موسسه انتشارات دانشگاه تهران نشریه هنرهای زیبا: معماری و شهرسازی 2228-6020 31 2 2026 07 23 Evaluation In Iran Urban and Regional Planning Research; A Systematic Review ارزیابی در پژوهش های برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای ایران؛ مرور نظام مند 107946 10.22059/jfaup.2026.399127.673104 FA محمدعلی حیدری گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر ایران، تهران، ایران 0000-0001-9566-7497 ناصر برک پور گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر ایران، تهران، ایران 0000-0002-2941-9812 Journal Article 2025 08 04 Evaluation is not a new phenomenon; humans have always engaged in judging and assessing their actions. Over the past six decades, significant attention has been paid to the theoretical foundations of evaluation in urban and regional planning, leading to the development of a wide array of concepts, theories, approaches, and methodologies. However, this diversity has led to significant theoretical and practical ambiguities. In response, various studies have emerged to classify and analyze the evolution of evaluation in urban and regional planning. The purpose of these studies is to identify the boundaries of evaluation knowledge in urban and regional planning and to identify the challenges facing evaluation. These classifications are typically based on the timing of evaluation, underlying planning theories, and the mechanisms of evaluation methods. Given this complexity, a systematic review of research in the field of urban and regional planning evaluation is essential for identifying strengths, existing challenges, and future research directions. Despite the global academic engagement with this topic, there has been a noticeable lack of systematic investigation within the national context. This article, therefore, seeks to fill that gap through a systematic quantitative and qualitative review of academic literature to address two main questions: which evaluation approaches have been most frequently employed by researchers, and what challenges does the field currently face. The study analyzes 86 selected scholarly articles using a systematic review approach. The research methodology is based on the model proposed by Xiao and Watson, which includes three main phases—planning the review, conducting the review, and reporting the findings—structured into eight steps —formulate the problem, develop the review protocol, search the literature, screen for inclusion, assess quality, extract data, analyze and synthesize data and report the findings— and adapted specifically for the field of urban and regional planning. The Findings indicate that evaluation is often treated merely as a technical tool rather than as a topic of critical inquiry. Most evaluation methods applied in the reviewed articles are repetitive and lack theoretical grounding. Furthermore, evaluation in urban and regional planning is predominantly quantitative in nature, physical oriented, subject-driven (focused on specific plans and programs), and heavily reliant on statistical analysis. The main weaknesses of urban and regional planning evaluation in Iran are: (1) Weakness in theoretical foundations and qualitative-oriented methodology and performance-oriented approach: Among ex-post evaluation approaches, performance-based approach has received limited attention. This is largely due to the blueprint nature of comprehensive plans, which align with conformance-based approaches. However, given their long-term role in guiding subsequent plans, their evaluation is essential. Weak qualitative methodologies and neglect of higher-level plan evaluation further constrain performance-based assessment; (2) Weakness in the theoretical foundations and methodology of on-going evaluation and quality measurement: Most studies assess the extent to which proposed land uses are realized, requiring the implementation period to be completed before evaluating success or failure. Consequently, on-going evaluation is often neglected, especially in comprehensive plans. Plan quality evaluation is recommended, as it enables content-based judgment, supports long term evaluation, and relies on well-established global methodologies; (3) Weakness in the theoretical foundations of the conformance-oriented approach: Although conformance-based evaluation dominates methodologies, its theoretical foundations remain weak, creating methodological challenges. Defining success and attributing outcomes to plans is complex due to external factors and uncertainty. Despite global advances refining conformance methods, including permit-based measures and mismatch classifications, limited theoretical development has constrained methodological diversity in national studies; (4) Weakness in spatial, social and political dimensions: Despite the widespread use of remote sensing, few studies employ GIS tools, relying mainly on land use comparisons. GIS can better reveal spatial mismatches and their drivers. Social aspects are also narrowly addressed, focusing on population forecasts. Moreover, evaluations are often topic-based rather than policy-oriented, weakening analysis of decision-making processes and policy impacts; (5) Weakness in establishing a relationship between planning theory and evaluation and, as a result, weakness in process-oriented evaluation: Planning encompasses process, plan, and outcome. Neglecting their interrelations has created gaps in process-oriented evaluation. Strengthening links between planning theory and evaluation approaches, alongside developing systematic frameworks, are essential for realistic assessment of urban and regional planning; and (6) Quantitativeness and excessive focus on statistical methods: Qualitative approaches offer deeper understanding and stronger theoretical sensitivity than quantitative methods, which dominate existing studies. Overreliance on statistics limits evaluative judgment. Methods such as grounded theory can better explain success or failure, addressing causes of mismatches. Excessive quantification neglects critical dimensions influencing urban and regional planning evaluation. As a suggestion to strengthen the evaluation steps in the theoretical foundations of urban and regional planning, evaluation itself should be recognized as a problem and challenge. Therefore, the view of the nature of evaluation should change from a methodological and instrumental perspective to a process-oriented, theory-oriented perspective, to provide an opportunity to develop methodologies appropriate to the country's planning system. ارزیابی برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای شامل مفاهیم، نظریه ها و روش های متنوعی است. این تنوع باعث گستردگی ابهامات نظری و عملی شده است. بررسی پژوهش ها در زمینه ارزیابی برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای می تواند نقاط قوت، چالش ها و جهت گیری های آتی مطالعاتی را مشخص کند. برخلاف آنچه در سطح جهانی رخ داده، در ایران از بررسی پژوهشهای انجام‌شده در زمینه ارزیابی غفلت شده است. این مقاله با تکیه‌بر مرور نظام مند کمی و کیفی مقاله های علمی، سعی دارد به پرسش کدام رویکردها بیشتر موردتوجه محققان بوده، چه چالشهایی پیشروی ارزیابی است پاسخ دهد و جهتگیری مطالعات آتی را نشان دهد. این مقاله بر اساس مرور 86 مقاله در زمینه ارزیابی برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای شکل گرفته است. شیوه انجام تحقیق بر مبنای مدل مرور نظام مند جدیدی است که شامل سه مرحله اصلی برنامه ریزی مرور، انجام مرور و گزارش مرور است. این مدل متناسب با رشته برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای توسعه یافته است. با بررسی مقاله های انتخابی مشخص شد ارزیابی نه به‌عنوان یک مسئله قابل‌بحث بلکه به‌عنوان یک ابزار در نظر گرفته میشود. ضعف نظری، عدم تشریح تحولات و رویکردهای ارزیابی، ارزیابی کمی محور (77درصد)، کالبدمحور (61 بار تکرار)، موضوع محور (موضوعات طرح) و متکی بر تحلیل های آماری (21 بار تکرار) از ویژگی های اصلی مطالعات ارزیابی برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای کشور است.

https://jfaup.ut.ac.ir/article_107946_cab3aa90833c7beb64c5d4e766189a1c.pdf