Document Type : CASE STUDY


1 Department of Urban Design, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

2 Department of Architecture, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey


“Not in My Back Yard”; people shout this when they feel something deleterious and nonlocal will be sprung into existence in their territory by top-down powers. Some believe that NIMBY syndrome provokes parochialism, but parochialism itself can bring many beneficial consequences. Danesh Pedestrian and Bicycle Path- a recent project established on the south rim of Bagh-e-Sib (a vast historic apple orchard) in the Mehrshahr neighborhood- is one of the cases that has been crystallized through NIMBY syndrome. The municipal authorities’ decision on devastating this aged green area and turning it into a mega-scale market place or, who knows, into a highway, faced with radical protests of locals and eventuated the construction of the path. One can call it a win-win situation or maybe a social failure, but regardless of pessimistic and extremist views, it is well known that pedestrian and bicycle accessibilities are two indubitable realities of contemporary urbanism. Therefore, the evaluation of abovementioned path turned to a necessity to realize whether NIMBY is worked in this case, and generally in Iran, or not. This article delves into the subject in two phases, including 1) environmental qualities, 2) public acceptability; and originally follows several questions: has the voice of locals been heard or it was a compulsive decision just for protecting the garden? Is it a social setting or a fraudulent totalitarian exercise of municipal power? Does it meet the needs? Do people like it? How can it be over-promoted? What type of strategies are needed for further development of it?


Main Subjects

Anciães, P.R., (2011). Urban transport, pedestrian mobility and social justice; a GIS analysis of the case of the Lisbon metropolitan area. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geography and Environment, University of London.                 

Appleyard, D.; Gerson, M.S; Lintell M., (1976). Liveable urban streets: Managing auto traffic in neighborhoods. Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington.

Behzadfar, M.; Abdi, F.; Mohammadi, M., (2014). Evaluating the physical and psychological indicators effective on promotion of the pedestrian-based capacity of major urban spaces of Farahzad village of Tehran. Int. J. Architectural Eng. Urban Plann., 24(1): 45-55 (11 pages).

Booher, D., (2008). Civic engagement and the quality of urban places, Plan. Theory Pract., 9(3): 383–394 (12 pages).

Burden, D.; Wallwork, M.; Sides, K.; Trias, R.; Rue, H., (1999). Street design guidelines for healthy neighborhoods. Centre for Livable Communities, Sacramento, CA.

Burke, N.M.; Chomitz, V.R.; Rioles, N.A.; Winslow, S.P.; Brukilacchio, L.B.; Baker, J.C., (2009). The path to active living: physical activity through community design in Somerville, Massachusetts. Am. J. Prev. Med., 37(6): 386-394 (9 pages).

Carmona, M.; Heath, T.; Oc, T.; Tiesdell, S., (2010). Public places urban spaces: the dimension of urban design. Architectural Press, Oxford.

Craig, C.L.; Brownson, R.C.; Cragg, S.E.; Dunn, A.L., (2002). Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: a study examining walking to work. Am. J. Prev. Med., 23(2): 36-43 (8 pages).

Forsyth, A.; Krizek, K., (2011). Urban design: Is there a distinctive view from the bicycle?. J. Urban Des., 16(4), 531–549.

Hawthorne, W., (1989). Why Ontarians walk, why Ontarians don’t walk more: A study of the walking habits of Ontarians. Energy Probe Research Foundation, Toronto.

Healey, P., (2008). Civic engagement, spatial planning and democracy as a way of life. Plan. Theory Pract., 9(3): 379–382 (4 pages).

Jacobs, A.B., (1993). Great streets. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.                 

Leyden, K.M., (2003). Social capital and the built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhoods. Am. J. Public Health, 93(9): 1546-1551 (6 pages).

Lynch, K., (1984). The theory of good city form. The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Naghibi, E.; Habib, F.; Shabani, A., (2015). Pedestrian area design to promote social interaction (case study: Isfahan Khajoo neighborhood). Int. j. archit. urban dev., 5(2): 31-42 (12 pages).      

Nielsen, J., (2002). Field studies done right: Fast and observational. Nielsen Norman Group.

Ranjbar, E.; Rais Esmaili, F., (2010). Quality assessment of pedestrian streets in Iran; case study: Saf (Sepahsalar), Tehran. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba, 2(42): 83-99 (17 pages); (In Persian).

Rezaei, M., (2014). Walk ability criteria; the role of walk ability in improving the sense of place. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba, 18(4): 15-24 (10 pages). (In Persian).

Sanoff, H., (2011). Multiple views of participatory design. Focus, 8(1): 11-21 (11 pages).

Shinkle, D.; Teigen, A., (2008). Encouraging bicycling and walking: The state legislative role. The National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington.

Toth, G.; Volk, H.; Walljasper, J.; Singer, A., (2008). A citizen’s guide to better streets; how to engage your transportation agency. Project for Public Spaces, Inc, New York.

Untermann, R.K., (1984). Accommodating the pedestrian: Adapting towns and neighbourhoods for walking and bicycling, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Wates, N., (2006). The community planning handbook; how people can shape their cities, towns and villages in any part of the world. Earthscan, UK.

Weihrich, H., (1982). The TOWS matrix a tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning, 15(2): 54-66 (13 pages).

Whyte, W.H., (2001). The social life of small urban spaces. Project for Public Spaces, New York.


International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management (IJHCUM) welcomes letters to the editor for the post-publication discussions and corrections which allows debate post publication on its site, through the Letters to Editor. Letters pertaining to manuscript published in IJHCUM should be sent to the editorial office of IJHCUM within three months of either online publication or before printed publication, except for critiques of original research. Following points are to be considering before sending the letters (comments) to the editor.

[1] Letters that include statements of statistics, facts, research, or theories should include appropriate references, although more than three are discouraged.

[2] Letters that are personal attacks on an author rather than thoughtful criticism of the author’s ideas will not be considered for publication.

[3] Letters can be no more than 300 words in length.

[4] Letter writers should include a statement at the beginning of the letter stating that it is being submitted either for publication or not.

[5] Anonymous letters will not be considered.

[6] Letter writers must include their city and state of residence or work.

[7] Letters will be edited for clarity and length.