1-     بیان مسئله تحقیق   2

1-2-     اهمیت و ضرورت تحقیق.. 3

1-3-     پیشینه تحقیق.. 4

1-4-     اهداف تحقیق.. 7

1-5-     پرسش‌های تحقیق.. 7

1-6-     کاربرد نتایج تحقیق.. 7

1-7-     روش تحقیق.. 8

1-7-1.      روش تحقیق از نظر هدف.. 8

1-7-2.      روش تحقیق از نظر روش... 8

1-7-3.      روش یافته اندوزی و گردآوری.. 8

1-7-4.      روش تجزیه‌ و تحلیل.. 9

1-8-     فرآیند تحقیق.. 9

2-    فصل دوم: ادبیات نظری و عملی پژوهشی.. 10

2-1-     مقدمه. 11

2-2-     ادبیات نظری پژوهش     12

2-2-1.      تعاریف اصلی شهر هوشمند. 12

2-2-2.      معیارها و شاخص‌های کلی شهر هوشمند. 16

2-2-3.      ارتباط شهر هوشمند با نظریه‌های مرتبط.. 17

2-3-     چالش های شهر هوشمند. 18

2-3-1.      چالش های پیش از ایجاد. 18

2-3-1-1.      چالش اقتصادی.. 18

2-3-1-2.      چالش تکنولوژی.. 19

2-3-1-3.      چالش مدیریتی و اداری.. 19

2-3-1-4.      چالش تئوری.. 20

2-3-1-5.      چالش زیرساختی و اجرایی.. 20

2-3-1-6.      چالش آموزش... 21

2-3-1-7.      چالش طراحی شهری.. 21

2-3-1-8.      چالش میان رشته ای بودن (همپیوندی میان علوم) 22

2-3-2.      چالش های بعد از ایجاد شهرهای هوشمند. 22

2-3-2-1.      چالش هکرها 22

2-3-2-2.      چالش تغییر در کاربری های شهری.. 23

2-3-2-3.      چالش ناتوانی افراد سالمند و سالخورده. 23

2-3-2-4.      چالش اجرا 24

2-3-2-5.      چالش مردمی.. 24

2-3-2-6.      چالش فرهنگی.. 24

2-3-3.      کیفیت‌های فضای شهری.. 25

2-3-4.      کیفیت‌های طراحی شهری مرتبط با شهر هوشمند. 26

2-4-     ادبیات عملی پژوهش... 30

2-4-1.      مطالعات اتحادیه اروپا برای شهرهای اروپایی متوسط.. 31

2-4-2.      مطالعات شهر هوشمند پاسکالوا 32

2-4-3.      مطالعات شهر هوشمند دکین.. 33

2-4-4.      مطالعات شهر هوشمند میشل.. 35

2-4-5.      مطالعات شهر هوشمند عبدالو. 36

2-4-6.      مطالعات شهر هوشمند رابینسون. 37

2-4-7.      مطالعات شهر هوشمند آروپ.. 38

2-4-8.      مطالعات شهر هوشمند لارسون. 38

2-5-     تدوین معیارها و شاخص‌های شهر هوشمند از سطوح ملی تا محلی      39

3-    فصل سوم: معیارها، شاخصها و متغیرهای شهرهوشمند. 54

3-1-     سنجش معیارها و شاخصهای شهر هوشمند. 55

3-1-1.      اقتصاد شهری هوشمند. 56

3-1-1-1.      روحیه نوآوری.. 56

3-1-1-1-1.         میزان هزینه تحقیق و توسعه. 56

3-1-1-1-2.         نرخ اشتغال در بخش دانش... 57

3-1-1-1-3.         اختراعات ثبت شده به ازای هر نفر. 58

3-1-1-1-4.         تعداد اختراع و نوآوری مرتبط با فضای شهری.. 59

3-1-1-1-5.         میزان سرمایهگذاری در بخش نوآوری.. 60

3-1-1-2.      خودکفایی.. 60

3-1-1-2-1.         نرخ خوداشتغالی.. 60

3-1-1-2-2.         ثبت شرکتهای تجاری جدید باکیفیت بالا. 61

3-1-1-3.      بهره‌وری.. 61

3-1-1-3-1.         تولید ناخالص داخلی به ازای هر نفر شاغل.. 61

3-1-1-3-2.         نرخ صرفه‌جویی سالانه در مصرف انرژی.. 62

3-1-1-3-3.         استفاده از انرژی‌های پاک و مقرون‌به‌صرفه نسبت به کل انرژی.. 62

3-1-1-4.      انعطاف‌پذیری بازار کار. 63

3-1-1-4-1.         نرخ بیکاری.. 63

3-1-1-4-2.         نسبت اشتغال پاره‌وقت.. 63

3-1-1-4-3.         اشتراکگذاری امکانات شرکتها و موسسهها 64

3-1-1-5.      جابه‌جایی جهانی.. 64

3-1-1-5-1.         شرکت باکیفیت در شهرستان در بازار سهام ملی.. 64

3-1-1-5-2.         جابه‌جایی هوایی مسافران و جابه‌جایی هوایی.. 64

3-1-2.      مردم هوشمند. 65

3-1-2-1.      سطح مدرک تحصیلی.. 65

3-1-2-1-1.         اهمیت به‌عنوان مرکز دانش... 65

3-1-2-1-2.         جمعیت در سطح 5-6  طبقه‌بندی استاندارد بین‌المللی آموزش‌وپرورش... 65

3-1-2-1-3.         مهارت‌های زبان خارجی.. 66

3-1-2-1-4.         میزان افراد استفادهکننده از اینترنت.. 66

3-1-2-1-5.         میزان افراد مسلط به اینترنت.. 67

3-1-2-2.      تمایل به یادگیری در طول عمر. 68

3-1-2-2-1.         اعطای وام کتاب به افراد یا کتابخانهها 68

3-1-2-2-2.         مشارکت در یادگیری برای تمام عمر. 68

3-1-2-1-3.         مشارکت در دوره‌های زبان. 69

3-1-2-3.      تکثر اجتماعی و قومی.. 69

3-1-2-4.      انعطاف‌پذیری.. 70

3-1-2-4-1.         ادراک حسی از به دست آوردن یک کار جدید. 70

3-1-2-5.      خلاقیت.. 70

3-1-2-5-1.         سهم افراد شاغل در صنایع خلاق. 70

3-1-2-6.      بین‌المللی بودن. 71

3-1-2-6-1.         شرکت‌کنندگان در رأی‌گیری‌های جهانی.. 71

3-1-2-6-2.         مهاجرت دوستداران محیط (نگرش نسبت به مهاجرت) 71

3-1-2-6-3.         میزان آگاهی در مورد کشور، شهر و محله. 72

3-1-2-7.      مشارکت در زندگی عمومی.. 72

3-1-2-7-1.         تعداد رأی‌دهنده در انتخابات محلی.. 72

3-1-2-7-2.         مشارکت در فعالیت‌های داوطلبانه. 73

3-1-3.      حکمروایی هوشمند شهری.. 73

3-1-3-1.      مشارکت در تصمیم سازی.. 74

3-1-3-1-1.         اعضای شورای شهر و شوراهای محلی (شورایارها) 74

3-1-3-1-2.         مشارکت شوراها و مردم. 76

3-1-3-1-3.         مشارکت مردم در پروژههای شهری.. 76

3-1-3-2.      خدمات مشارکت عمومی و اجتماعی از طریق آنلاین.. 77

3-1-3-3.      اطلاع‌رسانی.. 78

3-1-3-4.      حکمروایی شفاف.. 80

3-1-4.      تحرک هوشمند. 80

3-1-4-1.      دسترسی محلی.. 80

3-1-4-1-1.         شبکه حمل‌ونقل عمومی به ازای هر فرد. 80

3-1-4-1-2.         رضایت از دسترسی به حمل‌ونقل عمومی.. 81

3-1-4-1-3.         رضایت از کیفیت به حمل‌ونقل عمومی.. 81

3-1-4-1-4.         رضایت از کیفیت ایستگاههای حمل‌ونقل عمومی.. 82

3-1-4-1-5.         میزان توانایی گردشگران در جهت‌یابی به وسیله امکانات مجازی و فناوری‌های نوین.. 82

3-1-4-2.      دسترسی‌های فراشهری.. 83

3-1-4-3.      در دسترس بودن زیرساخت‌های فناوری ارتباطات و اطلاعات.. 84

3-1-4-3-1.         تعداد رایانه در هر خانواده. 84

3-1-4-3-2.         دسترسی به پهنای باند اینترنت در هر خانواده. 85

3-1-4-3-3.         دسترسی به فضای سایبر در فضاهای عمومی.. 85

3-1-4-3-4.         پهنای باند مورد دسترس کاربران در پارک.. 86

3-1-4-3-5.         تعداد فضای عمومی مجهز به امکانات مجازی (اینترنت، بلوتوث و غیره رایگان) 86

3-1-4-3-6.         پهنای باند مورد دسترس کاربران در فضای عمومی.. 86

3-1-4-3-7.         تعداد افراد استفاده‌کننده از فضای سایبر به کل.. 86

3-1-4-4.      پایداری، نوآوری و ایمنی سیستم‌های حمل‌ونقل.. 86

3-1-4-4-1.         سهم تحرک سبز. 87

3-1-4-5.      استفاده از اتومبیل مقرون‌به‌صرفه. 87

3-1-4-5-1.         امنیت شبکه. 87

3-1-4-5-2.         میزان اعتماد مردم به شبکه. 87

3-1-4-5-3.         به‌روز بودن سیستم امنیتی شبکه. 88

3-1-5.      محیط هوشمند. 88

3-1-5-1.      جذابیت شرایط طبیعی.. 88

3-1-5-1-1.         میزان ساعات آفتابی.. 88

3-1-5-1-2.         میزان فضای سبز. 88

3-1-5-1-3.         قابلیت فضا برای بروز نوآوری.. 89

3-1-5-1-4.         آلودگی.. 89

3-1-5-2.      حفاظت محیط‌زیست.. 90

3-1-5-2-1.         تلاش‌های فردی برای حفاظت از طبیعت.. 90

3-1-5-2-2.         اظهارنظر افراد در حفاظت از طبیعت.. 91

3-1-5-2-3.         استفاده از دوچرخه به منظور جابهجایی.. 91

3-5-1-3-     مدیریت پایدار منابع. 91

3-1-5-3-1.         استفاده مؤثر از آب.. 91

3-1-5-3-2.         استفاده مؤثر از انرژی.. 91

3-1-5-3-3.         تولید انرژیهای پاک.. 92

3-1-5-3-4.         میزان تولید انرژی هر فرد. 92

3-1-5-3-5.         میزان تولید انرژی به وسیله سلول‌های خورشیدی.. 92

3-1-5-3-6.         میزان ذخیرهسازی انرژی.. 92

3-1-5-3-7.         استفاده از حسگرهای مدیریت چراغها 92

3-1-5-4.      زندگی هوشمند. 93

3-1-5-5.      امکانات فرهنگی.. 93

3-1-5-5-1.         میزان حضور در سینما 93

3-1-5-5-2.         میزان بازدید از موزه. 93

3-1-5-5-3.         میزان حضور در تئاتر به ازای ساکنین.. 93

3-1-5-5-4.         میزان فضای بازی کودکان. 93

3-1-5-5-5.         میزان فضای تفریحی برای خانواده. 94

3-1-5-5-6.         میزان فضای تفریحی برای جوانان. 94

3-1-5-6.      میزان مراکز خلاقیت و پرورش استعداد. 94

3-1-5-7.      میزان مراکز (مجازی و حقیقی) آموزشهای شهروندی.. 95

3-1-5-8.      وضعیت بهداشت.. 95

3-1-5-8-1.         امید به زندگی.. 95

3-1-5-8-2.         تخت بیمارستان به ازای ساکنین.. 95

3-1-5-8-3.         میزان پزشک به ازای ساکنین.. 95

3-1-5-8-4.         رضایت از کیفیت سیستم بهداشتی.. 96

3-1-5-9.      تولید مواد غذایی شهری.. 96

3-1-5-9-1.         میزان تولید مواد غذایی شهری.. 96

3-1-5-9-2.         میزان کیفیت تولید مواد غذایی شهری.. 96

3-1-5-10.    امنیت فردی.. 96

3-1-5-10-1.      نرخ جرم. 96

3-1-5-10-2.      میزان مرگ‌ومیر توسط تهاجم. 97

3-1-5-10-3.      رضایت از امنیت فردی.. 97

3-1-5-11.    کیفیت مسکن.. 97

3-1-5-11-1.      سهم مسکن در برآوردن حداقل استانداردها 97

3-1-5-11-2.      رضایت از وضعیت خانه‌های شخصی.. 97

3-1-5-12.    امکانات آموزشی.. 98

3-1-5-12-1.      تعداد دانش‌آموز به ازای ساکنین.. 98

3-1-5-12-2.      رضایت از  دسترسی به سیستم‌های آموزشی.. 98

3-1-5-12-3.      رضایت از  کیفیت به سیستم‌های آموزشی.. 98

3-1-5-12-4.      تعداد رایانه به ازای هر دانشآموز. 98

3-1-5-13.    جاذبه‌های توریستی.. 98

3-1-5-13-1.      اهمیت به عنوان موقعیت‌های توریستی (تعطیلات، مناظر) 99

3-1-5-13-2.      تعطیلات در هرسال. 99

3-1-5-13-3.      تعداد موزههای فناوری.. 99

3-1-5-13-4.      تعداد موزه مجهز به آموزشهای مجازی.. 100

3-1-5-14.    انسجام اجتماعی.. 100

3-1-5-14-1.      نرخ فقر. 100

3-1-5-15.    تعاملات اجتماعی.. 100

3-1-5-15-1.      سطح تعاملات اجتماعی افراد (بی‌تفاوتی تا روابط صمیمی) 101

3-1-5-15-2.      میزان فضای قابل تعامل در هر محله. 101

3-1-5-15-3.      میزان فضای دارای تعامل در هر محله. 101

3-1-5-16.    تأسیسات و تجهیزات انعطاف‌پذیر. 101

3-1-5-16-1.      میزان انعطاف‌پذیری مبلمان از نظر استفادهکنندگان. 101

3-1-5-16-2.      میزان نوآوری مبلمان نسبت به سال قبل.. 101

4-    فصل چهارم: شناخت و تحلیل.. 102

4-1-     مقدمه. 103

4-2-     معرفی شهر اصفهان. 103

4-3-     منطقه سه اصفهان. 104

4-4-     انتخاب و شناسایی محله منتخب با استفاده از GIS  105

4-5-     شناخت و تحلیل در مقیاس کلان (شهر) 109

4-5-1.      اقتصاد شهری هوشمند. 109

4-5-1-1.      روحیه نوآوری.. 109

4-5-1-1-1.         نرخ اشتغال در بخش دانش... 110

4-5-1-1-2.         اختراعات ثبت شده به ازای هر نفر. 111

4-5-1-1-3.         تعداد اختراع و نوآوری مرتبط با فضای شهری.. 111

4-5-1-1-4.         نرخ خوداشتغالی.. 112

4-5-1-2.      بهره‌وری.. 112

4-5-1-2-1.         استفاده از انرژی‌های پاک و مقرون‌به‌صرفه نسبت به کل انرژی.. 112

4-5-1-2-2.         اشتراکگذاری امکانات شرکتها و موسسهها 112

4-5-1-3.      جابه‌جایی جهانی.. 113

4-5-1-3-1.         شرکت باکیفیت در شهرستان در بازار سهام ملی.. 113

4-5-1-3-2.         جابه‌جایی هوایی مسافران و جابه‌جایی هوایی.. 113

4-5-2.      مردم هوشمند. 113

4-5-2-1.      سطح مدرک تحصیلی.. 113

4-5-2-1-1.         اهمیت به‌عنوان مرکز دانش... 113

4-5-2-1-2.         مهارت‌های زبان خارجی.. 115

4-5-2-2.      تکثر اجتماعی و قومی.. 115

4-5-2-3.      خلاقیت.. 116

4-5-2-3-1.         سهم افراد شاغل در صنایع خلاق. 116

4-5-2-4.      بین‌المللی بودن. 116

4-5-2-4-1.         مهاجرت دوستداران محیط (نگرش نسبت به مهاجرت) 116

4-5-3.      حکمروایی هوشمند شهری.. 116

4-5-3-1.      مشارکت در تصمیم سازی.. 116

4-5-3-1-1.         مشارکت در تصمیم سازی.. 117

4-5-3-1-2.         مشارکت شوراها و مردم. 117

4-5-3-1-3.         مشارکت مردم در پروژههای شهری.. 118

4-5-3-1-4.         خدمات مشارکت عمومی و اجتماعی از طریق آنلاین.. 118

4-5-3-2.      اطلاع‌رسانی.. 119

4-5-3-2-1.         حکمروایی شفاف.. 119

4-5-3-2-2.         چشم‌انداز تحول ساختار اداری و مدیریتی شهرداری اصفهان: 119

4-5-4.      تحرک هوشمند. 126

4-5-4-1.      رضایت از دسترسی به حمل‌ونقل عمومی.. 126

4-5-4-1-1.         هوشمندسازی حمل‌ونقل شهری.. 126

4-5-4-1-2.         رضایت از کیفیت به حمل‌ونقل عمومی.. 127

4-5-4-1-3.         میزان افراد توانا در جهت‌یابی به‌وسیله امکانات مجازی و فناوری‌های نوین.. 127

4-5-4-1-4.         میزان توانایی گردشگران در جهت یابی به وسیله امکانات مجازی و فناوری‌های نوین.. 128

4-5-4-2.      در دسترس بودن زیرساخت‌های فناوری ارتباطات و اطلاعات.. 128

4-5-4-2-1.         دسترسی به فضای سایبر در فضاهای عمومی.. 129

4-5-4-3.      امنیت شبکه. 129

4-5-4-3-1.         میزان اعتماد مردم به شبکه. 129

4-5-4-3-2.         به روز بودن سیستم امنیتی شبکه. 129

4-5-5.      محیط هوشمند. 130

4-5-5-1.      حفاظت محیط‌زیست.. 130

4-5-5-2.      مدیریت پایدار منابع. 130

4-5-5-2-1.         تولید انرژیهای پاک.. 130

4-5-6.      زندگی هوشمند. 131

4-5-6-1.      امکانات آموزشی.. 131

4-5-6-1-1.         تعداد رایانه به ازای هر دانشآموز. 131

4-5-6-1-2.         امید به زندگی.. 131

4-5-6-2.      جاذبه‌های توریستی.. 131

4-5-6-2-1.         تعداد موزههای فناوری.. 131

4-5-6-3.      تأسیسات و تجهیزات انعطافپذیر. 131

4-5-6-3-1.         میزان نوآوری مبلمان نسبت به سال قبل.. 131

4-6-     مقیاس میانه (منطقه شهری) 132

4-6-1.      اقتصاد شهری هوشمند. 132

4-6-1-1.      بهره‌وری.. 132

4-6-1-1-1.         نرخ صرفه‌جویی سالانه در مصرف انرژی.. 133

4-6-1-2.      انعطاف‌پذیری بازار کار. 133

4-6-1-2-1.         نرخ بیکاری.. 134

4-6-1-3.      تمایل به یادگیری در طول عمر. 134

4-6-1-3-1.         مشارکت در یادگیری برای تمام عمر. 134

4-6-1-4.      انعطاف‌پذیری.. 134

4-6-1-4-1.         ادراک حسی از به دست آوردن یک کار جدید. 134

4-6-1-4-2.         مشارکت در تصمیم سازی.. 135

4-6-1-4-3.         خدمات مشارکت عمومی و اجتماعی از طریق آنلاین.. 135

4-6-1-5.      اطلاع‌رسانی.. 135

4-6-1-6.      در دسترس بودن زیرساخت‌های فناوری ارتباطات و اطلاعات.. 136

4-6-1-6-1.         دسترسی به پهنای باند اینترنت در هر خانواده. 136

4-6-1-7.      آلودگی.. 136

4-6-1-7-1.         بیماری‌های مزمن کشنده تنفسی ناشی از آلودگی هوا به ازای هر فرد. 136

4-6-1-8.      مدیریت پایدار منابع. 137

4-6-1-8-1.         میزان تولید انرژی هر فرد. 137

4-6-1-8-2.         استفاده از حسگرهای مدیریت چراغها 137

4-6-2.      زندگی هوشمند. 138

4-6-2-1-1.         تخت بیمارستان به ازای ساکنین.. 138

4-7-     مقیاس خرد (سنجش محله میدان امام از نظر شاخص‌های شهر هوشمند ) 138

4-7-1.      اقتصاد هوشمند. 138

4-7-1-1.      بهره‌وری.. 138

4-7-1-1-1.         جمعیت در سطح 5-6  طبقه‌بندی استاندارد بین‌المللی آموزش‌وپرورش... 138

4-7-1-1-2.         میزان افراد استفادهکننده از اینترنت.. 139

4-7-1-1-3.         میزان افراد مسلط به اینترنت.. 139

4-7-1-2.      تمایل به یادگیری در طول عمر. 140

4-7-1-1-4.         اعطای وام کتاب به افراد یا کتابخانهها 140

4-7-1-3.      بین‌المللی بودن. 140

4-7-1-3-1.         شرکت‌کنندگان در رأی‌گیری‌های جهانی.. 141

4-7-1-3-2.         میزان آگاهی در مورد کشور، شهر و محله. 141

4-7-1-4.      مشارکت در زندگی عمومی.. 141

4-7-1-4-1.         تعداد رأی‌دهنده در انتخابات محلی.. 141

4-7-1-4-2.         مشارکت در فعالیت‌های داوطلبانه. 142

4-7-2.      حکمروایی هوشمند شهری.. 142

4-7-2-1.      مشارکت در تصمیم سازی.. 142

4-7-2-1-1.         شوراهای محلی (شورایارها) 142

4-7-2-1-2.         مشارکت شوراها و مردم. 142

4-7-2-1-3.         مشارکت مردم در پروژههای شهری.. 143

4-7-2-2.      اطلاع‌رسانی.. 143

4-7-2-2-1.         تعداد نمایشگاه اطلاع‌رسانی پروژه‌های محلی.. 143

4-7-2-2-2.         تعداد بنر معرفی پروژه نسبت به کل پروژه‌های شهری.. 143

4-7-2-2-3.         میزان امکانات مجازی برای اطلاعرسانی در هر محله. 143

4-7-2-3.      حکمروایی شفاف.. 144

4-7-3.      تحرک هوشمند. 145

4-7-3-1.      دسترسی محلی.. 145

4-7-3-1-1.         رضایت از کیفیت ایستگاه‌های حمل‌ونقل عمومی.. 145

4-7-3-2.      در دسترس بودن زیرساخت‌های فناوری ارتباطات و اطلاعات.. 146

4-7-3-2-1.         تعداد رایانه در هر خانواده. 146

4-7-3-2-2.         پهنای باند مورد دسترس کاربران در پارک.. 146

4-7-3-2-3.         ایمنی ترافیکی.. 146

4-7-4.      محیط هوشمند. 147

4-7-4-1.      جذابیت شرایط طبیعی.. 147

4-7-4-1-1.         میزان ساعات آفتابی.. 147

4-7-4-1-2.         میزان فضای سبز. 147

4-7-4-2.      قابلیت فضا برای نوآوری بروز. 148

4-7-5.      زندگی هوشمند. 148

4-7-5-1.      امکانات فرهنگی.. 148

4-7-5-1-1.         میزان حضور در سینما 148

4-7-5-1-2.         میزان بازدید از موزه. 148

4-7-5-1-3.         میزان حضور در تئاتر به ازای ساکنین.. 149

4-7-5-1-4.         میزان فضای بازی کودکان. 149

4-7-5-1-5.         میزان فضای تفریحی برای خانواده. 149

4-7-5-1-6.         میزان فضای تفریحی برای جوانان. 149

4-7-5-2.      وضعیت بهداشت.. 150

4-7-5-3.      تولید مواد غذایی شهری.. 150

4-7-5-3-1.         میزان تولید مواد غذایی شهری.. 150

4-7-5-3-2.         میزان کیفیت تولید مواد غذایی شهری.. 150

4-7-5-4.      امنیت فردی.. 150

4-7-5-4-1.         نرخ جرم. 150

4-7-5-4-2.         رضایت از امنیت فردی.. 151

4-7-5-5.      کیفیت مسکن.. 151

4-7-5-5-1.         سهم مسکن در برآوردن حداقل استانداردها 151

4-7-5-5-2.         رضایت از وضعیت خانه‌های شخصی.. 151

4-7-5-6.      امکانات آموزشی.. 151

4-7-5-6-1.         تعداد دانش‌آموز به ازای ساکنین.. 152

4-7-5-6-2.         رضایت از  دسترسی به سیستم‌های آموزشی.. 152

4-7-5-6-3.         رضایت از  کیفیت به سیستم‌های آموزشی.. 152

4-7-5-6-4.         تعداد رایانه به ازای هر دانشآموز. 152

4-7-5-7.      انسجام اجتماعی.. 152

4-7-5-7-1.         تعاملات اجتماعی.. 152

4-7-5-7-2.         سطح تعاملات اجتماعی افراد (بی‌تفاوتی تا روابط صمیمی) 152

4-7-5-7-3.         میزان فضای قابل تعامل در هر محله. 153

4-7-5-7-4.         میزان فضای دارای تعامل در هر محله. 153

4-7-5-8.      تأسیسات و تجهیزات انعطاف‌پذیر. 153

4-7-5-8-1.         میزان انعطاف‌پذیری مبلمان از نظر استفادهکنندگان. 153

4-7-5-8-2.         میزان نوآوری مبلمان نسبت به سال قبل.. 153

5-    فصل پنجم: یافته‌های پژوهش... 154

5-1-     سنجش معیارها و شاخصها با استفاده از نرم‌افزار Matlab  155

5-2-     نتایج بررسی معیارها و شاخص‌های مقیاس کلان (شهر اصفهان)    ............. 156

5-3-     نتایج بررسی معیارها و شاخص‌های مقیاس میانی (منطقه سه) ....... 159

5-4-     نتایج بررسی معیارها و شاخص‌های مقیاس خرد (محله نقش‌جهان)...... 161

5-5-     بحث.. 165

5-6-     نتیجه‌گیری.. 166

6-    فصل ششم: پیشنهادها و رهنمود طراحی.. 168

6-1-     راهکارهای طراحی   169

6-2-     تعیین موضع طراحی.. 186

6-3-     ایدههای و پیشنهادها طراحی.. 186

7-    منابع. 199

8-   پیوست.. 209




دانلود فهرست و فصل اول کلیک کنید 





[ چهارشنبه 20 بهمن‌ماه سال 1395 ] [ 03:24 ب.ظ ] [ کاره ] [ نظرات (0) ]

The necessity to develop design criteria and indicators of Urban Space in Smart city

لزوم شهرهای هوشمند

شهر هوشمند 

در این مقاله به لزوم هوشمند سازی شهرها و تدوین معیارها و شاخصهای شهر هوشمند پرداخته شده است.

[ چهارشنبه 20 بهمن‌ماه سال 1395 ] [ 03:22 ب.ظ ] [ کاره ] [ نظرات (1) ]
[ چهارشنبه 20 بهمن‌ماه سال 1395 ] [ 03:18 ب.ظ ] [ کاره ] [ نظرات (0) ]

Apartment-Housing Effects on People’s Social Interaction Case Study: Abbas Abad District of Isfahan

آپارتمان نشینی و تعاملات اجتماعی  (عباس آباد اصفهان)

دانلود مقاله اینجا کلیک کنید

[ چهارشنبه 20 بهمن‌ماه سال 1395 ] [ 03:04 ب.ظ ] [ کاره ] [ نظرات (0) ]

تقدیم به بچه های شهرسازی مهندسی شهرسازی برنامه ریزی و طراحی شهری

برای دانلود طرح جامع نیک آباد اصفهان بر روی اعداد زیر کلیک کنید






نظر فراموش نشده :)

[ شنبه 22 آبان‌ماه سال 1395 ] [ 10:34 ق.ظ ] [ کاره ] [ نظرات (0) ]

1 2 3 4 5 ... 19 >>

.: Weblog Themes By WeblogSkin :.
آمار سایت
تعداد بازدید ها: 215399