Abstract:
«Identification and evaluation of the spatial planning system» of countries cannot reach its goal without identifying the «planning system and its expansion» and without knowledge of similar situations and lessons from the experiences of others. In this article, the experiences of advanced and industrially developed countries were deliberately not used, and the focus is on «developing countries»; because based on realistic expansion approaches and the experiences of similar countries, land expansion strategies are more suitable for decision-makers. Therefore, four countries—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Malaysia—have been selected for this evaluation and comparison; because they have greater social, economic, and political characteristics and relative proximity and homogeneity with Iran. In this comparison, two types of basic identification (general and geographical, economic, and intra-territorial status (specific) of the macro planning system and the spatial planning system (regarding the four countries and their comparison with Iran) were obtained. The research method in this study is qualitative of the descriptive-analytical type and based on documentary and library information, which is completed by comparative analysis. Initially, international experienced components in the knowledge of comparative evaluation identification were identified, and then based on the conditions of Iran and the four other countries, seven-fold and four-fold components in 'content' dimensions and 'procedural' dimensions 'for planning concepts' and 'spatial planning' were formulated and comparatively evaluated for the status of the five countries. Based on the findings, in the theoretical domain (documentary-content), the macro planning system of most investigated countries was similar and also consistent with more industrially advanced countries, albeit with minor strengths and weaknesses; however, in the practical domain (procedure-result), the existing differences are very significant. This situation in the spatial planning of these countries is weaker than their macro planning. In spatial planning at urban and peri-urban levels, for optimal spatial planning and management, they mostly pursue sustainable development to varying degrees and consider it a way to respond to their challenges; however, due to reasons such as governmental peculiarities, lack of practical will, absence of continuous evaluation, supervision, and monitoring, and the lack of cultural infrastructures to achieve goals, they have noticeable strengths and weaknesses. Final findings showed that in the macro planning system, all countries have a continuous planning horizon with specific periods, a dominant economic approach, low participation, and a strong legalistic discourse but are weak in terms of implementation. Iran, in terms of theoretical approach, is similar to Saudi Arabia, in participation similar to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in development actors similar to Egypt and almost Turkey, and in other components like the four countries. In the spatial planning system, Iran, in the components of hierarchical planning levels, spatial planning approach and mechanism, and organizational structure, is similar to the four other countries, and in the implementation-control-supervision system component, it was behind its four peer countries. Overall, initially Malaysia and then Turkey were ahead of Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in most criteria. Identifying this situation and determining Iran's position in formulating the planning system and the country's implementation system will be effective; in such a way that their successes can be properly utilized.
Machine summary:
Comparative evaluation of the macro planning and spatial planning systems of Iran with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Malaysia Morteza Mirgholami *1, Mohammadreza Pourjafar 2, Seyed Mahmoud Meysaghi 3 1- PhD, Faculty member of Tabriz University of Islamic Art, Tabriz, Sa'at Square, Maghsoudieh Street, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning 2- PhD, Professor at Tarbiat Modares University 3- PhD student in Islamic Urban Planning at Tabriz University of Islamic Art Received: 2018/07/26.........................
(Refer to page image) In this article, given the subject under investigation, we have formulated the components for the comparative evaluation of the planning system and the spatial planning system in accordance with the characteristics, conditions, and cultural and documentary contexts of the target countries.
(Refer to page image) 2-3-2-1-Planning System Seven components for the comparative evaluation of the planning systems of the target countries in two dimensions, "content" and "procedural work," have been formulated and reviewed as follows: A.
3- Case Study 3-1- Criteria for Selecting Target Countries for Comparison Different "blocks" can be formulated for evaluating their planning and spatial planning status and comparing them with Iran.
16 Table 2: Type, authority, and duration of spatial planning in Saudi Arabia (Zahid, 1996: 39) {Refer to the attached table file} Additionally, the administrative structure and the relationships between central officials and local planning in this country are specified in Figure 6.
Knowledge of the planning system The most important development programs in the planning system of Iran at the national level are the Vision Document 1404 and the five-year social, economic, and cultural development plans, which indicate codified and continuous decision-making in this country.
(
, 
, 
)
