پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,226 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,700 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,008,984 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,691,102 |
کاربرد روش طرح- فرایند- نتایج (PPR) در ارزیابی طرح‌های شهری | ||
| محیط شناسی | ||
| مقاله 17، دوره 40، شماره 4، دی 1393، صفحه 1035-1050 اصل مقاله (1.47 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jes.2014.53018 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| منوچهر طبیبیان1؛ علی آسوده* 2 | ||
| 1استاد گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران | ||
| 2کارشناس ارشد مدیریت شهری، دانشکده هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| تاکنون روش‌های متعددی برای ارزیابی طرح‌های شهری معرفی شده، اما در این میان به روش‌های ارزیابی جامع و سیستماتیک کمتر توجه شده است. در سال‌های اخیر روش طرح - فرایند- نتایج (PPR) به‌منزلۀ روش ارزیابی جامع و سیستماتیک و بر پایۀ روش سیاست- طرح/برنامه- اجرا- فرایند (PPIP) در ارزیابی طرح‌های شهری معرفی شده است. روش حاضر که در سال 2009 الویرا و پینهو پیشنهاد کردند، برای ارزیابی جامع طرح‌های شهری است که به همۀ ابعاد طرح‌های شهری توجه می‌کند و در ارزیابی پیش، حین و پس از اجرا کاربرد دارد و تاکنون در ارزیابی طرح‌های توسعۀ شهری در شهرهای لیسبون و پورتو به کار گرفته شده است. در مقالۀ حاضر عناصر کلیدی روش طرح -فرایند- نتایج شامل: معیارها، زیرمعیارها، منابع داده و تکنیک‌های ارزیابی معرفی و کاربرد آن در ارزیابی طرح‌های شهری با به کارگیری این روش در ارزیابی پیش از اجرای طرح توسعۀ اراضی آبشار 2 مشهد تشریح می‌‌شود. نتایج نشان می‌دهد به‌رغم جامعیت روش طرح - فرایند- نتایج، این روش تأکید بیشتری بر بعد کالبدی دارد که با شرایط سیستم شهرسازی در ایران همخوانی بیشتری دارد و می‌تواند در ارزیابی طرح‌های شهری کاربرد مناسبی داشته باشد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| سیاست- طرح/برنامه- اجرا- فرایند (PPIP)؛ روش‌های ارزیابی؛ طرح- فرایند- نتایج (PPR)؛ طرح‌های شهری | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Application of Plan - Process - Results (PPR) method in urban plans evaluation | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Manouchehr Tabibian1؛ Ali Asoodeh2 | ||
| 1Professor, Department of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Prof., College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran | ||
| 2M.Sc,Graduate of Urban Management, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction So far, many evaluation methodologies for assessing urban plans have been introduced, but comprehensive and systematic evaluation methodologies up to now have received little attention. In recent years the Plan - Process - Results (PPR) approach as a comprehensive and systematic evaluation methodology based on the Policy- Plan/Programme-Implementation-Process(PPIP) methodology has been used in the assessment of urban plans. The PPIP model criteria - conformity, rational process, optimality ex-ante, optimality ex-post and utilisation – in planning the subsequent questions of policy, plan or programme, or the planning process under study and its results are considered. Despite the influence of PPIP model in the planning literature, from the early 1990s to the best of our knowledge PPIP has not been used in real case studies, or not reported but PPR methodology since the two cities, Lisbon and Porto are applied. In this study we outline the key elements of Plan - Process - Results (PPR) methodology, including criteria, sub-criteria and evaluation techniques/data sources introduced and its application in evaluation of urban plans using this methodology in ex-ante evaluation of Abshar (2) land development plan in Mashhad describes. Methodology Plan - Process - Results (PPR) methodology was developed in 2009 by Oliveira and Pinho for comprehensive evaluation of urban plans that will take into consideration all dimensions of urban plans with greater emphasis on the physical dimension and it used in ex-ante, ongoing ,ex-pose evaluation of urban development plan. This methodology exploit the positive aspects and fixes some weaknesses in the ex-ante evaluation methods, to scrutinize criteria of the Policy- Plan/Programme-Implementation-Process (PPIP) methodology. In this study PPR methodology used in the ex-ante evaluation of Abshar (2) land development plan in Mashhad by utilizes a number of criteria that relate to the ex-ante dimension of Plan described. Results Overall, the specific criteria on which the Abshar (2) land development plan attains the highest scores are the internal coherence and interpretation of planning system (see Table 5). The specific criteria on which the plan attains the Lowest scores are the participation in plan making. Table 5. Abshar (2) land development plan: Evaluation results Evaluation techniques /data sources Score Sub-criteria Criteria Reading of the plan Impact matrices A Relationships between the objectives and the land uses of the plan Internal coherence Relationships between the objectives and the urban systems of the plan Relationships between the objectives and the plan implementation mechanisms Reading of the different versions of the plan and its regulation A Interpretation in terms of form Interpretation of planning system Interpretation in terms of substance Reading of the plan SWOT analysis Impact matrices Reading of the newspapers B Relationships between the needs of the city and the objectives of the plan Relevance Relationships between the needs of the city and the land uses and urban systems Relationships between the needs of the city and the plan implementation mechanisms Reading of the plan and of other plans for that territory B Relationships in terms of objectives ٍExternal coherence Relationships in terms of territorial Relationships in terms of implementation Reading of the plan Interviews C Quantity of participants Participation in plan making Quality of participants Promotion of public participation by the local authority Reading of the different versions of the plan (during the period of its preparation) Interviews B Influence of the political power in the plan, as well as in other planning products, processes and structures Plan utilisation Influence of the plan and of the planning practice in the political power Reading of the plan Interviews B Evolution of the availability of resources Commitment of resources Type of resources available Relationships between planning performance and utilization of resources Conclusions This study aims to demonstrate that despite the difficulties and the complexity of the evaluation of planning action it is possible to evaluate urban plan practice in a comprehensive and systematic way. In this paper Plan - Process - Results (PPR) methodology and its application in the ex-ante evaluation of Abshar (2) land development plan in Mashhad was raised. Overall, the results indicate that a greater emphasis on the physical dimension and providing more of the criteria and data sources this methodology differs from other methodologies and makes fertile ground for managers and urban planners to provide to a more favourable evaluation of the planning and implementation of urban plans are made.Moreover, the selection of general and specific criteria, the corresponding evaluation questions, the assessment techniques, and data source indicated comprehensive character of PPR. The limitation of this methodology also requires access to vast sources of data are. Application of the PPR methodology provided not only a sound and substantiated judgment on the case study under evaluation but also provided the basis for identifying a number of singular and important features in planning practice of Abshar (2) land development plan. Overall, according to the characteristics and framework of urban planning systeme in Iran of greater emphasis on physical dimension rather than other dimensions of economic, social, environmental, so this methodology is more consistent with the country's urbanism system and can be applied as a comprehensive and systematic evaluation method in assessting planning and implementing urban plans in Iran. Finally the main challenge of evaluation can be described as a dilemma that planning is faced with uncertainty and evaluator must at the same time be able to judge plan, process and their results. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Plan-Process-Results(PPR), evaluation methodologies, urban plans, Policy- Plan/Programme-Implementation-Process (PPIP) | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
مهندسین مشاور مهرازان، 1377. گزارش طرح جامع مشهد. مهندسین مشاور مهرازان، 1390. کلّیات طرح توسعه و طرح پیشنهادی پروژۀ الگوی توسعۀ طرح تفصیلی محدودۀ اراضی آبشار 2 (میدان تیر ارتش). مهندسین مشاور مهرازان، 1391. ضوابط و مقررات طرح تفصیلی اراضی آبشار 2 (میدان تیر ارتش). Alexander, E. and Faludi, A. 1989. Planning and plan implementation: notes on evaluation criteria, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 16, 127-140. Alexander, E. 2006. Problems and prospects: dilemmas in evaluation and directions for the future, in: Alexander, E. (Ed.) Evaluation and Planning, Evolution and Prospects, Aldershot, Ashgate, 267-276. Baer, W. 1997. General plan evaluation criteria, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(3), 329-344. Berke, P., Backhurst, M., Day, M., Ericksen, N., Laurian, L., Crawford, J. and Dixon, J. 2006. What makes plan implementation successful? An evaluation of local plans and implementation practices in New Zeland, Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, 33(4), 581-600. Brody, S. and Highfield, W. 2005. Does planning work? Testing the implementation of local environmental planning in Florida, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 159-175. Brody, S., Highfield, W. and Thornton, S. 2006. Planning at the urban fringe: an examination of the factors influencing nonconforming development patterns in Southern Florida, Environment and Planning B: Planning &Design, 33(1), 75- 96. Burby, R. 2003. Making plans that matter: citizen involvement and government action, Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(1), 33-49. European Commission. 1999. MEANS Collection-Evaluating socio-economic programmes, Luxembourg, Official Publications Office of the European Communities. Khakee, A. 2000. Reading plans as an exercise in evaluation, Evaluation, 6(2), 119-136. Khakee, A. 2001. Drama democratic discourse policy statement: an evaluation of plan texts, in: Voogd, H. (Ed.) Recent developments in evaluation, Groningen, Geopress, 235-252. Lange, M., Mastop, H. and Spit, T. 1997. Performance of national policies, Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design, 24(6), 845-858. Laurian, L., Day, M., Backhurst, M., Berke, P., Ericksen, N., Crawford, J., Dixon, J., and Chapman, S. 2004. What drives plan implementation? Plans, planning agencies and developers, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(4), 555-577. Liddle, J and Smith, S. 2007. Evaluation approaches, in: Managing the City, Routledge, 116-130. Mandelbaum, S. 1990. Reading plans, Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(2), 350-356. Norton, R. 2005. More and better local planning. A state-mandated local planning in Coastal North Carolina, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(1), 55-71. Norton, R. 2005. Striking the balance between environment and economy in Coastal North Carolina, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 4(2), 177-207. Norton, R. 2005. Local commitment to state-mandated planning in Coastal North Carolina, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(2), 149-171. Oliveira, V. and Pinho, P. 2009. Evaluating Plans, Processes and Results, Planning, Theory & Practice, 10(1), 35-63. Oliveira, V. and Pinho, P. 2010. Evaluation in urban planning: Advances and Prospects, Journal of planning Literature, 24(4), 343-361. Oliveira, V. and Pinho, P. 2011. Bridging the gap between planning evaluation and programme evaluation: The contribution of the PPR methodology, Journal of Evaluation, 17(3), 293-307. Rossi, P., Freeman, H. and Lipsey, M. 1999. Evaluation, a systematic approach, sixth edition, Thousand Oaks, Sage. Talen, E. 1996. After the plans: methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(1), 79–91. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 4,926 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2,172 |
||