ارزیابی در پژوهش های برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای ایران؛ مرور نظام مند

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 —formulates the problem, develop the review protocol, search the literature, screen for inclusion, assess quality, extract data, analyze and synthesize data and reporting 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; (2) Weakness in the theoretical foundations and methodology of ongoing evaluation and quality measurement; (3) Weakness in the theoretical foundations of the conformance-oriented approach; (4) Weakness in spatial, social and political dimensions;(5) Weakness in establishing a relationship between planning theory and evaluation and, as a result, weakness in process-oriented evaluation; and (6) Quantitativeness and excessive focus on statistical methods. As a suggestion to strengthen the evaluation step 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.