تجزیه و تحلیل SWOT در برنامه ریزی استراتژیک توسعه شهری : مورد شهر دارالسلام در تانزانیا

Preparation and implementation of urban general and detailed planning schemes, according to respective legislation, preoccupies most practitioners of the profession of urban and regional development planning and management worldwide. For a century lasting from 1850s to 1940s the professional practice was guided by the urban design paradigm, which embodies architectural concepts and principles of municipal engineering. For the following half a century lasting from late 1940s to early 1990s the professional practice was guided by the procedural or master-planning paradigm, which embodies the concepts of technocracy, bureaucracy, rigidity and comprehensiveness. Since 1990s, the professional practice has been guided by the political-economy or urban management paradigm, which embodies participatory, transparency, flexibility and being strategic. Whereas urban design continues to be applied in preparation and implementation of urban detailed planning schemes at sub-city level, urban management has continued to replace the procedural or master planning approach in preparation and implementation of citywide general planning schemes. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) surrounding the procedural or master-planning approach have been widely but negatively analysed in the existing literature. Thus, in this paper a SWOT analysis is done regarding the urban management approach using the case of Dar es Salaam City in Tanzania. Participant observation and documentary reviews have been adopted in capturing and analysing the available data. Main findings lead to a conclusion that the urban management approach is stronger than the procedural or master-planning approach in planning and managing cities, generally, and planning and managing Dare s Salaam City, specifically.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the profession of urban and regional development planning and management (URDPM). The line of argument presented in this paper is that strengths and opportunities of URDPM, while adopting the concepts of being strategic and participatory, exceed its weaknesses and threats. As such, URDPM is aimed at preparing and implementing a strategic development planning framework (SDPF) that guides developers in executing their day-to-day activities. It is a framework for planning, not a plan, because of its inherent diversity of actors and dynamics of action. SDPF becomes SUDPF for a strategic urban development planning framework and SRDPF for a strategic regional development planning framework. In this way URDPM would only stop when critical issues of interaction between development and environment have been addressed exhaustively. In this paper emphasis is put on SUDPF. Hence, preparation and implementation of SUDPF entail the coordination by “planners” of key profession stakeholders in identification and analysis of critical development–environment interaction issues as well as action programming and resource mobilization for addressing them. Addressing a critical development–environment interaction issue entails either solving a problem related to servicing land or resolving a conflict related to use of land. Critical development issues obtaining in cities of developing countries like Tanzania include the following: • Dynamics of urban spatial expansion in terms of both vertically manifested redevelopment and horizontally imposed encroachment of city fringes • Proliferation of socioeconomic informal-sector activities including petty trading and urban farming • Misuse or abuse of open spaces, recreational areas and hazard land spaces • Inefficiencies of urban and public transportation with their inherent air pollution • Substandard waste collection, transportation and disposal • Progression of unplanned and un-serviced neighbourhoods • Sustained harnessing of environmental resources • Fostering the urban–rural continuum. The features of a critical development–environment interaction issue in the preparation and implementation of SUDPF include the following: • Dominance or prevalence or recurrence • Quite pressing and, hence, of top priority in getting addressed • Crosscutting in terms of sectors of society (i.e. the general public, business, and government) and levels of society (i.e. from local to global) • Pivotal in that once addressed, other issues related to land-servicing and land-use conflicts get also addressed. Profession stakeholders in preparation and implementation of SUDPF fall under the following three categories: • Development stakeholders at the levels of a plot, street, neighbourhood, human settlement, district, region, country, continent and the global village—who include active individuals, households, business entities, civil society organizations, and government units • Issue-specific stakeholders involving the general public as the affected, the business sector as the effectors, and government units as the interveners • URDPM stakeholders including “planners”, utility agencies, major land developers, major investors, major pressure groups, local authorities and the central government. In practicing URDPM, relevant pieces of legislation are considered at both levels of general and detailed development planning schemes. Together with legislation, economics and politics constitute the forefront attributes of the context of practicing URDPM—and, hence, the term political-economy conception of the profession has been adopted. The legislative context necessitates URDPM to heed to requirements of the rule of law, which is a basic condition of good governance. The economic context necessitates URDPM to abide by dictates of the principle of opportunity cost, which is a day-to-day human characteristic of choice making between unlimited wants against scarce resources leading to tendencies of egoism or selfishness. The political context necessitates URDPM to blend well with realities of a human condition of nurturing vested interests, which entails personal or institutional scramble for access to scarce resources leading to frequent conflicts between individuals and institutions. Within such complex context of practicing URDPM, adoption of managerial concepts of being strategic and participatory—and, hence, the term urban management conception of the profession has been adopted—is essential in addressing critical issues emanating from the interaction between development and the environment. Such managerial approach to preparation and implementation of general and detailed planning schemes (i.e. URDPM) was preceded by a procedural approach based on the concepts of technocracy and comprehensiveness. The procedural approach, also named master-planning, was practiced worldwide from 1950s to 1980s, while the managerial approach has been practiced worldwide and predominantly since 1990s. Prior to this timeframe, URDPM was practiced based on such sectoral concepts as urban design (incorporating architecture and municipal engineering), economics, housing, social welfare, public health, transportation, and inter-regional inequalities. To-day, sectoral planning is the prerogative of professions other than URDPM, while this profession itself focuses on addressing critical issues generated by the inevitable interaction between development activities and the environment, which cannot be handled singly by individuals, individual entities, and sectors or levels of society. The foregoing background to this paper generates the need for attempting SWOT analysis with respect to effectiveness of this profession in planning and managing urban and regional development, globally, in general and, in country, in particular. Since SWOT analysis surrounding the procedural or master-planning approach have been widely but negatively analysed in existing literature—see Choguill (1999); Halla and Majani (1999); Healey (1994); Thornley (1991); Armstrong (1987); and Tugwell (1974)—this paper attempts a SWOT analysis regarding the urban management or political-economy conception of URDPM using the SUDPF approach as adopted in the case of Dar es Salaam City in Tanzania. This paper is organized as follows: Introduction; Approaches to urban planning; Features of urban planning for Dar es Salaam City; A SWOT analysis of urban planning for Dar es Salaam City; and Concluding remarks and profession way forward.

From practices of urban development planning in Tanzania in the past century, one might not hesitate to note the shift in concepts and approaches to urban and regional development planning (URDPM) that has taken place since the 1990s. The shift is from technocratic and comprehensive to participatory and strategic concepts and approaches to theorizing and practicing URDPM. The conceptual context of the paradigm shift, and therefore SUDPF preparation and execution, relates to interpretation of the legal requirement of preparing a general planning scheme and respective detailed planning schemes for guiding interactions between city's development and environment. In Tanzania general planning schemes have until early 1990s been prepared and executed using the technocratic and comprehensive concepts and approaches. During both the colonial and post-colonial eras technocratic and comprehensive planning was applied because decision-making in political and government systems was top-down, centralized, and technocratic. However, economic liberalization and political democratization that emerged in the country from the late 1980s to mid-1990s had prompted the democratization of one of the professional roles of urban planners namely, the preparation of a general planning scheme. The move has required the participation and partnerships of city stakeholders in both the planning and implementation of urban development. Worldwide, generally, and in Tanzania, particularly, URDPM has since 1990s become participatory and strategic and less technocratic and comprehensive. The shift has involved the preparation and implementation of general planning schemes rather than detailed planning schemes. Inability to sustain technocratic and comprehensive urban planning, which is widely published, has prompted the shift to participatory and strategic urban planning. This latest approach to urban development planning also needs to be sustained. Based on the Tanzanian experience there are critical elements in sustaining the participatory and strategic urban development planning process as follows: (i) Establishing city-stakeholders’ consensus on and commitment to the planning process (ii) Putting in place a strong and diverse coordinating or steering or implementing Team (iii) Providing technical backstopping advice to the Team (iv) Mobilizing adequate resources for preparation and implementation of the planning outputs. Sustaining the SUDPF process entails problem solving and conflict resolution by executing bankable projects and operating a flexible land-use regulatory framework. Effective citywide planning requires active participation and partnerships of respective stakeholders, as opposed to technocracy that is embedded in control planning. The process of citywide planning has to set a dynamic coordinating framework for executing development decisions that are made each day by city stakeholders, as opposed to a static controlling blueprint of development that is manifest in control planning.