ادغام طراحی شهری نوآورانه فناوری پیشرفته و مشارکت شهروندان برای بهبود کیفیت
محورهای موضوعی : فناوری های ساختمصطفی بصیری 1 , بهناز امین نیری 2 , یاسر خان محمدی 3 , مهدی سلیمی 4
1 - استادیار گروه معماری و شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر و معماری،واحد ایلخچی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی ایلخچی،ایران.
2 - دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، گروه معماری و شهرسازی، واحد بین المللی ارس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران.
3 - دانشجوی دکترای شهرسازی،گروه معماری و شهرسازی،واحدتبریز،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،تبریز،ایران.
4 - دانشجوی دکترای شهرسازی،گروه معماری و شهرسازی،واحدتبریز،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،تبریز،ایران
کلید واژه: طراحی شهری, نوآوری, فناوریهای پیشرفته, مشارکت شهروندان, بهبود کیفیت,
چکیده مقاله :
در دهه‌های اخیر، تحقیقات در زمینه طراحی شهری با تمرکز بر جنبه‌های تکنولوژیکی شهرها انجام می‌شد که معمولاً به عنوان استراتژی شهر هوشمند شناخته می‌شد. اما امروزه، نگرانی‌ها و علایق شهروندان با آگاهی از این واقعیت که یک شهر زیست‌پذیر نه تنها از زیرساخت‌های خوب و تامین انرژی پایدار تشکیل می‌شود، بلکه نظرات و بازخورد شهروندان را نیز در بر می‌گیرد. در این مقاله، علم طراحی شهروندی به عنوان یک استراتژی جدید برای شهرها برای ادغام ایده‌ها و خواسته‌های شهروندان در فرآیند طراحی شهری ارائه می‌شود. این رویکرد ترکیب فرصت جمع‌سپاری نظرات و افکار شهروندان از طریق فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات مدرن با ابزارهای طراحی فعال است. بازخورد طراحی فعال از ساکنان یک شهر به عنوان یک راه گمشده اما ضروری برای رسیدن به یک شهر پاسخگو شناخته شده است این رویکرد از ترکیب جمع‌سپاری نظرات و افکار شهروندان با استفاده از فناوری اطلاعات و ارتباطات مدرن بهره می‌برد. در نهایت، این مقاله نمونه‌هایی از رویکردهای موجود علم طراحی شهروندی را نشان می‌دهد و تکینک‌های تحلیل شهری سریع به عنوان کاربرد این روش ارائه می‌شود. این جعبه ابزار به کاربران اجازه می‌دهد تا هندسه‌ها را در محیط‌های معین جابجا کنند و این فرصت را برای افراد غیر متخصص فراهم می‌کند تا ایده‌های خود را برای محله یا شهر خود بیان کنند. بنابراین، سیستمی برای ادغام علم شهروندی و طراحی شهروندی پیشنهاد می‌شود که به یک فرآیند ارزیابی ساختاریافته برای ادغام روش‌های علم طراحی برای طراحی شهری نیاز دارد. نمونه‌هایی از رویکردهای موجود علوم طراحی شهروندی نشان داده می‌شود و تکینک‌های تحلیل شهری سریع به عنوان کاربرد این روش ارائه می‌شود. این جعبه ابزار به کاربران اجازه می‌دهد تا هندسه‌ها را در محیط‌های معین جابجا کنند و این فرصت را برای افراد غیر متخصص فراهم می‌کند تا ایده‌های خود را برای محله یا شهر خود بیان کنند.
In recent decades, research in urban design has primarily focused on the technological aspects of cities, often referred to as the smart city strategy. However, nowadays, citizens' concerns and interests take into account the realization that a sustainable city is not only built on good infrastructure and sustainable energy provision but also includes the opinions and feedback of citizens. This article introduces citizen design science as a new strategy for cities to integrate the ideas and desires of citizens into the urban design process. This approach combines the opportunity of crowdsourcing citizens' opinions and ideas through modern information and communication technology with active design tools. Active design feedback from city residents is recognized as a missing yet essential way to achieve a responsive city. This approach leverages the combination of crowdsourcing citizens' opinions and ideas through modern information and communication technology. Finally, the article showcases existing approaches in citizen design science and presents rapid urban analysis techniques as a practical application of this method. This toolkit allows users to manipulate geometries in specific environments, providing an opportunity for non-experts to express their ideas for their neighborhood or city. Therefore, a system is proposed to integrate citizen science and citizen design, requiring a structured evaluation process to integrate design science methods for urban design. Examples of existing approaches in citizen design science are demonstrated, and rapid urban analysis techniques are presented as an application of this method. This toolkit enables users to manipulate geometries in specific environments, offering an opportunity for non-experts to express their ideas for their neighborhood or city.
• Abers, R. (2000). Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Auwalu, F. K., & Bello, M. (2023). Exploring the Contemporary Challenges of Urbanization and the Role of Sustainable Urban Development: A Study of Lagos City, Nigeria. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 7(1), 175-188.
• Auwalu, F. K., & Bello, M. (2023). Exploring the Contemporary Challenges of Urbanization and the Role of Sustainable Urban Development: A Study of Lagos City, Nigeria. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, 7(1), 175-188.
• Battarra, R., Gargiulo, C., Pappalardo, G., Boiano, D. A., & Oliva, J. S. (2016). Planning in the era of information and communication technologies. Discussing the “label: Smart” in South-European cities with environmental and socio-economic challenges. Cities, 59, 1-7. doi: [Insert DOI here] (if available)
• Beebeejaun, Y. (2016). The Participatory City. Jovis Verlag GmbH.
• Berman, T. (2015). Public participation as an instrument for incorporating local knowledge into planning processes. State of Australian Cities Conference.
• Berntzen, L., & Johannessen, M. R. (2016). The role of citizen participation in municipal smart city projects: Lessons learned from. In G. Romenti, C. Romero Herrera, & F. Duarte (Eds.), Smart City Governance (pp. 299-314). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17620-8
• Bibri, S. E. (2021). Data-driven smart sustainable cities of the future: An evidence synthesis approach to a comprehensive state-of-the-art literature review. Sustainable Futures, 3, 100047.
• Billger, M., Thuvander, L., & Wästberg, B. S. (2016). In search of visualization challenges: The development and implementation of visualization tools for supporting dialogue in urban planning processes. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(1), 124-140. doi: 10.1177/0265813516657341
• Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience, 59(11), 977-984. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2009)59[977:CSTADT]2.0.CO;2
• Brown, M., & Wyckoff-Baird, B. (1992). Designing integrated conservation and development projects (No. 333.95 B879d ing.). Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, US.
• Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23-34. doi: 10.1111/par.12002
• Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.010204.100014
• Chirkin, A. M., & König, R. (2016). Concept of interactive machine learning in urban design problems. In Proceedings of the SEACHI 2016 on smart cities for better living with HCI and UX (pp. 10-13). ACM.
• Collins, K., & Ison, R. (2006). Dare we jump off Arnstein's ladder? Social learning as a new policy paradigm. Social Learning Working Paper Series, No. 25.
• Dambruch, J., Stein, A., & Ivanova, V. (2016). Innovative approaches to urban data management using emerging technologies. In REAL CORP 2016–SMART ME UP! How to become and how to stay a Smart City, and does this improve quality of life? Proceedings of 21st International Conference on Urban Planning, Regional Development and Information Society (pp. 375-384). CORP–Competence Center of Urban and Regional Planning.
• ETH Zurich. (2015). Standards for citizen science: Principles and guidelines for citizen science projects at universities and other research institutions. Retrieved from https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/biol/imsb/imsb-dam/events/citizenscience_data/additional_content/standards_for_citizen_science.doc
• Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65-84. doi: 10.1177/1357480908099393
• Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-749X.2006.00674.x
• Goldsmith, S., & Crawford, S. (2014). The responsive city: Engaging communities through data-smart governance. John Wiley & Sons.
• Gregory, S. (1966). The design method. Butterworths.
• Grönlund, Å. (2009). ICT is not participation is not democracy–eParticipation development models revisited. In International Conference on Electronic Participation (pp. 12-23). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Hamrouni, A., Alelyani, T., Ghazzai, H., & Massoud, Y. (2021). Toward collaborative mobile crowdsourcing. IEEE Internet of Things Magazine, 4(2), 88-94.
• Heller, K., Price, R., Riger, S., Reinharz, S., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Psychology and community change (2nd ed.). Dorsey Press.
• Hughes, J. A., Randall, D., & Shapiro, D. (1992). From ethnographic record to system design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 1(3), 123-141. doi: 10.1007/BF00733122
• Jannack, A., Münster, S., & Noennig, J. R. (2016). Enabling massive participation: Blueprint for a collaborative urban design environment. In G. Schiuma (Ed.), Proceedings of IFKAD 2015, International forum on knowledge asset dynamics (pp. 2363-2380).
• Jansma, J. E., Veen, E. J., Visser, A. J., & van der Valk, A. J. J. (2014). From protective space to embedded place: Developing urban agriculture in Almere Oosterwold.
• Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(3-4), 167-185. doi: 10.1023/A:1008680010734
• Khan, Z., Ludlow, D., Loibl, W., & Soomro, K. (2014). ICT enabled participatory urban planning and policy development: The UrbanAPI project. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 8(2), 205-229. doi: 10.1108/TG-08-2013-0042
• Kondepudi, S. N. (2014). Smart sustainable cities analysis of definitions. The ITU-T Focus Group for Smart Sustainable Cities.
• Le Corbusier, & Eardley, A. (1973). The Athens Charter. Grossman Publishers.
• Lorimer, A. (2016). Mass-participation architecture: Social media and the decentralisation of architectural agency as a commercial imperative. [Author's website or blog post]
• Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard University.
• Lyons, S. H., Walsh, M., Aleman, E., & Robinson, J. (2014). Exploring regional futures: Lessons from metropolitan Chicago's online MetroQuest. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82(1), 23-33. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.022
• Moggridge, B., & Atkinson, B. (2007). Designing interactions. MIT Press.
• Moore, K. R., & Elliott, T. J. (2016). From participatory design to a listening infrastructure: A case of urban planning and participation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(1), 59-84. doi: 10.1177/1080616615585223
• Müller, J. (2021). Evaluation Methods for Citizen Design Science Studies: How Do Planners and Citizens Obtain Relevant Information from Map-Based E-Participation Tools?. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(2), 48.
• Oh, J. (2020). Smart city as a tool of citizen-oriented urban regeneration: Framework of preliminary evaluation and its application. Sustainability, 12(17), 6874.
• Oliveira, M. A., Carvalho, A., & Bartola, L. (2004). Public discussion of Oportós municipal master plan: An e-democracy service supported by a geographical information system. In M. AƩlgüç, Y. Ceylan, & I. Turner (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3183, pp. 534-543). Springer. doi: 10.1007/b100282
• Participate in Design. (2016). Designing with people - and not just for people. [Organization website]
• Pomeroy, J. (2017, April 24). Smart Cities 2.0. [Video series]. Retrieved from https://www.jasonpomeroy.sg/smart-cities
• Raddick, M. J., Bracey, G., Gay, P. L., Lintott, C. J., Cardamone, C., Murray, P., & Vandenberg, J. (2013, March 18). Galaxy zoo: Motivations of citizen scientists. arXiv preprint arXiv:1303.6886.
• Riesch, H., Potter, C., & Davies, L. (2013). Combining citizen science and public engagement: The open AirLaboratories programme. JCOM, 12(3), 1-19.
• Rossi, S., Rossi, S., Rossi, M., & Rossi, S. (2024). Minecraft As a Platform For Co-Creation Of Urban Space: A Case-Study With Teenagers.
• Saad-Sulonen, J. C., & Horelli, L. (2010). The value of community informatics to participatory urban planning and design: A case-study in Helsinki. The Journal of Community Informatics, 6(2), 141-153.
• Sanders, E. B. N. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. In J. Fulton (Ed.), Design and the social sciences: Making connections (pp. 1-8). CRC Press.
• Sanders, E. B. N. (2006). Design research in 2006. Design Research Quarterly, 1(1), 5-8. doi: 10.1080/13647630600600241
• Sanders, E. B. N. (2008). On modeling an evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions, 15(6), 13-17. doi: 10.1145/1411245.1411249
• Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4(1), 5-18. doi: 10.1080/14616700801919310
• Smith, D. H. (1983). Synanthrometrics: On progress in the development of a general theory of voluntary action and citizen participation. In W. W. CHARTERS (Ed.), International perspectives on voluntary action research (pp. 80-94). University Press of America.
• Stimmel, C. L. (2015). Building smart cities: Analytics, ICT, and design thinking. CRC Press.
• Tritter, J. Q., & McCallum, A. (2006). The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy, 76(2), 156-168. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.08.008
• Tunnard, C., & Pushkarev, B. (1963). Man-made America: Chaos or control? Yale University Press.
• White, C. S. (1996). Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6(1), 6-15. doi: 10.1080/7136204
• White, C. S. (1997). Citizen participation and the internet: Prospects for civic deliberation in the information age. The Social Studies, 88(1), 23-28. doi: 10.1080/0037799970880104
