ارزیابی رابطۀ کنش ارتباطی و پایداری شهری (مطالعۀ موردی: شهر تهران)

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکدة معماری و شهرسازی، واحد قزوین، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قزوین، ایران

2 استاد (تمام)، دانشکدة معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

بسط نظریةکنش ارتباطی دیدگاه‏‏های نوینی را در برنامه‏‏ریزی شهری پدید ‏آورده ‏است و تدوین شاخص‏‏های کنش ارتباطی با رویکرد شهرسازی می‏‏تواند مبنایی برای برنامه‏‏ریزان شهری باشد. باتوجه‌به ‏اینکه راه حصول پایداری توجه توأمان به بُعد اجتماعی درکنار ابعاد اقتصادی و محیطی و برقراری ارتباط متعادل میان آن‏‏هاست و با‏توجه‌به ‏اینکه پژوهشی با محتوای ارتباط بین کنش ارتباطی با پایداری شهری در کشور انجام‏ نگرفته ‏است، در این پژوهش سعی شده شاخص‏‏های کنش ارتباطی و برقراری ارتباط میان مؤلفه‏‏های کنش ارتباطی و پایداری شهری استخراج شود. در این راستا، فرضیات پژوهش تدوین ‏شد که بر وجود رابطه‏‏ای معنادار بین کنش ارتباطی و پایداری شهری در شهر تهران به‏‏عنوان نمونة موردی دلالت ‏دارد. این پژوهش از نوع توصیفی‏-‏ ‏تحلیلی است. چارچوب نظری این پژوهش براساس مطالعات اسنادی است. شناسایی شاخص‏‏های کنش ارتباطی در دو مرحلة کتابخانه‏‏ای و تحلیل کیفی با به‏کارگیری فن دلفی فازی انجام‏گرفته ‏است و بخش عملیاتی پژوهش با روش تحلیل کمی و براساس مطالعات میدانی انجام ‏شده ‏است و فرضیات تحقیق در نرم‏‏افزار SPSSبا به‏کارگیری داده‏‏های مربوط به 384 پرسش‏نامه آزمون ‏شده‏ است. طبق نتایج تحلیل کیفی، شاخص‏‏های کنش ارتباطی در چهار گروه اصلی شامل حضور در فضای شهری، عقلانیت ارتباطی، نگرش انتقادی، و سرمایة اجتماعی تدوین ‏شد و نتایج تحلیل کمی نشان ‏داد تغییرات کنش ارتباطی در پایداری شهری و همة ابعاد آن تأثیر مستقیم و بسیار زیادی دارد و تقویت کنش ارتباطی می‏‏تواند به افزایش پایداری در شهر تهران منجر شود. نتایج به‏‏دست‏‏آمده می‏‏تواند به‏‏عنوان چارچوبی مفهومی در طرح‏‏ها و برنامه‏‏های شهری به‏‏منظور ارزیابی و ارتقایکنش ارتباطی و به ‏دنبال آن پایداری شهری در‏ ‏اختیار پژوهشگران و برنامه‏‏ریزان شهری قرار ‏گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Assessment the Relationship between Communicative Action and Sustainability, a Case of Tehran City

نویسندگان [English]

  • Maryam Rezapour 1
  • Hossein Bahrainy 2
  • Manouchehr Tabibian 2
1 Department of urban planning and design, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch
2 گروه شهرسازی، دانشگاه تهران
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Development of communicative action theory in urban planning, has introduced new perspectives in the contexts such as public interest, urban justice, equal social and economic opportunities, empowering deprived urban classes, rejecting the dominance over nature, participation of people, and rejection of the sovereignty of power and money. Considering that the way of achieving urban sustainability is to pay attention to social dimensions along with economic and environmental dimensions and to establish a balanced relationship between them, this research considers communicative action theory as one of the most important areas of sustainability, and believes that for going toward the sustainability; a relationship between stakeholders should be exist from the lower policy levels to the highest levels, and sustainability will not be possible if this discourse and communication is distorted. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the relationship between communicative action and urban sustainability. In this regard, research hypotheses have been developed that indicate a significant relationship between communicative action and urban sustainability in Tehran city as a case study.

Methodology
In this paper, the concept of communicative action includes indicators which are presence in urban space, communicative rationality, critical point of view and social capital; and the concept of sustainability includes the dimensions which are social, economic, environmental, physical, institutional and political; and the relationship between these mentioned variables and dimensions has been investigated. This research is descriptive-analytical. The theoretical framework of this research is based on documentary studies and its operational part is conducted with quantitative analysis based on field study. Based on multistage cluster sampling, region three in the north, region ten in the center and region nineteen in the south of Tehran city were selected. These regions were located on the basis of development indicators such as “housing, education, employment, demographic indicators, access to information; and infrastructure” and were identified respectively as developed, moderate developed and underdeveloped region. Sample size was divided according to the distribution of the population of the administrative neighborhoods of the regions and ultimately (according to the sampling rules) the results will be generalized to the whole city of Tehran. The number of samples based on the Cochran formula was estimated to be 384 that were distributed in proportion to the number of neighborhoods in each of these three regions. The research hypotheses were analyzed by SPSS software.

Results and discussion
Reliability of the researcher-made questionnaire of this paper was measured by Cronbach's alpha test and shows that the questionnaire has a high reliability. The questionnaire is also based on content validity and has been reviewed several times. Structural validity (factor analysis) was measured using the KMO test, which indicates the fitting of the data, and the Bartlett test, which suggests that there is the possibility of performing factor analysis on research data. The ten extracted factors are the result of 55 items that have been used in subsequent analyzes.
Communicative action analysis was performed based on four components of presence in urban space, communicative rationality, critical point of view and social capital. According to Kruskal-Wallis test, at 99% significance level, the communicative action is different among three regions of Tehran City, so that the third region with the average score of 161.27 has the highest communicative action. These differences indicate that Tehran does not follow a single pattern. But in all three regions, social capital is the highest among the other indexes.
The Pearson correlation test was used to identify the relationship between communicative action and urban sustainability. The relationship between communicative action and urban sustainability is significant using Pearson correlation test with a confidence level of 99%, and Pearson coefficient of this relation is about 0.617 in Tehran, which indicates a high correlation between these two concepts. In other words, the reduction or increase of communicative action has a direct and high impact on the sustainability of the city.
The results also show that the relationship between communicative action and sustainability is different between the three regions. Thus, the correlation between these two concepts in region three by using Pearson coefficient is 0.635 which is more than of region ten with Pearson coefficient of 0.507 and of the nineteen region with Pearson coefficient of 0.381.
In this research, the relationship between communicative action and various dimensions of sustainability has also been evaluated. The relationship between communicative action with social, economic, environmental, physical, institutional and political dimensions of urban sustainability has been measured by Pearson correlation test. The results show that the relationship between communicative action and all dimensions of sustainability is significant at 99% confidence level and the relationship between communicative action and political dimension of sustainability with coefficient of 0.613, social dimension with coefficient of 0.608 and institutional dimension with coefficient of 59.22 is higher among other dimensions.

Conclusion
The results show that the changes in communicative action have a direct and significant impact on urban sustainability and all its dimensions; and strengthening communicative action can lead to increase all dimensions of sustainability in Tehran city. In addition, the relationship between communicative action and sustainability varies between the three urban regions. Results show that this relationship in region three is greater than that of region ten; and in the region ten it is more than region nineteen.
The third hypothesis of this research is devoted to the relationship between communicative action and the income. The results show that there is a positive and poor correlation between these two variables. With the conclusion of the second and third hypotheses, it can be concluded that the relationship between communicative action and sustainability in a region is more appropriate with the economic conditions. By substantiating the assumptions of this research, its claim to consider communicative action as one of the most important areas of sustainability is accepted.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Communicative Action
  • Communicative Rationality
  • Lifeworld
  • urban sustainability
  • Tehran
  1. آزاد ‏ارمکی، تقی؛ مبارکی، مهدی و شهبازی، زهره (1391). بررسی و شناسایی شاخص‏‏های کاربردی توسعة اجتماعی با استفاده از تکنیک دلفی، فصل‏نامة مطالعات توسعة اجتماعی- فرهنگی، ۱(۱): 7-30.
  2. بحرینی، سیدحسین و طبیبیان، منوچهر (1377). مدل ارزیابی کیفیت محیط زیست شهری، محیطشناسی، 21: 41-56.
  3. بحرینی، سیدحسین و مکنون، رضا (1380). توسعة شهری پایدار، از فکر تا عمل، محیطشناسی، 27(۲۷): 41-60.
  4. بشیریه، حسین (1395). تاریخ اندیشه‏های سیاسی در قرن بیستم، ج ۱، اندیشه‏های مارکسیستی، تهران: نشر نی.
  5. پدرام، مسعود (1387). جایگاه ناپایدار زیبایی در نظریات هابرماس، هنرومعماری، پژوهشنامةفرهنگستانهنر، 10: 130-144.
  6. پیوزی، مایکل (1393). یورگن هابرماس، ترجمة احمد تدین، تهران: هرمس.
  7. حاجی‏زاده، جلال (1388). مطالعة تطبیقی آرا و اندیشه‏‏های سیاسی کارل پوپر و یورگن هابرماس پیرامون دموکراسی، پایان‏نامة کارشناسی ارشد علوم سیاسی، دانشکدة علوم اقتصاد، دانشگاه اصفهان.
  8. خوش‏‏فر، غلام‏‏رضا؛ بارگاهی، رضا و کرمی، شهاب (1392). سرمایة اجتماعی و پایداری شهری، مطالعة موردی شهر گرگان، فصل‏نامة مطالعات شهری، 8: 31-46.
  9. رفیعیان، مجتبی و شالی، محمد (1391). تحلیل فضایی سطح توسعه‏یافتگی تهران به تفکیک مناطق شهری، مدرس علوم انسانی- برنامه‏ریزی و آمایش فضا، ۱۶(۴).
  10. رضاپور، مریم (1389). برنامه‏ریزی شهری مبتنی بر به‏کارگیری انگاشت کیفیت زندگی، نمونة موردی منطقة 8 شهر تهران، پایان‏نامة کارشناسی ارشد شهرسازی، دانشکدة معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
  11. سرور، رحیم؛ پریزادی، طاهر و حسینی امینی، حسن (1389). جایگاه تکنیک دلفی در مدیریت و برنامه‏‏ریزی شهری، فصل‏نامة مطالعات مدیریت شهری، ۲(۴): 165-185.
  12. شفیعی، محمود (1384). نظریة کنش ارتباطی (جهان‏زیست و سیستم) و نقد اجتماعی- سیاسی، دوفصل‏نامة دانش سیاسی، 2: 149-166.
  13. شیانی، ملیحه و موسوی، میرطاهر (1390). تحلیل وضعیت سرمایة اجتماعی در شهر کرمان، فصل‏نامة علمی‏- پژوهشی رفاه اجتماعی، ۱۱(۴۱): 93-122.
  14. محمدی، آزاد؛ باقری، خسرو و زیباکلام، فاطمه (1393). اصول و روش‏‏های تربیت اجتماعی مبتنی بر نظریة کنش ارتباطی هابرماس، پژوهشنامة مبانی تعلیم و تربیت، 4(2): 5-28.
  15. محمدی صیفار، مهدی (1392). مکتب فرانکفورت (نظریۀ انتقادی) ارزیابی انتقادی مبانی نظری (فلسفی)، معرفت فرهنگی اجتماعی، ۴(۳): 93-114.
  16. مهدوی، محمدصادق و مبارکی، محمد (1385). تحلیل نظریة کنش ارتباطی هابرماس، فصل‏نامة علوم اجتماعی، 2(۸): 1-21.
  17. نوروزی، علی و سالاری، عزیزاله (1390). بررسی تحول ساختاری گسترة عمومی و نقش آن، فصل‏نامة تخصصی علومسیاسی، ۱۵: 99-135.
  18. هولاب، رابرت (1393). یورگن هابرماس نقد در حوزة عمومی، ترجمة حسین بشیریه، چ ۸، تهران: نشر نی.
19. Adams, B. (1993). Sustainable development and the greening of development theory, In ‘Beyond the Impasse New direction in development theory.’ Ed. F.J. Schuurman. Zed Books, London, UK. pp. 207-222.

20. Anderson, P. (2005). Spectrum– From right to left in the world of ideas, Verso, London, UK.

21. Azadlarmaki, T.; Mobaraki, M. and Shahbazi, Z. (2012). Investigation and Identification of Applied Social Development Indicators Using Delphi Techniques, Journal of Social-Cultural Development Studies, 1(1): 7-30.

22. Baber, W.F. (2004). Ecology and democratic governance: Toward a deliberative model of environmental politics, The Social Science Journal, 41: 331-346.

23. Baert, P. (1998). Social Theory in the 20th Century, Cambridge, New York: Polity Press & New York University Press. (Translated into Italian, Spanish and Chinese).

24. Bahrainy, S.H. and Maknoun, R. (2001). Sustainable Urban Development, From Thought to Action, Ecology, 27(27): 41-60.

25. Bahrainy, S.H. and Tabibian, M. (1998). Assessment Model of Urban Environment Quality, Ecology, 21: 41-56.

26. Bashirieh, H. (2016). The History of Political Thought in the Twentieth Century, Vol. I: Marxist Ideas, Tehran: Ney Press.

27. Beugelsdijk, S. and Schaik, Ton Van. (2001). Social Capital and Regional Economic Growth, in Discussion paper, Faculty of Economics, Tilburg University, December 7, No. 2001-102.

28. Calhoun, C. (2001). Civil society- public sphere: history of the concept, in: Smelser, Neil & Balets, Paull(eds), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Science, Vol, 3, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1879- 1903.

29. Castells, M. (2008). The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616: 78-93.

30. Davoudpour, Z. and Rezapour, M. (2016). The conceptual model of the relationship between institutional transparency, citizen trust and satisfaction, a case study of Tehran city, Iran, Int. J. Architect. Eng. Urban Plan, 26(2): 131-139.

31. Dillard, J.F. and Yuthas, K. (2006). Enterprise resource planning systems and communicative action, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(2): 202-223.

32. Dominski, A. (1992). Seminar Synopsis, Building the Sustainable City, Gildea Resource Center.

33. Duckett, D. et al. (2017). Scenario planning as communicative action: Lessons from participatory exercises conducted for the Scottish livestock industry, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 114: 138-151.

34. Eckersley, R. (2004). The green state: Rethinking democracy and sovereignty, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

35. Elliott, L. (2004). The global politics of the environment, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, USA.

36. Fast, S. (2013). A Habermasian analysis of local renewable energy deliberations, J. Rural. Stud., 30: 86-98.

37. Gladwin, T.; Kennelly, J. and Krause, T. (1995). Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implication for Management Theory and Research, Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 874-907.

38. Goodland, R. and Daly, H. (1996). Environmental sustainability: Universal and non-negotiable, Ecological Applications, 6(4): 1002-1017.

39. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol, 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functional Reason, Beacon, Boston.

40. Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Trans. by Burger T. with the Assistance of Lawrence F.), Polity Press, Cambridge.

41. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

42. Hajizadeh, J. (2009). Comparative Study of Political Views and Thoughts of Karl Popper and Jürgen Habermas in Democracy, Master of Political Science, University of Isfahan.

43. Harvey Brown, R. and Goodman, D. (2001). Jürgen Habermas' theory of communicative action: an incomplete project. In: Ritzer, G.A.S., B. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Theory, SAGE Publications, London.

44. Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land-Use Planning, Sydney, Rutledge.

45. Honderich, T. (1995). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

46. Hulab, R. (2014). Jürgen Habermas Criticism in the Public domain, translated by Hossein Bashirieh, Nayer Rey, Tehran, Eighth Edition.

47. James, P. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice, Circles of sustainability.

48. Jepson, Edward. J. (2001). Sustainability and Planning Diverse Concepts and Close Associations, Journal of Planning Literature, 15(4): 499-510.

49. Khoshfar, Gh.; Bargahi, R. and Karami, Sh. (2013). Social Capital and Urban Sustainability, Case Study of Gorgan City, Quarterly Journal of Urban Studies, 8: 31-46.

50. Luke, T.W. (2005). Neither sustainable nor development: Reconsidering sustainability in development, Sustainable Development, 13: 228-238.

51. Mahdavi, M.H. and Mubaraki, M. (2006). Habermas Communication Theory Analysis, Social Sciences Quarterly, 2(8): 1-21.

52. Mohammadi Sayfar, M. (2013). Frankfurt School (Critical Thinking) Critical Evaluation of Theoretical Basis (Philosophy), Social Cultural Knowledge, 4(3): 93-114.

53. Mohammadi, A.; Bagheri, Kh. and Zibaqalam, F. (2014). Principles and methods of social education based on Habermas's communicative action theory, Research journal of the basics of education, 4(2): 5-28.

54. Norouzi, A. and Salari, A. (2011). A Study of the Structural Transformation of the General Scope and its Role, Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 15: 135-1999.

55. Olson, K. (2011). Deliberative democracy. In: Fultner, B. (Ed.), Jürgen Habermas, Key Concepts, Acumen, Durham.

56. Pedram, M. (2008). The unstable position of beauty in Habermas's theories, art and architecture, Journal of the Academy of Arts, 10: 130-144.

57. Popson, N. and Ruble, A. (2001). A Test of Urban Social Sustainability, S Losses and Gains, Intentions and Prospects, Journal of Urban Anthropology, 30(4): 107-119.

58. Pusey, M. (2014). Jürgen Habermas, translation by Ahmad Tadayon, , Tehran: Hermes Press.

59. Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press.

60. Rafiean, M. and Shali, M. (2012). Spatial Analysis of Tehran's Developmental Level by Urban Areas, Moderator of Humanities, Planning and Approximation of Space, 16(4).

61. Ratner, B. (2004). ‘Sustainability’ as a dialogue of values: Challenges to the sociology of development, Sociological Inquiry, 74(1): 50-69.

62. Rezapour, M. (2010). Urban planning based on using the concept of Quality of Life, region 8 of Tehran city as the case study, Master's thesis, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University.

63. Rezapour, M.; Bahrainy, H. and Tabibian, M. (2017). Analysis and Assessment of Communicative Action Indicators and Variables; a Case of Tehran city, Iran, Space Ontology International Journal, 6(4): 49-58.

64. Sarvar, R.; Parizadi, T. and Hosseini Amini, H. (2010). Delphi Technique in Urban Management and Planning, Quarterly Journal of Urban Management, 2(4): 165-185.

65. Shafiei, M. (2005). Communicative Action Theory (Lifeworld and System), and Socio-Political Criticism, Two Political Science Letters, 2: 149-16.

66. Shiyani, M. and Mousavi, M.T. (2011). Analysis of the Situation of Social Capital in Kerman, Journal of Social Welfare, 41: 93-122.

67. Stahl, B.C. (2002). Life-World and Information Technology - a Habermasian Approach, In: Proceedings of the international workshop on Phenomenology, Information Technology and Management, edited by Lucas Introna, London School of Economics, London, 10 to 11 May 2002, pp. 4-36.

68. Stewart, A. (2001). Theories of power and domination: The politics of empowerment in late modernity, London, Sage.

69. Stone Fish, L. and Busby, D. (2005). The Delphi Method. In D. Sprenkle & F. Piercy (Eds.) Research Methods in Family Therapy (2nd Ed., pp. 238–253), New York: Guilford Press.

70. Tabibian, M. and Rezapour, M. (2016). Assessment of urban resilience; a case study of Region 8 of Tehran city, Iran, Scientia Iranica. Transaction A, Civil Engineering, 23(4): 1699-1707.

71. Valentin, A. and Spangenberg, J.J. (2000). A gide to Community Sustainability Indicators, In Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20: 381-392.

72. Wiggershaus, R. (1994). The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance, Cambridge, MIT Press.