Analysis of Urban Fringe Stakeholders in the Capital (Metropolis of Tehran) based on the Power/Interest Matrix

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

• Naser Nasirian ¹
• Dr. Maysam Basirat ²

¹ MA in Urban Management, School of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran,Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor School of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran.Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jgusd.2021.71009.1061

Abstract

The conflict of interests in the use of land in urban fringe is one of the inherent characteristics of the world's metropolises, which in most cases leads to land speculation. Because the official definition of fringe for Tehran, Iran's capital, did not appear to be efficient, the way Tehran deals with its fringe is expected to differ from that of other cities in the country in approved urban development documents. Previous surveys and records indicate that this territory is home to a diverse range of interest groups with legal and illegal ties in the rural-urban fringe. The current study aimed to identify and analyze the interest groups that use their power or interest in the capital's (Tehran's) urban fringe to increase their authority and influence. The article's research method is descriptive-analytical. It was analyzed by reviewing the available literature on the urban fringe, identifying and analyzing the stakeholders of the capital's urban fringe using the power/interest matrix, and then analyzing it using interviewes and questionnaires. According to the study's findings, the capital's urban fringe stakeholders are divided into four categories: the governmental-state sector, the public sector, the private sector, and popular groups, each of which has other key stakeholders. The study shows that the public and private sectors have the most power and interest. The research demonstrates that the public and private sectors have the most power and interest. Governmental-state stakeholders, however, are just a portion of the stakeholders of the popular organizations, despite having tremendous power and influence and reaping the little financial reward which has the least power and interest.

Keywords

• Metropolis Tehran
• Tehran urban fringe
• Stakeholders
• Power / Benefit Matrix

20.1001.1.25383531.1401.9.2.5.8

References

1. جلیلی، م. (1392). ارزیابی فرایند سیاست‌گذاری کلان مدیریت شهری؛ نمونه مطالعاتی فرایند سیاست‌گذاری کلان برنامه ساختاری- راهبردی (جامع) شهر تهران (1390-1378). تهران: دانشگاه تهران، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد.
2. سعیدی رضوانی، ه. (1391). مدیریت حریم کلان‌شهرها. دوماهنامه شهر نگار، 56-57، 12-1.
3. سهیل خان، م. (1384) «مشارکت عمومی – خصوصی در خدمات‌رسانی شهری»، ترجمه جواهری پور، م.، فرزین پاک، ش.، ابراهیمی، ب.، انتشارات سازمان شهرداری‌ها و دهیاری‌های کشور، تهران
4. صادقیان ندوشن، م،. و باقری، م. (1395). تعارض منافع ذینفعان شرکت‌ها و راهکارهای حل آن، مجله پژوهش‌های حقوق تطبیقی . پاییز 1395، دوره بیستم - شماره 3
5. مجلس شورای اسلامی (1384). قانون تعاریف محدوده و حریم شهر، روستا و شهرک و نحوه تعیین آنها. تهران: مجلس شورای اسلامی.
6. معصوم،. ج. (1383). شهرداری‌ها و مدیریت حریم. مجله شهرداری‌ها، 6(65)، 10-5.
7. مهندسین مشاور بوم‌سازگان (1385). حریم شهر تهران (از گزارش‌های طرح جامع تهران، طرح راهبردی هدایت و کنترل تحولات کالبدی، اسناد). قسمت سوم، تدقیق و تکمیل طرح توسعه تهران. تهران: مهندسین مشاور بوم‌سازگان.
8. مهندسین مشاور طرح و کاوش (1389). طرح برنامه راهبردی مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی حریم پایتخت- جلد اول از گزارش‌های مطالعه و پیشنهاد نظام اجرایی و قانونی مدیریت حریم پایتخت  و تعیین حدود و مرزهای نهایی آن. تهران: مهندسین مشاور طرح و کاوش
9. مهندسین مشاور طرح و کاوش. (1391). طرح برنامه راهبردی مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی حریم پایتخت و برنامه‌ریزی حریم -مرکز مطالعات و برنامه‌ریزی شهر تهران/ معاونت مطالعات و برنامه‌ریزی امور زیرساخت و طرح جامع- جلد یک از یازده. تهران: مهندسین مشاور طرح و کاوش.

 

10. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: Theory and practice. Long range planning, 44(3), 179-196.‏
11. Adell, G. (1999). Theories and models of the peri-urban interface: a changing conceptual landscape.‏ London: Development Planning Unit, UCL.
12. Al-Hathloul, S., & Mughal, M. A. (2004). Urban growth management-the Saudi experience. Habitat International, 28(4), 609-623.‏
13. Amati, M., & Yokohari, M. (2007). The establishment of the London Greenbelt:reaching consensus over purchasing land. Journal of Planning History, 6 (4), 311–337.
14. Bengston, D. N., & Yeo-Chang, Y. (2005). Seoul's greenbelt: an experiment in urban containment. Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture.‏
15. Bryson, J.M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public management review, 6(1), 21-53.‏
16. Caves, R. (2005). Encyclopedia of the City. Routledge. London:Routledge.
17. Heimlich, L., & Ralph, E. (2001). Development at the urban fringe and beyond: impacts on agriculture and rural. Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture.‏
18. Jiang, Y., & Swallow, S.K. (2017). Impact Fees Coupled With Conservation Payments to Sustain Ecosystem Structure: A Conceptual and Numerical Application at the Urban-Rural Fringe. Ecological Economics, 136, 136-147.‏
19. Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (1999). Exploring corporate strategy. London: Prentice Hall Europe.
20. Majedi, H., & Pourjohari, A.H. (2012). Urban Growth Carriers; An Alternative Policy for Urban Growth Management in Iran. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Development, 1(1), 33-42.‏
21. Nguyen, N.H., Skitmore, M., & Johnny, W.K.W. (2009). Stakeholder impact analysis of infrastructure project management in developing countries: a study of perception of project managers in state-owned engineering firms in Vietnam. Construction Management and Economics, 27(11),1129-1140.
22. Nutt, P. (2002). Why decisions fail: Avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to debacles. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.‏
23. Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 321–328
24. Pitzl, G. (2004). Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Greenwood Publication.
25. Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, Ch., Quinn, C.H., & Stringer, L.C. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of environmental management, 90(5), 1933-1949.‏
26. UN-Habitat (2005). United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT). Key competencies for improving local governance - Local elected leadership series, Volume 3 - Concepts and Strategies: for each of the roles and competencies. UN-Habitat.
27. Weaver, D.B., & Lawton, L.J. (2001). Resident perceptions in the urban–rural fringe. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 439-458.‏
28. Zhao, P. (2017). An ‘unceasing war’on land development on the urban fringe of Beijing: A case study of gated informal housing communities. Cities, 60, 139-146.‏
29. Zhao, P., Lu, B., & Woltjer, J. ( 2009). Conflicts in urban fringe in the transformation era: An examination of performance of the metropolitan growth management in Beijing. Habitat International, 33(4), 347-356.‏