Surveying Citizens' Engagement Pattern in Abasabad Projects with Focus on Spatial Citizenship Concept

Document Type : Research Paper


Tarbiat Modares University


Urban large-scale projects have always been a controversial topic of debates. These projects are time- and money-consuming and the rejection or approve of their functionality is based on political intentions. In the last hundred years, each of them costed billions of dollars from private or public budgeting, used technical and human resources. These risky-complex creatures are built to fulfill different desires from infrastructural needs like gas or oil projects up to luxurious projects like flagship projects in urban regeneration. The planning and construction of them accelerated specially after the World War II. In Tehran, Abasabad is a great example of these projects. Abasabad is a complex of fields at the center of Tehran, which they were used to be unused hills and gardens. However, the majority of urban planning policies lead to turning them into large-scale projects. All the process of planning and construction of Abasabad urban large-scale projects has done in non-participatory way. So, the question of whether Abasabad large-scale projects meet citizens’ interest or not has been arisen. It assumed that citizens are satisfied with the function of these projects. In order to prove the assumption, “Spatial citizenship” as an applied participatory approach was used. Spatial citizenship has been created as a practical approach to use the special potential of virtual spaces and spatial data. This method is supported by GIS and participation concepts via internet. The two main components of “Spatial citizenship” are “Spatial citizen” and “geomedia”. A geomedia provides a space for citizens to criticize urban planning trends without concerning to be recognized. Therefore, citizens can be easily part of planning procedures. To add to the point raised before, this kind of planning is more effective and creative in problem solving. To start out with, “Our Abas‌abad” as a geomedia of this approach, is designed and implemented. There are two major sections in “Our Abasabad”. Active participation takes place in the first section based on PPGIS concept. An online survey is in the second one. There are also other sections based on a standard geomedia, e.g. geocommunication or geovisualization parts. During the test time of geomedia 510 users used it. By analyzing the answer of survey with statistical test of t- One sample, it has been proved that citizens of Tehran are satisfied with Abasabad large-scale projects. When all is said and done, a broad spectrum of research conducted in this area reveals that, Abasabad large-scale projects have inherent difference from the other large-scale projects. Most of these projects are environmental-friendly and public beneficiary, they develop the sense of belonging and local identity of citizens. So that they succeeded in capturing citizens’ attention and made them satisfy. Consistent with this, the result of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of citizen for each project is depicted on a map due to 136 users who participate in the second section. Finally, the research concludes that spatial citizenship is a method which leads to participation improvement, power transparency and it is an effective way in problem solving in urban planning.


پهلوان، سمیه (1392)، بررسی تاثیرات ایجاد ابرپروژه های شهری بر فرآیند توسعه اجتماعات محلی مورد مطالعه: پروژه الماس شرق مشهد، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد برنامه ریزی شهری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
خدایاری، گلثوم؛ دانشور حسینی، فاطمه و سعیدی، حمیده (1393)، میزان و نوع استفاده از شبکه­های اجتماعی مجازی، فصلنامه پژوهش­های ارتباطی، سال بیست و یکم، شماره 1 (77) ، صص 167-192.
نوری، شیوا (1393)، سنجش اثرات کیفی مگاپروژه های شهری بر ارتقای اقتصاد محلی مورد پژوهش دریاچه شهدای خلیج فارس در منطقه 22 شهر تهران، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد برنامه ریزی شهری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
        Andrews, D; Nonnecke, B and Preece, J (2003), Electronic survey methodology: A case study in reaching hard-to-involve Internet users, International journal of human-computer interaction, 16(2), pp.185-210.
          Atzmanstorfer, K; Resl, R; Eitzinger, A and Izurieta, X (2014), The GeoCitizen-approach: community-based spatial planning–an Ecuadorian case study, Cartography and geographic information science, 41(3), pp.248-259.
        Bennett, W.L (2008), Changing citizenship in the digital age, Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth1, pp.1-24.
        Bennett, W.L; Wells, C and Rank, A (2009), Young citizens and civic learning: Two paradigms of citizenship in the digital age, Citizenship Studies13(2), pp.105-120.
        Bianchini, F (1990), Flagship projects in urban regeneration, In: Healey, p. et al, Rebuilding the city, E & FN Spon, London.
         Brockmann, C and Girmscheid, G (2007), Complexity of megaprojects, In Construction for development: Proceedings of CIB world building congress, pp. 219-230.
        Doucet, B (2009), Global flagships, local impacts, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 162(3), pp.101-107.
         Elwood, S (2008), Geographic Information Science: new geovisualization technologies–emerging questions and linkages with GIScience research, Human Geography, 173, pp. 105-116.
         Elwood, S and Leszczynski, A (2013), New spatial media, new knowledge politics, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(4), pp.544-559.
         Felgenhauer, T and Quade, D (2012), Society and Geomedia, Some Reflections from a Social Theory Perspective, GI_Forum, pp.74-82.
         Flyvbjerg, B (2005), Design by deception: The politics of megaproject approval, Harvard Design Magazine, Spring/Summer, (22), pp.50-59.
         Flyvbjerg, B (2014), What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview, Project Management Journal, 45(2), pp.6-19.
         Flyvbjerg, B (2016), Introduction: The Iron Law of Megaproject Management, The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject management, Oxford press.
         Follmann, A (2015), Urban mega-projects for a ‘world-class’ riverfront–the interplay of informality, flexibility and exceptionality along the Yamuna in Delhi, India, Habitat International, 45, pp.213-222.
         Gellert, P.K and Lynch, B.D (2003), Mega‐projects as displacements, International Social Science Journal, 55(175), pp.15-25.
         Gryl, I and Jekel, T (2012), Re-centring geoinformation in secondary education: toward a spatial citizenship approach, Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 47(1), pp.18-28.
          Gryl, I; Jekel, T and Donert, K (2010), GI and spatial citizenship, Learning with GI, Wichmann, Berlin, pp.2-11.
          Gryl, I; Schulze, U and Kanwischer, D (2013), Spatial Citizenship: the concept of competence, GI_Forum 2013 Creating the GISociety, conference proceedings, pp. 282-293.
          Gómez-Ibáñez, J (2003), Regulating Infrastructure: Monopoly, Contracts and Discretion,
Cambridge, Mass. & Harvard University Press, London, pp. 145-160.
          Grün, O (2004), Taming giant projects: Management of Multi-Organization Enterprises, Springer, Berlin.
          Hall, P (1980), Great planning disasters: What lessons do they hold?, Futures, 12(1), pp.45-50.
          Helm, D.R (2008), Time to Invest, Infrastructure: The Credit Crunch and the Recession, Monthly Commentary, 18, pp. 15-18.
          Hennig, S and Vogler, R (2013), Geomedia Skills–a Required Prerequisite for Public Participation in Urban Planning?, REAL CORP 2013, conference proceedings, pp. 140-165.
           Jiang, B; Huang, B and Vasek, V (2003), Geovisualization for planning support systems, In planning support systems in practice (pp. 177-191). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
           Jiang, B and Li, Z (2005), Geovisualization: design, enhanced visual tools and applications, The Cartographic Journal, 42(1), pp.3-4.
          Loftman, P and Nevin, B (1996), Going for growth: prestige projects in three British cities, Urban studies, 33(6), pp.991-1019.
          Mitchell, N.J and Beer, C (2004), Democracy and Human Rights in the Mexican States: Elections or Social Capital?, International Studies Quarterly,48(2), pp.293-312.
          Schumpeter, J.A (2013), Capitalism, socialism and democracy, Routledge, pp. 145-158.
          Swyngedouw, E; Moulaert, F and Rodriguez, A (2002), Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large–scale urban development projects and the new urban policy, Antipode, 34(3), pp.542-577.
          Tulloch, D (2007), Public participation GIS (PPGIS), Encyclopedia of geographic information science, pp.352-354.
          Vento, A.T (2016), Mega-project meltdown: Post-politics, neoliberal urban regeneration and Valencia’s fiscal crisis, Urban Studies,54(1), pp.68-84.
          Von Haaren, C and Bittner, C (2004), Landschaftsplanung, UTB, Hannover.
          Weinstock, C.B and Goodenough, J.B (2006), On system scalability, Caranegie-Mellon univ Pitsburg pa software engineering inst, pp. 155-170.
          Wiersma, W (2012), The validity of surveys: online and offline, Oxford Internet Institute, Accessible via:
-, شرکت نوسازی عباس­آباد, [online] Available at:[Accessed 2 Sep. 2016].
-         Citizen Engagement: A game changer for development (World Bank course). Coursera. (2016). Coursera - Free Online Courses from Top Universities. [online] Available at: [Accessed 5 Sep. 2016].
- (2016), Google Docs - create and edit documents online, for free, [online] Available at: [Accessed 5 Sep. 2016].
- (2016), Map-Me, [online] Available at: [Accessed 5 Sep. 2016].
- (2016), عباس آباد ما, [online] Available at: [Accessed 5 Sep. 2016].
- (2016), SPACIT kick-off meeting, [online] Available at: [Accessed 5 Sep. 2016].
- (2016), Spatial Citizenship: SPACIT project, [online] Available at: [Accessed 5 Sep. 2016].
- (2016), Web design tool, CMS, and hosting platform | Webflow, [online] Available at: [Accessed 5 Sep. 2016].
اسناد مورد استفاده
مهندسین مشاور نقش جهان پارس(1386)، طرح جامع فضایی - کالبدی اراضی عباس آباد.