IJPP ISSN: 2239-267X IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 80 Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts. Casestudy:Haft- Chenar, Iran Vahid Moshfeghi I n str u c to r , Dep ar tm en t o f Ar ch it ectu r e an d u r b an d esig n , I sl am ic Azad Un iv er si ty , Qazv in , I r an . m o sh f eg h iv ah id @g m ai l.co m - +9 8 9 1 2 5 1 1 2 3 9 0 . Mohammadjavad Mahdavinejad As so ci ated Pr o f e sso r , De p ar tm en t o f Ar ch i tec tu r e , Tar b iat Mo d ar e s Un iv er s ity , Teh r an , I r an NargesAhmadpour Ph D Stu d en t , Dep ar tm en t o f ar ch it ectu r e an d u r b an p lan n in g , Ar t Un iv er s ity o f Teh r an , I r an . SamiraYousefian Ph D Stu d en t , Dep ar tm en t o f Ar t an d Ar ch i tectu r e, Tar b iat Mo d ar e s Un iv er si ty , Teh r an , I r an . KEYWORDS: Sense of Place; Expert base Analysis; Exposure-based Analysis; Decision making; Decision taking. ABSTRACT City managers need to make the best decisions possible in order to achieve optimal patterns for developing cities, and for making such decisions managers require different groups of experts and consultants to help in choosing the best options in the specific field in question. In general, the views of policymakers are based on the comprehension and definition of the quality of urban space which in turn is based on two different approaches of experts-based and exposure-based. The questions that follow are the basis for this study: Are there any similarities or differences between what experts mean by ’space’ and how users define it? How trustworthy are the results of the team of experts and their decisions? How can we improve experts ‘analysis of urban areas? The research method is qualitative. This is an applied research and the research strategy is abductive. The purpose of this study was to determine the differences between the points of view of experts and the laymen on the quality of urban space in the Haft-Chenar area. The data gathering method is structured observation and interviews. 450 questionnaires were completed through interviews. After analyzing the differences between the responses of the expert team and users of the urban space, as well as the initial response of the expert team and their final responses, it has been concluded by the authors that the evaluation of the quality of space should be based on a combination of expert opinions and those of the people. The combination of ideas will generally compensate for each other's shortcomings and provide a more accurate analysis of the qualities of urban space. As a result, utilizing participatory approaches in urban planning and design will improve the quality of location and more appropriate decisions can be made. Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 81 INTRODUCTION City managers need to make the best decisions possible in order to achieve optimal patterns for developing cities, and for making such decisions managers require the help of different groups of experts and consultants so as to be able to make the best decisions in the special fields in question(Horowitz, 2017). Considering the importance of decision making and due to the consequential effects of the experts’ decisions on the future of the city, a question arises and that is to what extent can these decisions be trusted, how correct are they and how much are they based on reality. The answer to this question must be sought by investigating the views of the different groups involved in urban affairs. People as users of space, experts as community decision makers, managers and urban development planners as legal, decision makers in city affairs have different point of views and understanding as to what space really is and the needs and shortcomings of urban space. This difference is due to the relative concept of space. According to the formal sociologic theory, social forms are not real structured entities. Each social phenomenon includes different types of formal elements. They create the real basis, but they don’t come into existence in a practical way. In expressing the principle of forms, Simmel believes that “the world is made of different things that the human being defines by forcing shape, creation and content. Simmel made a distinction between shape and content, he believes that social shapes can have different contents and on the contrary, different contents can have different shapes (Frisby, 2002; Scaff, 2005; Waizbort 2008; Plummer, 2000). Therefore, the implication of experts on shape doesn’t necessarily fit the content and in the analysis of the meaning of space, miscalculations may occur. Participatory strategies (Ellery & Ellery, 2019) and place making (Strydom, Puren, & Drewes, 2018) need to be taken into account to achieve the right analysis and decisions concerning urban space as a social phenomenon .The idea of place making stems from a phenomenological tradition in geography was ''place is space imbued with meaning'' (Kalandides, 2018). It can be argued that each individual's experience defines their perception and meaning of space. The meaning may be quite different for different groups and individuals. The ways in which people make sense of space are different (Kalandides, 2018). So, decision making differs among different groups, their needs and perceptions and their meanings must be taken into account. Hence, this study intended to address the questions below: • Are there any significant differences or similarities between the opinions of experts and the laymen in analyzing the quality of the urban space? • How reliable can the expert team's perceptions and consequently their decisions be? • How reliable can people's opinions be in analyzing the quality of urban spaces? Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 82 • How can the expert-based analytics of urban spaces be improved to achieve realistic plans? Some theoretical considerations The concept of community participation is a fundamental discussion of concepts related to tranquility. The main idea behind localization is the changes that occur when community members participate. By engaging community members in public consultation processes related to public urban space planning and development, citizens play a more active and influential political role in revitalizing the environment (Ellery & Ellery, 2019). But the idea of partnership itself involves a lot of discussion on principles, forms, frameworks and actors (Kalandides, 2018). Citizen participation has been encouraged as one of the main ideas in urban development processes. The basis of the partnership is that “…those who are affected by a decision have the right to be involved in the decision-making process”. This subject has become more important as the citizen's demand for participation grows. The creation of new regulations and laws by international donor agencies had a double effect on speeding up this issue (Mohammadi, Norazizan, & Nikkhah, 2018). Generally speaking, the general approach is to enhance the level of participation and achieve maximum participation, participation of people in the local level of decision making, promote achievements and good governance (Mohammadi et al., 2018). Peter and Jane Ellery (2019) emphasized on the importance of participating in promoting a sense of place and place making. Irvin and Stansbury (2004) outlined the benefits of participating in the process and outcome of public projects: • Education(learn from and inform both citizens and government representatives) • Build mutual trust • Improve the level of cooperation • Gain legitimacy of decisions • Avoid litigation costs • Better policy and decisions on implementation. On the other hand, some studies have taken a critical look at the idea of participation. These studies have carefully assessed the process challenges, costs, and outputs of participatory processes and have examined the barriers to effective participation. What emerges from these studies illustrates the sharp difference between the theoretical foundations of participation and what we are faced with in practice and its scope. Mohammadi et al. (2018) argued that the authorities are not really interested in public participation. He shows that the disagreement between the local government and the people about the extent of participation is due to their difference in perception of participation. Besides, cultural factors hinder citizen participation in the planning process. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Irvin%2C+Ren%C3%A9e+A https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Stansbury%2C+John Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 83 • Lack of education about planning issues • Lack of confidence in their ability to provoke change • Lack of interest in participation • Political issues • Technical aspects of planning • Equal representation of the public (Gershman, 2013). Irvin and Stansbury (2004) have also looked at the disadvantages of participation. They believe that time, cost, pointless backfire and lose of decision making control are the most important disadvantages of participation. These studies challenge the utility and effectiveness of the maximization of partnership approach and the extent and intensity of people's participation in the planning process has become a theoretical challenge. Quick and Bryson (2016) discussed the desirable and workable levels of participation as an area of knowledge that needs further theoretical developments. Table 1 presents some interpretations and inconsistencies inferred from the concept of partnership. Reviewing the research background shows that: • The planning environment requires specific requirements that need to be identified. What groups and how to participate in the process of participation needs a thoughtful plan. • In any kind of partnership, conflict is inevitable. So choosing the best solution to achieve the optimal results and maximum consensus requires research. This is an important step and needs to be considered before starting a partnership. • Participation is relative and adventitious; therefore, it requires background and training for both participants and professionals. • The wider the creativity, flexibility and range of participants, and the less the role of formal and political institutions and the direct influence of elites and experts, the greater the satisfaction in the results. • As the spectrum of participants grows, disagreements increase and consensus becomes more difficult, so the facilitator's role becomes more important. • As a presupposition one should expect: 1) there is a difference between the opinions of people (residents and users of space), 2) specialists and researchers, and 3) legal political and managerial institutions. The more interconnected these groups are, the better their results and achievements. Table 1: Research background on citizen participation and decision making Contradictions in the concept of participation Idea Title Authors Year Professionals have unrealistic, academic and idealistic goals that make them unable to see common and trivial problems. Residents are responsible for planning and decision-making. Citizen participation in the decision-making activities of formal social service agencies: An unreasonable goal? Cohen 1976 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Irvin%2C+Ren%C3%A9e+A https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Stansbury%2C+John Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 84 The academic knowledge of specialists should be shared with the public and ultimately concluded. -Integrating the opinions of experts and public stakeholders -Action researcher Citizen participation and academic expertise: The unexplored promises of action research Halachm 1980 In computation and judgment, people can be persuaded, but in times of uncertainty, inspiration and public acceptance are important . Communicative action as a complement to technical rationality . Citizen participation through communicative action: Towards a new framework and synthesis Khisty & Leleurcitizen 1997 Intellectuals' opinions and decision-making by professionals, even if they are realistic and in line with the needs of society, still neglect the needs of the deprived groups. -Public benefit activities -Pluralism -The difference principle Towards cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities Sandercock 1998 The historical experience of planning shows that the interests, goals and values of people, planners and elites are inconsistent. -Democracy -Value -Pluralism Urban planning theory since 1945 Taylor 1998 Conflict and convergence of the views of social institutions in the context of collaborative planning. -Institutionalism -Communication planning -Integrated, place-focused public policy Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places Healy 1999 Those who know space have a better understanding of space than strangers. -Local changes of living environment -Applying research results in practice Creating better cities with children and youth-a manual for participation Driskell 2002 -It is almost impossible to reach an agreement that everyone is happy with. -The contradiction between planning and actual achievements in space. -Dialogues -Values -Collaborative process Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy Innes & Booher 2010 -Power of political influence and capital owners. -The conflict between the interests of the constituents, parties, power holders with respect to the real need of the people. -Communication planning -Public interest -The power of the local community Citizen participation in urban planning and management: The case of Iran, Shiraz city, Saadi community Mohammadi 2010 -Challenges between the knowledge of professionals and legal and informal institutions -Professionals who simultaneously participate as professionals and as participants in social institutions are an important challenge in partnership. -Balance of power in partnerships -The difference between professional and local knowledge -The importance of real partnership -Training and empowerment of institutions, organizations and professionals Remaking participation: Challenges for community development practice Eversole 2010 -The use of power and authority in participation process. The role of the local community as the main actor. Challenges and advantages of Nour 2011 Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 85 -The main challenge in the participation and decision making is the low level of social organizations. community participation as an approach for sustainable urban development in Egypt -Understanding space and designing it should be done by local communities and social organizations. -The official role of governmental and private agencies must be reduced. -Participation -Public interest People and planning report of the committee on public participation in planning (the Skeffington committee report ( Shapely 2014 The difference between formal and informal partnership levels. -Active participation system -The difference between the nature and type of participation. Power and influence in urban planning: Community and property interests' participation in Dublin's planning system Pauline 2015 -Inefficiency of poor and deprived classes in the process of participation. -Decreasing elite power in decision making process. -Understanding the true collective narrative. -Social storytelling, community informatics and the art of public relations. Beyond the rhetoric of participation: New challenges and prospects for inclusive urban regeneration Ferilli 2015 Experts judge the environment without regard to specific features, and the results of the assessments vary with people's mentality and understanding. -Consensus in participatory processes. -Planner as facilitator. Planners’ role in accommodating citizen disagreement: The case of Dutch urban planning Özdemir & Tasan-Kok 2017 -By getting people involved, it becomes easier for the opposition to accept the plan. -Creativity in decision making. -Participation of different groups. Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning Suvi & Tero 2017 Experts' interpretations differ from what people expect or expect from space. -Participatory practices and their inherent conflicts. -Participatory practices need to be defined according to the political context and planning environment . City politics and planning Rabinovitz 2017 -To get useful feedback from non-specialists. -Integrating citizens' ideas and desires into the urban planning process. Citizen design science: A strategy for crowd- creative urban design Johannes 2018 Disagreements are not the same everywhere (different needs and wants of institutions, employees, businessmen and residents). Locals, officials and professionals participation. Institutional stakeholder participation in urban redevelopment in Tehran Erfani & Roe 2020 Source: Authors Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 86 MATERIAL AND METHODS When choosing the sample size, firstly some deprived districts were randomly chosen in Tehran. Then to survey these districts, in regard to the objective of our research, the district which has a center with a specific application was chosen. Out of all the primary observed samples, Haft-Chenar district was considered as a place meeting the requirements due to both quality and its intensity of space usage. The case study is Boostan-Etemad in Haft-Chenar which is presented in Figure 1. Haft-Chenar is located in the south of Tehran. Economically speaking, this area is among the lower-middle class districts of Tehran with a population of about 30299 people. This district is an old district of Tehran which has a traditional mood in some ways. Figure 1 - The study area. Source: Authors Methods of testing In the process of this research, at first, the experts′ team surveyed the area and they answered the questions based on their personal findings of the quality of space. In order to determine the sample size from an unknown population of the case study users, the score of quality of the urban space in the case study with its standard deviation was calculated for 30 primary samples. The score of quality of the urban space in the case study with its standard deviation was calculated as 0.52. The desired equation for calculating the sample size is as follows (Suresh & Chandrashekara, 2012): N = (Zα/2)2 s2/d2 Where N is the sample size, S is the standard deviation obtained from primary sampling, Zα/2 is the Z-score at 95% confidence interval and d is the margin of error. Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 87 Therefore, by putting the standard deviation in this equation, and choosing the d=0.05, the sample size will be 416. For data gathering, the same questionnaires were distributed among 450 individuals. Sampling Technique was based on Random- Stratified sampling. We tried to select respondents who were fairly familiar with the district that was being studied. Furthermore, the desired statistical society was classified into three parts. This separation was based on the age group in statistical society. Then, each of the age groups were divided into two groups of men and women. As shown in Table 2, the statistical society was divided into six groups. The questionnaires were completed during one week in January 2019 from 9 am to 7 pm. Table 2: Data description of addressees Age Groups 12-25 26-50 More than 50 Total Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Count 57 75 90 450 66 45 450 Source: Authors After filling in the questionnaires, the experts` team again answered the questions, based on their deeper understanding of space, through a deeper analysis of how the space could be experienced from an outsider’s point of view. In order to find the difference between expert′s analysis before and after the interviews with people in the case studies, one sample T-test with a 95% confidence interval was done. In general, one-sample T-test compares the mean of a single column of numbers against a hypothetical mean that you provide. The research process is displayed in Figure 2. Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 88 Fig. 2 - The research process Source: Authors Analysis of data In this section, the questionnaire will be handed out to four major groups, and then the results will be presented in the framework of tables and diagrams. A 5-point Likert scale is done to get people′s perception of place. In this method, a number of propositions are prepared, which showed the method of considering special events. Here, the responder is being asked to express his agreement or disagreement with each subject based on 5-point Likert scale. Participants reviewed the subjects based on this spectrum. Options are not numerically assigned, so as not to affect the judgment of the respondents. Thus, after the questionnaires are returned, the spectrum will receive points from 1 to 5 (point 5 refers to totally agree, and point 1 refers to totally disagree). The sum of these points which is obtained from the participants shows their tendency. It should also be mentioned that the questions are designed based on the proposed criteria in Project for Public Spaces (PPS). Literary writing form of the questions was changed to make it easier to understand. The method of asking the questions was changed in a way that positive answers show the increased quality of space and the negative ones show the low quality of space. Considering the specifications of urban space in Iran, and the culture and other conditions of the environment, the content of questions has been localized. Hence, the index of reliability for the test is 0.724 which is considered as moderately reliable (Nunnally, 1978). Since, in analyzing the Theoretical framework Extraction criteria for quality measurement of location The initial score of experts locationlōˈkāSH Initial visit by experts Interview with space users Calculate the average score of space users Localization of PPS questions The final score of experts Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 89 quantitative issues, the difference of approaches between experts and consumers of space has no relevance, in this research, only those questions which are related to the qualitative matters are asked. Table 3 presents the questionnaire templates. Table 3: Sample form of research questionnaire Questions A c c e ss a n d L in k a g e 1 Is this space easily accessible? 2 Is there a good connection between the space and the adjacent buildings, or is it surrounded by blank walls? Do occupants of adjacent buildings use the space? 3 Can we expect people to walk to their ultimate destinations? For example, do they have to use their cars to reach this urban space? 4 Is this urban space suitable for use by those with special needs? (E.g. The blind, disabled people etc...) 5 Is this area suitable with respect to integrated multimodal transport systems (like use of motorbikes, cars, taxis, and bicycles and so on)? C o m fo r t a n d Im a g e 6 Does the area give people a good feeling the first time they visit it? 7 Are there both women and men? 8 Is there enough space and urban seating facilities? Do people have a choice as to where to sit? (E.g. Sitting in the shade or sun) 9 Is the area clean and without scattered rubbish? 10 Does the area induce security? 11 Do people take photos of the area? U se a n d A c tiv itie s 12 Do people use this urban space regularly? (How many times a day / month)? 13 Do a wide range of people use the area?(different genders and different ages) 14 Do people usually come to this urban space individually or with family and friends? 15 Do a variety of activities usually take place in this urban space? 16 Is there any place in this urban space which is not being used? Are there any hidden corners or any uncrowded spaces? 17 Is there any person or organization responsible for monitoring this urban space? S o c ia b ility 18 Would you choose this urban space for meeting or visiting friends? 19 Do people know each other by name or by sight? How many people do you greet and how many of them do you know by sight? 20 Do you bring your friends or family to see this urban space? Are you proud of the Haft-Chenar Museum? 21 Do people visit this urban space because of their personal interest, or just because they have no other options? 22 Are local groups involved in any activities in this urban space? 23 Have you ever seen someone pick up rubbish from the ground? How much do people care about keeping the area clean? (Derived from PPS, 2015) In Table 4 the expert team scores before and after the relative understanding of the urban space and people′s ideas are presented. Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 90 Table 4: Results of scores from among the received questionnaires Questions Score of audit group in the first survey Resulted average score by users of survey in the space Score of audit group after interviewing residents A c c e ss a n d L in k a g e 1 2 3.62 3 2 2 3.12 2 3 2 3.52 2 4 1 2.56 1 5 3 2.80 2 C o m fo r t a n d Im a g e 6 4 3.24 4 7 2 3.70 4 8 5 3.00 4 9 4 3.50 3 10 5 3.26 3 11 1 3.40 2 U se a n d A c tiv itie s 12 4 3.68 4 13 2 3.54 4 14 4 2.90 3 15 3 3.44 4 16 1 2.86 2 17 1 2.46 2 S o c ia b ility 18 5 3.30 4 19 5 3.76 4 20 4 3.16 3 21 5 3.18 4 22 1 1.96 1 23 1 3.46 2 Source: Authors RESULTS After proposing collected data, we will compare people′s ideas about quality of the studied area with those of the specialists, before and after the interview survey. Access and linkage In terms of the first question, due to personal experience of the audit group, this question had a lower score. Table 5 and Figure 3 compare the experts and public opinions on the field of access and linkage. But at the end of study, by determining its varying boundary and signs and functions (such as Haft-Chenar museum) and also observing some of informative sign board, these criterions achieved higher scores. Because of local knowledge and pre-existing ideas about the case study, people have also evaluated this criterion appropriately. Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 91 In the second question, because of not seeing population density in the area, the audit group chose a lower score, in accordance with the drop in activity criteria and connection between the space and the adjacent buildings. Because of the expectations of specific routines for certain hours in the day and different days, interviewees pointed out the ceremony which was held in the entrance. Therefore, they devoted a higher score to the criteria, but importance of continuity of these activities taking place in the urban environment is related to the quality which in the final evaluation of the audit group does not achieve a good status. Measuring pedestrian accessibility shows that the expert does not evaluate this quality as a proper one, due to a pathway which has heavy traffic in the rush hour. But because there is no way of comparing this environment with an optimum one, people are satisfied to some extent. Once again and for the second time, audits, based on specific standards or criterion, do not agree with environmental safety regulations fully. That is why they ignore the opinions of the interviewees in spite of their relative satisfaction about the environment. According to the answers of the 4th question in Table 5, most people agree that this area is inappropriate for people with disabilities and the elderly. But audits take into account the need of all potential users of space; and because of this there is less difference between the score of the audit group and others. Due to the presence of sufficient taxis, the accessibility quality was assessed as appropriate. Over time and after acquiring a deeper understanding of the location, low performance in services such as the lack of taxis in certain hours of the day and the low quality performance in bus services became apparent. Hence, they discovered an inadequacy in terms of public transportation resources, for the second time. Fig. 3. Comparison between the understanding of users of space and experts on space about related context of area quality (Access and Linkage). Source: Authors Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 92 Table 5: Comparison between the understanding of users of space and experts about related context of area quality (Access and Linkage) Source: Authors Comfort and image By assessing the initial feelings of individuals upon urban space, being in such an area and having memory association with that place, makes them feel better. On the other hand, the desirable initial sense of the expert team to the place does not change before and after the interview. Table 6 and Figure 4 compare the experts and public opinions on the field of comfort and vision. In terms of men and women sharing urban space, in the first survey, experts claim that men have a greater share in using urban space. But after interviewing the subjects, it has been determined that in the early hours of the morning, the area is only used by women. In the morning, some parts of the park are devoted to women selling household products, while in the evenings the same part of the park is used for illegal drug trading and becomes an unsafe area. Also, because of devoting a distinct area for women to exercise, it is used more by women from morning till noon. Furthermore, there is an area for children to play, where mothers bring their children to play at various times of the day. As a result, with respect to these criteria, concerning the changing nature of place over time and the ability to divide this urban space into various subdivisions with different functions causes the experts to make mistakes in their initial understanding of the area and all it entails which is reduced in the second test. Regarding the quantity and quality of urban seating facilities, preliminary analysis has not been properly presented due to the lack of expert attention to the subjective partitioning of urban space. In addition, the changing numbers in the users of the urban space in a specific period is another factor for the low level of expert judgment in this area. The final score has been balanced by promoting deeper understanding of the area. For instance, according to experts, the shortage of shades and shelters for rainy and sunny days is quite evident. In assessing environmental behavior and cleanliness of the urban space, the experts considered it fairly clean at the first questioning. Regarding the other possible health problems such as having mice especially in the warm seasons which people had to face 2 Score of experts in the first survey 3.12 Resulted average score by users of space 2 Score of experts after interviewing with users of space 5 Optimal score Access and Linkage Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 93 and pointed out in the interviews, it should be noted that their opinions changed and they rated it lower. In terms of security at first sight, the area appears pleasant and safe, but as time passes and with the presence of more experts, it can be seen that at particular times, some parts of the area change into urban space which is not safe. The changing nature of the area over time and low quality public realms are accounted as other effecting factors in this field. Although due to unwritten contracts of social boundaries, residents and users of the area in the face of this phenomenon the area becomes less secure and people feel unsafe. Regarding required standards, the audit group will evaluate differently with regards to this quality as opposed to initial assessing and even assessing of residents. Indeed, it has to be said that there was no distinct difference between scoring by women and men in accordance with this standard. Whilst most men did not feel there were any problems in this field and considered the space as a secure one, women approached this subject with more sensitivity and described it as an insecure space at some hours of the day. According to Simmel incorrect understanding and judgments of experts is related to the differences between the types of phenomenon. In terms of quality of space security, the difference among people and experts is quite clear. Regarding the 11th question, the team of experts devoted a lower score to this question. At first, they did not percept the phenomenon. Unfortunately, even when researched further, this phenomenon was not observed correctly. According to the statements of space users and an average score of 3.04, as was seen the audit group still devoted a high score to this issue. Table 6 and Figure 4 compare the experts and public opinions on the subject of comfort and image. Fig. 4 - Comparison between understanding of users of space and experts about related context of place quality (comfort and vision). Source: Authors Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 94 Table 6: Comparative comparison between understanding of users of space and experts about related context of place quality (comfort and vision). Source: Authors Land use and activities Regarding the 12th question, the bold presence of people in urban space has led experts to render the intensity of urban space usage as desirable. The close proximity of the scores of people and experts indicates the correct judgment of the experts. The initial evaluation of the expert team about the age diversity of individuals in the urban space earned few points since most people were old and retired. Over time, experts observed people of other age groups such as children and adolescents joining the elderly people. Therefore, the final score of the audit group increased compared to the initial score. In this field, the idea of Sorokin social time is the first thing that came to mind. The idea is about the timeliness and periodic daily activities of urban spaces and proves the variability of location quality, especially in relation to various types of social activities. To answer the 14th question, the audit group observed different kinds of groups in the space in its initial understanding, so assumed it as a positive issue. Then, it became clear that it was a superficial recognition. In various seasons, the way that users participate in the urban space varied and the use of space by groups and families, especially in summer, was more common. Therefore, because of the expert′s limited time for evaluation, they were not able to make the right judgment. About the variety of activities in the park, at first time the experts didn’t observe much variety in activities and the activities were limited to walking, playing chess and talking. As time went by and with the presence of more experts in urban space, other types of activities such women buying and selling goods there, playground children′s games in the playground , families spending their leisure time there, especially in summer, rituals, holding ceremonies for Moharram and the like could be seen.. As for the 16th question, with the initial contact of experts with the urban space, many unused areas were observed. Therefore the scores were under mean point. People also expressed their dissatisfaction about the presence of hidden and unused corners which may be misused by specific groups of society such as addicts and criminals. The laymen had pointed out fewer numbers of these abandoned urban spaces less than really existed. 3.5 Score of experts in the first survey 3.29 Resulted average score by users of space 3.33 Score of experts after interviewing with users of space 5 Optimal score Comfort and Image Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 95 When the experts were first introduced to the area, there was no system of supervision. Therefore, the lowest score is devoted to this question. The results of the evaluations showed that this urban area had a municipal supervisor that sometimes visited the area. And people had the chance to meet him. Some others pointed out to the presence of municipality workers who protected the enclosure gardens. According to experts, this type of space monitoring was not enough. And they emphasized the necessity to monitor the urban spaces regularly. Table 7 and Figure 5 compare the experts and public opinions on the subject of use and activity. Fig. 5. Comparative comparison between understanding of users of space and experts about related context of place quality (use and activity). Source: Authors Table 7: Comparative comparison between understanding of users of space and experts about related context of place quality (use and activity). Source: Authors Sociability To answer the 18th question, experts mostly focused on the formal dimension due to social texture of space, but because of their further understanding about space, they also took into account social dimensions of urban space and this led to the place to be 2.5 Score of experts in the first survey 3.15 Resulted average score by users of space 3.16 Score of experts after interviewing with users of space 5 Optimal score Use and Activities Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 96 less interesting for friends visiting the area. This is the reason for a difference in scores of the expert team before and after interviewing with users of space. About the formation of social relations between urban space users, and because of observing close communication with each other and also by playing chess together) and forming different groups, experts evaluated this component positively in the space. But they ignored quality and these types of relations. In some cases, the formation of social relations and presence of interacting face to face for some people is even disturbing and they find it inappropriate and they consider it a privacy breach. In assessing dependency rate of users towards the urban space, because of skeletal and functional dimensions of space such as presence of Haft-Chenar and wild life museum which has historical worth and its building was before utilized as a spinning factory, evaluate this quality desirable. But in fact, the impact of the museum on people's sense of place is less than expected. However, at the first observation, the expert cannot properly observe these aspects. About measuring peoples’ right of choice in using space, due to the presence of several similar spaces in the boundary and acceptance of studying boundary, between other available options, the experts had specified proper quality in this field, therefore has devoted the highest possible score to it. But according to the idea of space users, shortcomings in other parts such as compression of texture, small area of houses, inability to join in costly entertainment due to inappropriate economic environments and so on, played a key role in limiting the acceptance of this range. Despite these problems the audit group devoted an appropriate score to this quality in the final scoring To answer the 23rd question, there was no significant difference between expert scoring and the score of people. Therefore, in the final scoring, the initial score will be fixed. To answer the last question, the difference in scoring between the expert team and the users refers to the low level of peoples’ expectations about urban space cleanliness. Although, in general, people don’t like to confess about their shortcomings in terms of cleanliness, they assess this quality as a proper one and this is while the observations of experts proved something else. Table 8 and Figure 6 compare the experts and public opinions on the subject of sociability. Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 97 Fig. 6. Comparison between understanding of users of space and experts about related context of place quality (sociability). Source: Authors Table 8: Comparative comparison between understanding of users of space and experts about related context of place quality (sociability). Source: Authors Finally, by comparing the obtained scores from the results of four main components of urban space quality, it was number three that shows the quality of the place. Table 9 and Figure 7 shows the overall scores of different phases of research project. 3.5 Score of experts in the first survey 3.14 Resulted average score by users of space 3 Score of experts after interviewing with users of space 5 Optimal score Sociability Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 98 Fig. 7. Comparison between understanding of users of space and experts about place quality. Source: Authors Table 9: Comparative study between users of space and experts in assessment of place quality Source: Authors DISCUSSION According to this study, it is clear that there is a difference between peoples’ and experts' opinions. On the other hand an expert’s point of view also shows a significant difference between the first evaluation and the second evaluation. Table 10 and Figure 8 present the amount of score difference between the two groups of experts and individuals. Table 10: Subtraction and absolute subtraction between scores of expert group in the first survey and users of the space Quality Question Subtraction between scores of expert group in the first survey and users of the space Average of absolute subtractions Access and linkage 1 -1.62 1.2 2 -1.12 3 -1.52 4 -1.56 5 0.2 2.91 Score of experts in the first survey 3.04 Resulted average score by users of space 2.79 Score of experts after interviewing with users of space 5 Optimal score Total Average Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 99 Comfort and Image 6 0.76 1.45 7 -1.7 8 2 9 0.5 10 1.74 11 -2.04 Use and Activities 12 0.32 1.12 13 -1.54 14 1.1 15 -0.44 16 -1.86 17 -1.46 Sociability 18 1.7 1.5 19 1.24 20 0.84 21 1.82 22 -0.96 23 -2.46 Source: Authors Fig. 8. Comparison of space quality scores by space users and experts before and after the interview Source: Authors If we want to analyze the answers statistically, firstly, consider the absolute value difference between the score of the expert team's opinion and the average score of users' opinions of space, which equals 1.34. This difference in the Likert spectrum means about 33% difference across the five levels, which is very significant. Besides, the results of T-test showed that the p-value is statistically significant (p-value=0< 0.05) so H0 is rejected and a significant relationship is proved. In this measurement, if the score difference of the expert group before and after the interview with people, and also the analysis of the questionnaire results are closer to zero, experts’ comments are then more reliable. Table 11 shows the mean absolute of the different comments of experts in the first and second stage. It is clear that expert’s comments for the set of “access” questions are more reliable than the set of “image” questions. It is a matter of the subjective and objective nature of the questions in each Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 100 part and also the difference in the quality ideals of urban space in the points of view of people and experts. Table 11. The mean absolute of the difference comments of experts in the first and second stage Quality The mean absolute of the difference comments of experts in the first and second stage Access and Linkage 0.40 Comfort and Image 1.17 Use and Activities 1.00 Sociability 0.83 Source: Authors In eleven questions, the expert team scored higher than users of space, often in the areas of "comfort and image" and "sociability". The main reason for this difference is the inherent nature of these cases, which necessitates greater presence in urban space and deep understanding of space and even having a history of living in and frequent use of space. In twelve questions, the expert team scored less than space users. These have often been in the areas of "Access and Linkage" and "Use and Activities". In these two areas, the expert team often compares existing conditions to standard conditions and successful examples, while people are accustomed to existing conditions. The final score changed 21.7% in comparison to the initial assessment of the experts, which is a remarkable change. This illustrates the importance of interviewing with space users and public participation in assessing the quality of space. In six questions there was no remarkable change in the final score, in some of which the score of experts and people were close (Questions 6 and 12), but in the case of questions 2, 3, 4 and 22 despite the difference between the expert and people assessment scores the final score of experts were not any different. The reason for this is due to the existence of certain standards, fixed principles and specific criteria upon which the experts evaluate. In 74% of the questions, either the opinion of the expert team has been modified or the final score has changed between the initial score of the expert team and the user space score. Regarding Tables 10 and 11 and the differences observed in scores, the following bullet points present and briefly discuss the causes of these differences. • The sense of space is influenced by peoples’ mental images and experiences. Expert judgments are no exception. So the expert's specific and personal characteristics, such as their mental, physical state, and their specific teachings about evaluating the quality of the urban space will also influence their judgment. All of these factors will lead to different results from expert-driven perceptions and citizen interviews. Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 101 • Different consideration scales to available problems is effective from either expert or people in controversies which arise. Because of their familiarity with space, people have a deeper and more detailed understanding of the issues. • Changing location parameters over time will lead to different experiences with different qualities in a particular space. Due to the limited time of expert presence in space, it does not have a comprehensive view of space. • Different criteria for prioritizing location quality between expert and people will have different assessments. • There is a fundamental difference between peoples’ and experts' views. Experts' judgment may be optimal. • While people rate space based on the degree of responsiveness to their minimum need or compared to other options at their disposal. • Experts consider the needs of all users of urban space, as opposed to users who only respond to the needs and issues they face. In addition to the above, it seems that other factors such as gender and the number of space-harvesting experts can be useful in evaluation. For example, men's and women's perceptions of the security of a space will be different under equal conditions. Of course, judging the accuracy of this issue requires special and specific scrutiny. CONCLUSION Urban planning and design requires a real understanding of the place. To this end, various methods have been proposed to achieve a true cognition of the quality of urban space. Due to the fact that, urban spaces are infused with feeling, perception and memory, the space quality will not be easy to recognize. In this study, we tried to evaluate the differences, similarities and validity of expert-oriented and people- centered analyses. We are looking to find more effective decision making approach and understand how combining people and professionals' opinions increases the effectiveness of the results. The main considerations about optimum participation can be explained in four general categories. • Evaluating the quality of a place is human-centered, qualitative and closely related to human characteristics. It makes perfect sense to have a variety of opinions on space quality regarding the importance of knowledge, emotion, perception, and memory. This confirms the need for polls from different people with different characteristics such as social-economical level. Despite some similarities there are significant differences between experts and people's opinions about the quality of the place .These differences can be discussed from different aspects such as the method of space perception, considered standards, expectations of urban spaces, and so on. Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 102 • Considering an expert as the sole decision-maker but not as a facilitator will lead to drawbacks in estimating spatial quality. Due to the dynamic nature of activities over time, the existence of invisible spatial domains as well as the socioeconomic effect on quality of space, accurate understanding of space by the experts is impossible, especially in relation to subjective parameters such as comfort and mental image. On the other hand, in relation to topics such as access and linkage, use and activity that are quantitative and more standardizable, the expert's opinion can be prioritized. • People's opinion solely may not be reliable. Residential background and having a sense of belonging makes an acceptable understanding of the hidden dimensions of space that brings people's view closer to reality. Since their point of view is more based on daily experiences, needs and current expectations, it is either not comprehensive, or not all-encompassing in terms of professional criteria and standards. Therefore, the lived experience of people and their perception of space must be oriented by experts in order to achieve optimal quality of space. • Finally, to achieve a comprehensive vision, both people and expert’s comprehension must be taken into account. The experts' point of view can be used to formulate assumptions and orientation of studies, select parameters and determine indicators. Ultimately this is the experience and perception of the residents who rejects or confirms assumptions or is used as a raw material in order to formulate new assumptions. Ultimately, it seems, the optimal way is to evaluate the quality of the area based on a combination of experts' and people’s opinions. Experts' opinions without the participation of the public and the use of public opinion without expert analysis have major shortcomings. Combining peoples’ and experts’ opinions will provide a more accurate analysis of the qualities of place that can serve as the basis for decision making. As a result, utilizing the appropriate participatory methods in planning and designing urban spaces will improve the quality of urban space and enable more appropriate decisions. Choosing the right participatory methods and the extent of people involvement depends on the nature of the research questions and more participation by people will not necessarily produce better results. REFERENCES Cohen, M.W. (1976). Citizen Participation in the Decision-Making Activities of Formal Social Service Agencies:An Unreasonable Goal?: Community Mental Health Journal, 12 (4), 355-364. Driskell, D. (2002). Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth: A Manual for Participation, Paris, London, UNESCO Publishing. Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 103 Ellery, P. & Ellery, J. (2019). Strengthening Community Sense of Place through Placemaking. Urban Planning, 4(2), 237–248. Erfani, G. & Roe, M. (2020). Institutional stakeholder participation in urban redevelopment in Tehran: An evaluation of decisions and actions, Land Use Policy, 91, 104367. Eversole, R. (2010). Remaking participation: challenges for community development practice, Community Development Journal, 45(2), 29-41. Doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsq033 Ferilli, G., & Sacco, P., & Blessi, G. (2016). Beyond the rhetoric of participation: New challenges and prospects for inclusive urban regeneration. City, Culture and Society. 7(2), 95-100. Doi: 10.1016/j.ccs.2015.09.001. Frisby, D., & Georg, S. (2002). Key Sociologists. London: Routledge. Gershman, S.D. (2013). An Evaluation of public participation techniques using Arnsteins ladder: the Portland plan, university of Florida, Requirements for the Degree of and Regional Planning, Chair: Richard Schneider, Cochair: Paul Zwick, Major: Urban and Regional Planning. Halachm, A. (1980). Citizen participation and academic expertise: the unexplored promises of action research. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 5(1), 35- 42. Healy, P. (1999). Institutionalist Analysis, Communicative Planning, and Shaping Places. Planning Education and Research, 19(2), 111-121. Doi: 10.1177/0739456X9901900201 Horowitz, I. (2017). City Politics and Planning, London: Routledge. Innes, J.E., & Booher, D.E. (2010). Planning with Complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy, Routledge. Irvin, R.A., & Stansbury, J. (2004), Citizen Participation in Decision-Making: Is it Worth the Effort?, Public Administration Review, 64. 55 - 65. Doi: 10.1111/j.1540- 6210.2004.00346.x. Kalandides,. A. (2018). Citizen participation: towards a framework for policy assessment. , Journal of Place Management and Development, 11(2), 251-164. Doi: 10.1108/JPMD-02-2018-0017 Khisty, C.J., & Leleur S. (1997). Citizen Participation Through Communicative Action: Towards a New Framework and Synthesis, Journal of Advanced Transportation, 31(2), 119-137. Doi: 10.1002/atr.5670310203 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Irvin%2C+Ren%C3%A9e+A https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?ContribAuthorStored=Stansbury%2C+John Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 104 Mohammadi, H. (2010). Citizen Participation in Urban Planning and Management The Case of Iran, Shiraz City, Saadi Community, kassel University Press. Mohammadi, S.H., & Norazizan, S. & Nikkhah, H.A. (2018). Conflicting perceptions on participation between citizens and members of local government. Qual Quant 52, 1761–1778. Doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0565-9. Nour, A.M. (2011). Challenges and Advantages of Community Participation as an Approach for Sustainable Urban Development in Egypt, Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(1), 79-91. Doi: 10.5539/jsd.v4n1p79. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Özdemir, E., & Tasan-Kok, T. (2017). Planners’ role in accommodating citizen disagreement: The case of Dutch urban planning, Urban Studies, 1–19. Doi: 10.1177/0042098017726738. Pauline, M. (2015). Power and Influence in Urban Planning: Community and Property Interests' Participation in Dublin's Planning System, Irish Geography, 28, Doi: 64-75. 10.1080/00750779509478679. Plummer, K. (2000). A World in the Making: Symbolic Interactionism in the Twentieth Century , Blackwell, 193-222. Quick, K.S., & Bryson, J. (2016). Handbook in Theories of public participation in governance, edited by Jacob Torbing and Chris Ansell, Edward Elgar Press. Rabinovitz, F. (2017). City politics and planning. London: Routledge. Sandercock, L. (1998). Toward cosmopolis. New York: Weily. Scaff, L.A. (2005). The Mind of the Modernist. Simmel on time. Time & Society. TIME SOC. 14. 5-23. Doi: 10.1177/0961463X05049947. Shapely, P. (2014). People and planning report of the committee on public participation in planning (the skeffington committee report). London: Routledge. Strydom, W.,& Puren, K.,& Drewes, E. (2018). Exploring theoretical trends in placemaking: towards new perspectives in spatial planning, Journal of Place Management and Development, 11(2), 165-180. Suresh, K., & Chandrashekara, S. (2012). Sample size estimation and power analysis for clinical research studies. Journal of human reproductive sciences, 5(1), 7–13. Suvi, K.,& Tero, R. (2017). Managing community engagement: A process model for Moshfeghi – Comparison of Expert- based and Exposure-based Analysis in Historical Districts IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. X, issue 1 - 2020 105 urban planning, European Journal of Operational Research, Doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.12.002 Taylor, N. (1998). Urban Planning Theory Since 1945. London: SAGE Publications. Waizbort, L. (2008). Simmel in Brazil. Dados. 50. 11-48. Doi: 10.1590/S0011- 52582007000100002. SHORT AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY: Vahid Moshfeghi is instructor at Islamic Azad University of Qazvin(QIAU), Department of Architecture and urban design. His research interests include spatial planning, Decision making, Network analysis etc. Mohammadjavad Mahdavinejad is Associate Professor of Department of Architecture and the Dean of HAL (High-performance Architecture Laboratory) in TMU. His current researches focus on sci-tech modeling and analyzing for high-performance architecture and design. Narges Ahmadpour is PhD Student, Faculty of architecture and urban planning, Art University of Tehran, Iran. Her research interests include Environmental Perception & Cognition, Sustainable Urban design & Planning , etc. Samira Yousefian is PhD Student, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. Her research interests include public participation in planning, tourism, landscape analysis, etc. etc. She/he has published in: title of journals if appropriate.