Assessing the Appropriateness of “Mixed Scanning Planning” Theoretical Approach for Applying in Urban Development Planning System in Iran

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Associate Professor, Department of Urban Planning & Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Velenjak, Tehran

2 PHD Student, Department of Urban Planning & Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Velenjak


The low rate of realization and the inefficiency of Urban Development Plans based on traditional comprehensive approaches during previous decades in Iran planning system, and the decision-makers attitude towards an incremental conservative and operational approach have demonstrated the necessity of thinking about changing the attitudes toward making plans, which are intended to remove the shortfalls in these two paradigms in Iran. The harmony of traditional comprehensive approaches with contextual requirements and the structure of political economic system in Iran make the immediate rejection of this approach impossible on one hand. On the other hand, the incremental sufficiency of maintaining the present situation, remedying but not developing, and requiring pluralistic consistent environments make the unilateral acceptance of this approach inappropriate, although it is closer to implementation. The main issue in question is that accepting which approach will be applicable enough now that the necessity of polishing theoretical viewpoints and planning methodology with an emphasis on contextual necessities, environmental constraints, planning issues, and the stronger link between plans and operational areas are clear. Therefore, the presented research tried in a descriptive-analytical way to answer this question of whether organizing the aforementioned theoretical errors as combinational approaches will be useful enough. The main purpose of the study is therefore denominated to test the applicability of the combinational Mixed Scanning Approach in answering particular issues related to the planning system in Iran. The achievement of this purpose is first made possible through recognizing the effective internal and external necessities and abilities in the correct operation of this approach in meta-analysis form as an important criterion for a review of research background and summarizing the available knowledge corpus. Finally and in the second step, the appropriateness of Mixed Scanning approach and fulfilling urban development planning requirements is measured according to the possibilities through comparing the necessities and facilities of Mixed Scanning approach with the requirements and issues of planning system in Iran, and elaborating on the amount of harmony between both paradigms. Measuring the requirements for urban development planning system in Iran in form of recognizing the domestic conditions, distinguishing its environmental requirements and constraints, and conforming it with the effective possibilities and requirements in correct performance of the Mixed Scanning paradigm indicate the relative ability and appropriateness for applying Mixed Scanning approach as an alternative approach in urban development planning system in Iran. The abilities of Mixed Scanning approach such as increasing the realism and the power of facing the uncertain and complex environmental conditions in the developing Iran, needing some requirements that are fewer than those required for rationalism in an environment full of difficulties in achieving or the lack of up to date information, a tendency towards pragmatic and paying attention to performance with an emphasis on the environmental characteristics of the planning system and denying the comprehensive and certain paradigm, and having a simultaneous amount of idealism and conservatism, therefore making the progress and development possible will clarify the relative appropriateness of this method in urban development planning system in Iran.


  1. Aberley, Doug, (2003), A Short Introduction to Radical Planning Theory and Practice, Winnipeg Inner City Manitoba: Research Alliance Summer Institute.
  2. 2. Allmendinger, Philip, (2002), Planning Theory, Planning Environment, Cities, Palgrave Macmillan, UK.
  3. 3. Bradley, Mattiu, (1973), “Decision-Making for Environmental Resources Management.” Journal of Environmental Management, 1: 289-302.
  4. 4. Ben-Zadok, Efraim.,(1985), National planning _the critical neglected link: one hundred years of Jewish settlement in Israel, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 17(3) : 329-345.
  5. 5. Buttoud, Gerard, & Samyn, Jean-Marie, 1999: Politique et planification forestières: guide pour la formulation et l’élaboration. Berne, Intercooperation, (in French).
  6. 6. Buttoud, Gerard, (2002), the mixed model for decision making as a conceptual framework for IMP formulation, Bardonecchia, Italy.
  7. 7. Chadwick, George, (1971), a system view of planning, towards a theory of the urban and regional planning process, Pergamon press, Oxford.
  8. 8. Drewe, Paul, (2008), the methodological trajectory of the Regio Futures Programme–how to make it workable? Poland and Regions–Perspectives of the XXI Century, Warsaw, Sheraton Hotel, October .
  9. 9. Dunn, William, (1994). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, N.J: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
  10. 10. Etzioni, Amitai, (1967), Mixed scanning: a third approach to decision making, Public administration review, 27(5): 358- 392.
  11. 11. Etzioni, Amitai, (1973) Mixed scanning, a third approach to decision-making, in A. Faludi(ed) A reader in planning theory, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
  12. 12. Etzioni, Amitai, (1986), Mixed Scanning Revisited, Public administration review, 46(1):8-14.
  13. 13. Friedmann, John, (1973), Retracking America: a theory of transactive planning, Anchor Press, Norwell .
  14. 14. Forester, John, (1984), Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through, Public Administration Review, 44(1): 23-31.
  15. 15. Forester, John, (1989) Planning in the Face of Power, University of California Press, London.
  16. 16. Goldberg, Melvin., (1975), “On the inefficiency of being efficient,” Environment & planning, 7(8): 921 – 939.
  17. 17. Grabow, Stephen, & Heskin, Allan, (1973): Foundations for a Radical Concept of Planning, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 39:2: 106-114.
  18. 18. Hanna, Allan Alexander, (1980), Settlement and energy policy in perspective: A theoretical framework for the evaluation of public policy, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Western Ontario.
  19. 19. Healey, Patsey, McDougall, Glen & Thomas, Michael, (1982) ‘Theoretical debates in planning: towards a coherent dialogue’, in P. Healey, G. McDougall and M. Thomas (eds), Planning Theory. Prospects Jor the 1980s, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
  20. 20. Healey, Patsey. (1993), ‘Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory’, in F. Fischer and J. Forester (eds), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, UCL Press, London.
  21. 21. Healey, Patsey, (1997): J. Brian McLoughlin: An appreciation, European Planning Studies, 5:6: 771-776.
  22. 22. Ijeoma, Edwin, (2007), Rationality, Disjointed Incrementalism and Mixed Scanning Theories for Decision Making On Globalisation, Journal of Public Administration, 42(8):816-829.
  23. 23. Janis, Lester, & Mann, Leon, (1977), Decision Making, The Free Press, New York.
  24. 24. Kaufman, Jerome, (1979), Comment, Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(4):403-406.
  25. 25. Kuruvilla, Shyama, Dorstewitz, Philipp, (2009), There is no ‘‘point’’ in decision-making: a model of transactive rationality for public policy and administration, Policy Science, 43:263–287.
  26. 26. Lee. Karine, (1979), “Health Care Planning, Policies and Incentives Futures:482-490.
  27. 27. Lindblom, Charles, (1959), the science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review,19(2): 79-88.
  28. 28. Martinelli, John, (1985), A theoretical comparision of problem-solving theories, Fordham university, PHD dissertation.
  29. 29. Meyerson, M., & Banfield, E. C. (1955). Politics, Planning, and the Public Interest: The Case of Public Housing in Chicago. The Free Press of Glencoe, London.
  30. 30. Rosenhead, Jonathan, (1980). Planning under uncertainty: the inflexibility of methodologies, Journal of the operational research society, 35(5), 209-216.
  31. 31. Rončević, Borut, Makarovič, Matej, (2010), Towards the strategies of modern societies, systems and social processes, Innovation, The European Journal of Social Science Research, 23:3, 223-239.
  32. 32. Smith, Galbert & David May, (1980), The artificial debate between rational and incrementalist models of decision making, Policy and Politics, 8:147-161.
  33. 33. Starkie, David, (1984), Policy, changes, configuration and catastrophiey, Policy and Politics, 12:71-84.
  34. 34. Volkema, Roger, (1983), Management Science, 29(6): 639-652.
  35. 35. Wimberley, Perry & Morrow, Allyn, (1981), Muddling over Muddling through again, International Journal of Public Administration, 3:483-508.
  36. 36. Zuidema, Christian, & Gert, De Roo, (2004), Integrating complexity theory into Planning :truth or dare?, 18th Annual Aesop Conference, Grenoble, FRW, RUG, Groningen.
  37. 37. دانشپور، زهره، (1387)، درآمدی بر نظریه‌های برنامه‌ریزی با تاکید ویژه بر برنامه‌ریزی شهری، چاپ اول، انتشارات دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی، تهران. 38
  38. . حبیب‌اللهیان، جلیل، (1385)، ارزیابی فرآیند برنامه‌های جامع و تفصیلی تهران، نشریه علمی پژوهشی مرکز اطلاعات جغرافیایی شهر تهران، سال ششم، صص 35-50. 39.
  39. دفتر طرح‌های کالبدی، (1386)، نظام سلسله‌مراتب برنامه‌ریزی و مدیریت توسعه و عمران درایران، دومین اجلاس وزرای مسکن و شهرسازی آسیا و اقیانوسیه، وزارت مسکن و شهرسازی، معاونت شهرسازی و معماری، کارگروه برنامه‌ریزی و مدیریت شهری و روستایی.
  40. 40. زاهدی‌فر، محمد، (1373)، تحلیل نظام تصمیم‌گیری در شهر تهران، بررسی امکان‌پذیری تمرکززدایی در تصمیم‌گیری، استاد راهنما: دکتر زهره عبدی دانشپور، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی، تهران.
  41. 41. زنوز، هادی، (1389)، بررسی نظام برنامه‌ریزی اقتصادی در ایران(دوره قبل از انقلاب اسلامی)، دفتر مطالعات برنامه و بودجه، مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی، چاپ اول، تابستان، صص 22-28.
  42. 42. رئیس‌دانا، فریبرز، (1388)، دگرسازی یا بازسازی طرح‌های جامع، ویژه نامه نهاد برنامه‌ریزی توسعه شهری تهران، مجله تخصصی هنر، محیط، منظر، شهر، معماری، شماره چهار، بهمن ماه، صص 30-38.
  43. 43. قاضی طباطبایی، محمود؛ ودادهیر، ابوعلی. (1389)، فراتحلیل در پژوهش‌های اجتماعی و رفتاری، چاپ اول، جامعه‌شناسان، تهران.