10.57647/ccd.2026.0901.06

Elucidating Issue Identification in Urban Planning: Insights from a PRISMA-Based Systematic Review

PDF
  • Samaneh Mahdinezhad1,
  • Mehrnoush Hassanzadeh*1,
  • Kianoosh Zakerhaghighi1,
  1. Department of Urban Planning, ST.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2025-10-04

Revised: 2025-10-26

Accepted: 2025-12-15

Published in Issue 2026-03-31

Copyright (c) 2026 Samaneh Mahdinezhad, Mehrnoush Hassanzadeh, Kianoosh Zakerhaghighi (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Mahdinezhad, S., Hassanzadeh, M., & Zakerhaghighi, K. (2026). Elucidating Issue Identification in Urban Planning: Insights from a PRISMA-Based Systematic Review. Creative City Design, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.57647/ccd.2026.0901.06
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 2

Abstract

Abstract

Aims: This study explores how issue identification in urban planning can integrate contemporary theoretical and methodological frameworks to achieve context-sensitive and sustainable outcomes. It analyzes the nature, classification, and challenges of urban issues, examines theoretical frameworks such as wicked problems and narrative policy analysis, evaluates computational and participatory tools, and identifies literature gaps to propose directions for interdisciplinary research.

Methodology: A systematic review using the PRISMA framework analyzed 28 peer-reviewed studies published between 1967 and 2024. Transparent inclusion and exclusion criteria, alongside a PRISMA flowchart, ensured rigorous selection and synthesis of literature on urban issue identification.

Findings: Urban issues are multidimensional, with wicked problems predominant (42.9% of studies), revealing the limitations of linear planning approaches. Issue identification is a socio-political process shaped by discourses and institutional interactions, with network governance (25%) enabling adaptive solutions. Computational tools, including fuzzy models (7.1%), improve analytical precision, while geographical differences (10.7%) highlight the necessity of localized frameworks. Key gaps include limited representation of the Global South and insufficient integration of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Conclusion: Issue identification is a dynamic, socio-political process that requires integrative frameworks combining theoretical rigor, participatory governance, and technological innovation. Integrating narrative policy and computational approaches enables urban planning to effectively address complexity and foster inclusive, sustainable, and context-sensitive outcomes. Future research should focus on developing integrated methodologies, expanding empirical studies, and enhancing the transferability of frameworks to improve issue identification across diverse urban contexts and ensure planning addresses multifaceted challenges.

Keywords

  • Issue identification,
  • Urban issues,
  • Urban planning,
  • Narrative policy analysis,
  • Network governance,
  • PRISMA
PDF

References

  1. Hosseini S-M, Ghadami M. Investigating factors affecting the lack of a futures-research approach in the regional planning process (Case study: Northern coastal provinces of Iran). Geogr Q Land. 2016;13(51):31-50. https://doi.org/10.22080/usfs.2020.18344.1946
  2. Asadi I. The complexity of issues in urban planning and approaches to addressing them. Urban Manag. 2003; 14:24–38. Available from: https://www.magiran.com/p1331201
  3. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973;4(2):155–169. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01405730
  4. Hartmann T. Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: Planning as expectation management. Plan Theory. 2012;11(3):242–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212440427
  5. Innes JE, Booher DE. Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. London: Routledge; 2010. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864302
  6. Weber EP, Khademian AM. Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Adm Rev. 2008;68(2):334–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00866.x
  7. Mills CW. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press; 1991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-020-09463-z
  8. Asadi D, Arbab P. Developing a framework for identifying wicked problems in urban planning. Q J Geogr Res Urban Plan. 2014;12(1):21–41. https://doi.org/10.22059/jurbangeo.2024.369158.1904
  9. Durkheim E. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Glencoe (IL): Free Press; 1951. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994320
  10. Merton RK. Social structure and anomie. Am Sociol Rev. 1938;3(5):672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686
  11. Watson V. Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Stud. 2009;46(11):2259–2275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009342598
  12. Forester J. Learning to improve practice: Lessons from practice stories and practitioners’ own discourse analyses (or why only the loons show up). Plan Theory Pract. 2012;13(1):11–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2012.649905
  13. Feitelson E. Issue generating assessment: Bridging the gap between evaluation theory and practice? Plan Theory Pract. 2011;12(4):549–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2011.626305
  14. Habib F, Shokoohi A. Classification and resolving urban problems by means of fuzzy approach. World Acad Sci Eng Technol Int J Soc Behav Educ Econ Bus Ind Eng. 2010;4(6):1234–1240. Available from: https://publications.waset.org/
  15. Roshanali F, Andalib A. Issue identification in dysfunctional urban areas: The most critical step in engaging residents in successful renewal programs (Case study: Shahid Khoobbakht neighborhood, Tehran). Urban Manag. 2018; 52:93–108. Available from: https://ijurm.imo.org.ir/article-1-2307-fa.html
  16. Jones MD, McBeth MK. A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Stud J. 2010;38(2):329–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00364.x
  17. Abedian Aval F, Lopes M, Ataee S, Bhandari S, Ganjali Khosroshahi M. Transformation of urban neighborhoods from the perspective of the public perception. Creat City Des. 2025;8(1):082505. https://doi.org/10.57647/j.ccd.2025.0801.05
  18. Chadwick G. A Systems view of planning: Towards a theory of the urban and regional planning process. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1978. Available from: https://www.amazon.com/systems-view-planning-Towards-regional/dp/0080167993
  19. Daneshpour ZA. Introducing the step-by-step problem-finding/problem-solving approach: A preliminary proposal for testing a designed problem-finding method in Tehran. J Fine Arts. 2008; 36:5–16. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11253.58083
  20. American Planning Association (APA). Planning and urban design standards. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2006. Available from: https://www.just.edu.jo/~arabed/assets/files/UP-702-PlanningandUrbanDesignStandards.pdf
  21. Batty M. Inventing future cities. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2019.1671058
  22. Sharifkazemi S, Habib F, Ghalambor Dezfuly M. Formulating a conceptual framework for behavior resulting from the perception of participants in behavioral settings, with an emphasis on Barker's theory. Creat City Des. 2025;8(3):082514. https://doi.org/10.57647/j.ccd.2025.0803.14
  23. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  24. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
  25. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  26. Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018;34(4):285–291. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180221
  27. Tietjen A, Jørgensen G. Translating a wicked problem: A strategic planning approach to rural shrinkage in Denmark. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016; 154:29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.009
  28. Xiang W. Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: Awareness, acceptance, and adaptation. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013; 110:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.006
  29. Habrel M. “Atypical” problems of urbanism classification, characteristics, and approaches to the solution. Munic Econ Cities. 2020;6(159):62–69. https://doi.org/10.33042/2522-1809-2020-6-159-62-69
  30. Churchman CW. Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Manage Sci. 1967;14(4): B141–B142. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2628678
  31. Lazarus R. Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Rev. 2009; 94:1153–1233. Available from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/159/
  32. Levin K, Cashore B, Bernstein S, Auld G. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sci. 2012;45(2):123–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0
  33. Rochefort DA, Cobb RW. Problem definition, agenda access, and policy choice. Policy Stud J. 1993;21(1):56–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1993.tb01453.x
  34. Norris PE, O’Rourke M, Mayer AS, Halvorsen KE. Managing the wicked problem of transdisciplinary team formation in socio-ecological systems. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016; 154:115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.008
  35. Campbell SD, Zellner M. Wicked problems, foolish decisions: Promoting sustainability through urban governance in a complex world symposium. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 2020; 73:1643–1685. Available from: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol73/iss6/3
  36. Barbehön M, Münch S, Gehring P, Grossmann A, Haus M, Heinelt H. Urban problem discourses: Understanding the distinctiveness of cities. J Urban Aff. 2016;38(2):236–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12206
  37. Portugali J. Complexity, cognition and the city. Berlin: Springer; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19451-1
  38. Baum HS. Toward a post-industrial planning theory. Policy Sci. 1977;8(4):401–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01727407
  39. Bishop R, Phillips J. The urban problematic. Theor Cult Soc. 2013;30(0):221–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413508154
  40. Peters BG. What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy Soc. 2017;36(3):385–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633
  41. Termeer CJ, Dewulf A, Biesbroek R. A critical assessment of the wicked problem concept: Relevance and usefulness for policy science and practice. Policy Soc. 2019;38(2):167–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1617971
  42. Head BW, Alford J. Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Adm Soc. 2015;47(6):711–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713481601
  43. Hocking VT, Brown VA, Harris JA. Tackling wicked problems through collective design. Intel Build Int. 2016;8(1):24–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2015.1058743
  44. Hoernig H, Leahy D, Zhuang ZX, Early R, Randall L, Whitelaw G. Planning for people: Integrating social issues and processes into planning practice. Berkeley Plan J. 2011;18(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/BP318111500
  45. Alford J, Head B. Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework. Policy Soc. 2017;36(3):397–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1361634
  46. Wiseman C. Selection of major planning issues. Policy Sci. 1978;9(1):71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137979
  47. Skaburkis A. The origin of “wicked problems”. Plan Theory Pract. 2008;9(2):277–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350802041654
  48. Turnbull N, Hoppe R. Problematizing ‘wickedness’: A critique of the wicked problems concept, from philosophy to practice. Policy Soc. 2019;38(2):315–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1488796
  49. Frame B. ‘Wicked’, ‘messy’, and ‘clumsy’: Long-term frameworks for sustainability. Environ Plan C Gov Policy. 2008; 26:1113–1128. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0790s