The consequences of instrumental-technical planning approach in empowerment and rural development, case study: Pakdasht and Rey counties

Document Type : علمی -پژوهشی


Department of Human Geography and Logistics, Faculty of earth science, Shahid Beheshti university, Tehran, Iran


IntroductionPaying attention to empowering rural stakeholders with emphasis on community approach in planning was proposed by Jürgen Habermas and then Forster (1993, 1989, 1985). In the area, a set of plans and projects are planned for the villagers by various organizations. The dominance of the "expert- oriented " and "top-down" approach in the development planning process in Iran has had detrimental environmental, ecological, socio-economic impacts on rural settlements in the study area. It is necessary to analyze the implications of this planning for the process of sustainable rural development in the area.Materials and methodsIn fact, the purpose of the present survey is to identify and explain the consequences of planning with its current approach to sustainable development in rural areas of the study area. Also the factors and indicators of empowerment influenced by the development planning system's approach in the rural areas are analyzed.The present survey was carried out using descriptive-analytical method to investigate the status of planning with an expert- oriented approach in the area and to explain the research questions and hypotheses in detail. The statistical population of the present survey is a total of 124 villages in rural settlements of Pakdasht and Rey counties around Tehran metropolis. Spearman and Tobey Kendall correlation coefficients were used to investigate the significant relationship between variables. Also, regression was used for intensity of component effects.Results and discussionAccording to the results, all indicators (education and awareness, knowledge and skills and human resource development, competence, meaningfulness, self-determination, trust and confidence, participation) were significant. In fact, empowerment-enhancing indicators are below average. Indicators considered in the planning process are empowerment of local stakeholders, components of education and awareness, knowledge and skills that have an impact on sustainable rural development. Other indicators were excluded because their correlation was not significant and were at lower levels from the regression model. Between the two components of empowerment in the planning process with development, there is a correlation of 0.335. Finally, based on the standardized coefficient, the results show that education and awareness under the current conditions have the greatest impact on sustainable rural development. At present, the indicators of competence, meaningfulness, self-determination, trust and confidence, participation, institutionalism have not found their place in explaining sustainable rural development.ConclusionThe implications of the current approach in environmental - ecological dimension do not improve land, quantity and quality of agricultural land, reduced erosion and soil quality, status of surface and ground water and quantity and quality of water, status of sewage system and waste collection. The social dimension doesn’t improve rural poverty alleviation, reducing vulnerability, rural efficiency, bank savings rates, and income levels in rural areas. In the economic aspect, public health, rural social security, quality of life through opportunities for education, education, services, quality of employment and income generation, rural housing renovation, rural migration, rural community status, cultural and artistic activities in the area are not improved. But in terms of physical, improvements, rural housing and rural access to infrastructure, markets for trading products, commercial and educational uses and the status of rural passages have increased.


  1. -ازکیا، م. و غفاری، غ.، 1388. توسعه روستایی با تأکید بر جامعه روستایی ایران، چاپ سوم، نشر نی، 324 ص.
  2. -احمدی ترشیزی، م.، 1387. ظرفیت‌سازی، دانشنامه مدیریت شهری و روستایی، چاپ اول، انتشارات سازمان شهرداری‌ها و دهیاری‌های کشور، 900 ص.
  3. -بهزاد نسب، ج.، 1389. تحلیل و تعیین فراگرد مطلوب انجام برنامه‌ریزی توسعه روستایی در کشور براساس رویکرد برنامه‌ریزی ارتباطی، روستا و توسعه، دوره 13 شماره 4، ص 51 - 74.
  4. -راسل، ل.ا.، 1386. برنامه‌ریزی تعاملی مدیریت هماهنگ با تحول برای ساختن آینده سازمان، ترجمه سهراب خلیلی شورینی، چاپ دوم، نشر مرکز، 333 ص.
  5. -رضوانی، م.ر.، 1390. برنامه‌ریزی توسعه روستایی در ایران، چاپ اول، نشر قومس، 304 ص.
  6. -رکن‌الدین افتخاری، ع.، بدری، س.ع. و سجاسی قیداری، ح.، 1390. بنیان‌های نظریه‌ای برنامه‌ریزی کالبدی مناطق روستایی، چاپ اول، انتشارات بنیاد مسکن انقلاب اسلامی، 353 ص.
  7. -رکن‌الدین افتخاری، ع. و بهزاد نسب، ج.، 1383. برنامه‌ریزی ارتباطی، رویکردی انتقادی به نظریه برنامه‌ریزی (با تأکید بر برنامه‌ریزی توسعه روستایی)، فصلنامه‌ی مدرس علوم انسانی، دوره 8، شماره 1، ص 1- 22.
  8. -زمانی فر، م.، 1387. توانمندسازی کارکنان، دغدغه مهم سازمان‌های امروزی، مجله راهبرد، سال 1، شماره 2، ص 81 - 106.
  11. -Allmendinger, P., 2002. Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory, Planning theory, v. 1(1), p. 77-99.
  12. -Amdam, J., 2005. Spatial planning in rural areas, In Collection of Papers-AESOP 2005 Congress, Vienna University of Technology, Austria, v. (1), p. 15-29.
  13. -Amundsen, S. and Martinsen, Ø.L., 2015. Linking empowering leadership to job satisfaction, work effort, and creativity: The role of self-leadership and psychological empowerment, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, v. 22(3), p. 304-323.
  14. -Draft Louth Country Development Plan, 2014. Volume 1 Written Statement, 324 p.
  15. -Fernandez, S. and Moldogaziev, T., 2013. Employee empowerment and job satisfaction in the US Federal Bureaucracy: A self-determination theory perspective, The American review of public administration, v. 45(4), p. 375-401.
  16. -Foley, J. and Lauria, M., 2000. Plans, planning and tragic choices, Planning Theory & Practice, v. 1(2), p. 219-233.
  17. -Healey, P., 1997. Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies, UBc Press, 340 p.
  18. -Healey, P., 2004. The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe, International journal of urban and regional research, v. 28(1), p. 45-67.
  19. -Isaac, T.T. and Harilal, K.N., 1997. Planning for empowerment: People's campaign for decentralised planning in Kerala, Economic and Political Weekly, p. 53-58.
  20. -Kanter, R., 1993. Men and Women of the Corporation, 2nd, Basic Book, New York, 416 p.
  21. -Kennedy, M., 1996. Transformative Community Planning: Empowerment through Community Development, Prepared for the 1996 Planners Network Conference, p. 12-13.
  22. -Martens, K., 2001. Communicative planning theory: change needed to change practice, reflections, v. 5(3), p. 283-306.
  23. -Ondrik, R.S., 1999. Participatory approaches to national development planning. Framework for Mainstreaming Participatory Development Processes into Bank Operations, Asian Development Bank (ADB), p. 1-15, Available in: [Accessed 10/04/2020].
  24. -Paul, S., 1987. Community participation in development projects, Washington, DC: World Bank, p. 1-52.
  25. -Shafieisabet, N. and Mirvahedi, N., 2019. Policies and Planning Approach: Challenges and Opportunities for Local Stakeholders' Empowerment and Sustainable Development (Case Study: South and South-East Villages of Tehran), Journal of Research and Rural Planning, v. 8 (4), p. 127-147.
  26. -United Nations, 2005. Decentralization: Poverty Reduction, Empowerment and Participation, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, p. 1-185.