ظرفیت¬سنجی مدیریت شهری در فرایند توانمندسازی سکونتگاههای غیررسمی، نمونه موردی: پنج شهر ایران
محورهای موضوعی :محمدرضا بذرگر 1 , محمد رحیمی 2 , علی سلطانی 3
1 - شیراز
2 - شیراز
3 - شیراز
کلید واژه: اسکان غیررسمی, توانمندسازی, ظرفیت¬, سنجی, فرایند تحلیل شبکه, فرایند تحلیل شبکه¬, ای فازی, مدیریت شهری,
چکیده مقاله :
موضوع توانمندسازی سکونتگاههای غیررسمی همواره با دو چالش روبرو بوده است. اول فقدان ظرفیت های لازم برای اجرا و آشنانبودن مدیریت شهری با ماهیت طرح توانمندسازی جهت افزایش این ظرفیت ها و دوم عدم اعتماد ساکنین اینگونه بافت ها به مدیریت شهری و به تبع آن چالش جذب مشارکت آن ها. این پژوهش بر آن است که با تمرکز بر چالش اول به عنوان مسأله پژوهش، با رویکردی تحلیلی توصیفی به سنجش و مقایسه ظرفیت های موجود مدیریت شهری در راستای توانمندسازی سکونتگاههای غیررسمی در پنج شهر ایران بپردازد تا کاستی هایی که از سوی مدیریت شهری متوجه این موضوع است، مشخص گردد. در این راستا با استناد به منابع اسنادی و کتابخانه ای، شاخص های سنجش ظرفیت مدیریت شهری در ابعاد مختلف تدوین شده است. در ادامه جهت کمَی سازی و گردآوری داده های موردنیاز هر شاخص، از نظر کارشناسان، استفاده از مصاحبه‌های عمیق و اطلاعات موجود در طرح توانمندسازی سکونتگاههای غیررسمی این شهرها استفاده شده است. جهت تحلیل داده ها و سنجش عدد نهایی ظرفیت موجود مدیریت شهری هر یک از شهرهای مورد بررسی در راستای توانمندسازی سکونت گاههای غیررسمی هر شهر، از مدل ANP-FUZZY و برای وزن دهی شاخص ها در این مدل، از متخصصین، مدیران شهری و پژوهشگران نظرسنجی صورت گرفته است. نتایج رتبه بندی مدیریت شهرهای مورد مطالعه جهت توانمند سازی سکونتگاههای غیر رسمی از بیشترین به کمترین ظرفیت به ترتیب: 1. شیراز؛ 2. مرودشت؛ 3. یاسوج؛ 4. زابل و 5. ایرانشهر می باشد و به ترتیب شاخص های: 1. استفاده از روش-های شهرسازی مشارکتی؛ 2. برگزاری نشست ها و کارگاه های آموزشی شهروندی مرتبط با مسائل اسکان غیررسمی و 3. میزان پایداری درآمد بیشترین اهمیت را در این رتبه بندی داشته اند.
Empowerment of informal settlements has been always faced with two challenges. Firtly, Lack of necessary capacity to implement and unfamiliarity of urban management with the nature of empowerment plan to increase these capacities. Secondly, distrust of the residents of these textures to urban management and consequently the challenge of attracting their participation. This study aims by focusing on the first challenge as a research problem, with analytical- descriptive approach to evaluate and compare the existing capacity of urban management in order to empower informal settlements in five cities, so that the shortcomings of the urban managment regarding this issue to be determined. In this regard, according to documents and library resources, indicators of urban management capacity has been developed in many aspects. Furthermore, in order to quantify and collect data needed for each indicator, according to experts, using in-depth interviews and avialable information in the empowerment plan of informal settlements of theses cities has been considered. To analyze the data and evaluate the final number of available capacity of urban management of each of the surveyed cities in order to empower informal settlements of each city, the FUZZY-ANP model, and for weighting of indicators in this model, professionals, city administrators and researchers were surveyed. Ranking results of the management of the cities in order to empower informal settlements from highest to lowest capacity were 1- Shiraz, 2- Marvdasht, 3-Yasouj, 4-Zabol, and 5-Iranshahr respectively. Moreover, the indiocators of 1- using participatory planning method, 2- meetings and workshops related to issues of informal settlements, and 3- the stability of income respectively had the highest significance in this ranking.
1. Angeles. L, gurstian, Penny. Planning for Participatory Capacity Development: the Challenges of Participation and North-South Partnership in Capacity Building Projects, Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue canadienne d'études du développement, 2011;
2. Appadurai, A . Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of politics Environment and Urbanization 13(2): 23,3, 2001;
3. Aramburu Guevara, Nilva Karenina. Informality and Formalization of Informal Settlements at the Turn of the Third Millennium: Practices and Challenges in Urban Planning, Journal of Studies in Social Sciences, Volume 9, Number 2. 2014;
4. Blore, I, Devas, N, Slater, R. Municipalities and Finance, New York: Earthscan, 2009;
5. Chapman,Mechael.Kirk,Karryn, Lessons for Community Capacity Building: A Summary of Research Evidence. Research Department Scottish Homes, Thistle House. School of Planning and Housing Edinburgh College of Art/Heriot-Watt University, Copyright: Scottish Homes, 2001;
6. Cheung, Ether. Developing a best practice frameworkfor implementing public private partnership in Hong Kong. (Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy).Queensland University.2009;
7. Devas, Nik and et al, Urban Governance,Voice and Poverty in the Developing World, EARTHSCAN, london. Sterling, VA, 2004;
8. Dongier, Philips and at.al Community- Driven Development, Core Techniques Issues. Volume1, Chapter 9, pp301-331, www.worldbank.org, 2001;
9. Farouk Hassan, ghada,. The enabling approach for housing supply Drawbacks & prerequisites – Egyptian experiences, Alexandria Engineering Journal, 2012, 50, 421–429;
10. Gowhari, Jabbar, Urban Management Role in Organizing Informal Settlements International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research. Vol., 4 (11), 649-651, 2015;
11. Hataminejad, Hossein, Papoli Yazdi, Mohammad Hossein and Hosseinnejad, Mohammad Reza, Analysis of the Local Characteristics of Informal Settlements and how to Deal With these Settlements in the Neighborhood of Mashhad Abkuh, Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management Journal, Volume: 2, November 2014;
12. Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (HIS), Development Planning Unit (DPU), Building Capacity for Better Cities; Concepts and Strategies. Published by Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, United Kingdom, 1996;
13. Jeganathan, C. Development of Fuzzy Logic Architecture to Access the Sustainability of the Forest Management. MSc. thesis. Enschede, ITC: 2003;
14. Khalifa, Marwa A, Evolution of informal settlements upgrading strategies in Egypt: From negligence to participatory development, Ain Shams Engineering Journal,2015, 6, 1151–1159;
15. Laryea-Adjei, George. Building capacity for urban management in Ghana: some critical considerations, Habitat International 24 391-401, 2000;
16. Lee, A.H.I., Chen, W.C., Chang , C.J. A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 2008;
17. Litvack J, Ahmad J, Bird R. Rethinking Decentralization in developing countries. Washington(DC): Sector Studies Series, The World Bank; 1998;
18. LUDA Team. Monitoring Quality of Life in LUDAs. LUDA e-Compendium. Handbook e7, European Union: Key Action for City of tomorrow & cultural heritage; 2006;
19. M.Sohail Khan, Tools For Pro – Poor Municipal Public Private Partnerships, UNDP, 2004;
20. Mikhailov.L., Tsvetinov. P.. Evaluation of services using a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Applied Soft Computing, 2004;
21. Ministry of Roads and Urban Development.(urban development and revitalization organization), 2014. udrc.ir;
22. Mukhija V. Enabling Slum Redevelopment in Mumbai: Policy Paradox in Practice. Housing Studies, 18(4): 213-222, 2001;
23. Nkosi AL. An Evolution of a Women Empowerment: Life Skills Program in an Informal Settlement. Dissertation in Social Work, Faculty of Arts, Rand Afrikaans University, Johannesburg; 2003;
24. Ohlin,T. Towards more citizen participation in Sweden, symposium/futures,vol.33,pp.339-370, 2001;
25. Palenque, P. Settlement Upgrading Programme: PROMEBA, Argentina, In: “Building Cities”, Ed. By Rockefeller, D. Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University, IDB & Cities Alliance. 153-159,2010;
26. Plummer, Janelle. Focusing partnerships: a sourcebook for municipal capacity building inpublic-private partnerships, Earthscan, UK. 2002;
27. Ragheb, ghada, El-Shimy, hisham, and Ragheb, Amany, Land for Poor: Towards Sustainable Master Plan for Sensitive Redevelopment of Slums, Journal of Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2016, 216, 417 – 427;
28. Saaty, T. L. Fundammentalsof the Analytic Network Process, Proceeding of ISAHP, kobe, Japan, 1999;
29. Scholz, Wolfgang , Challenges of informal Urbanization. The Case of Zanzibar Town University of Dortmund, Faculty of Spatial Planning, SPRING Programme (Spatial Planning fo Regions in Growing Economies) http://www.raumplanung.uni-dortmund.de/geo/spring/. 2014;
30. Statistical Center of Iran,2017 , www.amar.org.ir;
31. Taleshi, Mostafa, Informal Settlements and Sustainable Urban Development Case Study: Metropolis of Mashhad in Northeastern of Iran, World Applied Sciences Journal 7 (10): 1235-1238, 2009;
32. UNDP Capacity Asseessment and Devwlopment: In a Systems and Strategic Management Context. Technical Advisory Paper No. 3, Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Development Policy, UNDP: New York, USA, 1998;
33. Wakely, Patric. Capacity Building for better Cities. DPUNEWS, Journal of the Development Planning Unit, London, University College, 2008;
34. World Bank, Entering the 21st Century, World Development Report 1999-2000, Washington, D.C, 2000;
35. World Bank, India Capacity Building For Urban Development, Project Appraisal Document South Asia Sustainable Development Sector Department, 2011;
36. World Bank. Enabling Markets to Work. A World Bank Policy Paper, Washington(DC), 1993.
