بهره‌گیری تطبیقی از الگوریتم‌های اجماع‌سازی مبتنی بر بلاک‌چین در اقتصاد دیجیتال، برای ایجاد اجماع نظر نخبگانی در شهرسازی راهبردی

سعیدی مفرد, ساناز; فرهنگدوست, هادی

doi:10.22034/uep.2025.525325.1648

بهره‌گیری تطبیقی از الگوریتم‌های اجماع‌سازی مبتنی بر بلاک‌چین در اقتصاد دیجیتال، برای ایجاد اجماع نظر نخبگانی در شهرسازی راهبردی

نوع مقاله : نظری و بنیادین

نویسندگان

ساناز سعیدی مفرد ¹

هادی فرهنگدوست ²

¹ دانشیار گروه شهرسازی، واحد مشهد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مشهد، ایران

² کارشناس ارشد معماری اسلامی، گروه هنر و معماری اسلامی، دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری اسلامی، دانشگاه بین‌المللی امام رضا(ع)، مشهد، ایران

10.22034/uep.2025.525325.1648

چکیده

مقدمه
در حوزۀ شهرسازی، پیچیدگی فزایندۀ فرایندهای تصمیم‌گیری، نیازمند رویکردی ساختاریافته و مبتنی بر داده است. تصمیمات شهرسازی به‌ طور سنتی به‌ صورت متمرکز اتخاذ شده‌اند، که این امر منجر به تصمیماتی شده است که بازتاب‌دهندۀ پویایی‌های چندبعدی محیط‌های شهری نیستند. این پژوهش، نیاز حیاتی به مداخلات پایدار محیطی را که از فرایندهای تصمیم‌سازی مشورتی با نخبگان شهری ناشی می‌شود، بررسی می‌کند. چالش اساسی که در این مطالعه به آن پرداخته شده، گذار از تصمیم‌گیری متمرکز به یک چهارچوب اجماع‌سازی جامع، مبتنی بر داده و توزیع‌شده است که به ادغام مستمر دانش نخبگان در فرایند تصمیم‌سازی می‌پردازد.
هدف محوری این پژوهش، بررسی قابلیت‌های الگوریتم‌های اجماع‌سازی مبتنی بر بلاک‌چین در بهبود فرایند تصمیم‌گیری در شهرسازی راهبردی است. این پژوهش تلاش می‌کند تا دریابد که چگونه این سیستم‌های داده‌محور و غیرمتمرکز می‌توانند برای پاسخ‌گویی به نیازهای خاص فرایندهای شهرسازی که بر اجماع نخبگان متکی هستند، سازگار شوند. به ‌طور خاص، این پژوهش به مقایسۀ سازگاری مکانیزم‌های اجماع بلاک‌چین به‌ عنوان چهارچوب مبدأ (بستر اولیه) با مکانیزم‌های اجماع‌سازی نخبگان شهری به ‌عنوان چهارچوب مقصد (بستر هدف) می‌پردازد. این رویکرد تطبیقی، برای بررسی امکان ادغام سیستماتیک صحت‌سنجی داده‌محور بلاک‌چین با داده‌های متنوع و محیطی شهرسازی ضروری است، به‌ گونه‌ای که فرایند تصمیم‌گیری علاوه بر اتکا بر داده‌ها، به زمینه نیز حساس باشد.
ضرورت این پژوهش از نیاز فزاینده به گذار از تصمیم‌گیری‌های شهری متمرکز، که اغلب دیدگاه‌های متنوع نخبگان شهری را نادیده می‌گیرد، نشئت می‌گیرد. بسیاری از مدل‌های حکمرانی شهری که بر رویکردهای بالا به پایین متکی هستند، قادر به در نظر گرفتن پیچیدگی‌های متنوع فضاهای شهری نیستند و در نتیجه، به سیاست‌هایی منجر می‌شوند که متناسب با شرایط محلی طراحی نشده‌اند. با توجه به هزینه‌های بالای اصلاح و پیامدهای بلندمدت تصمیمات شهری، تغییر رویکردی که موجب افزایش شفافیت، پاسخ‌گویی و انعطاف‌پذیری شود، ضروری است. فناوری بلاک‌چین، با ارائۀ چهارچوبی برای تصمیم‌گیری توزیع‌شده، می‌تواند این مشکلات را حل کند و شیوه‌ای اثربخش‌تر برای ایجاد مداخلات پایدار و ارتقای تاب‌آوری شهری ارائه دهد.
مواد و روش‌ها
این پژوهش از یک روش تحلیلی تطبیقی بهره می‌گیرد تا امکان سازگاری بین الگوریتم‌های اجماع‌سازی بلاک‌چینی و مکانیزم‌های اجماع‌سازی در شهرسازی را ارزیابی کند. رویکرد پژوهش، ابتدا به شناسایی توانمندی‌های کلیدی هر دو بستر اجماع می‌پردازد. در مرحلۀ بعد، سه معادلۀ ساختاری که بازتاب‌دهندۀ فرایندهای اجماع در هر دو حوزه هستند، استخراج شده‌اند. این معادلات به ‌عنوان چهارچوبی برای درک روابط بین عوامل کلیدی و نقش آن‌ها در دستیابی به اجماع عمل می‌کنند. سپس، اعتبار این معادلات ساختاری برای کاربردهای واقعی ارزیابی شده و عوامل کلیدی که در همگرایی این دو سیستم ضروری هستند، شناسایی شده‌اند.
در ادامه، برای کاهش پیچیدگی فرایند ادغام این دو سیستم، از قوانین دمورگان استفاده شده است تا شرایط لازم و کافی در فرایند اجماع‌سازی به حداقل ترکیب‌های ممکن تقلیل یابد. این گام، موجب شفاف‌سازی مؤلفه‌های ضروری برای موفقیت مکانیزم تطبیقی پیشنهادی می‌شود. سپس، معادلۀ کلی به‌دست‌آمده با هدف ساده‌سازی و افزایش دقت در مدل‌سازی اصلاح شده است. تدوین ۲۰ سناریوی متفاوت بر مبنای روابط بین این شرایط لازم و کافی، امکان بررسی طیف وسیعی از بسترهای شهری را فراهم کرده و نشان داده است که مدل پیشنهادی، قابلیت انطباق با محیط‌های شهری گوناگون را دارد.
یکی از دستاوردهای مهم این پژوهش، تدوین یک معادلۀ اجماع‌سازی تطبیقی است که شامل یک ضریب الزام اولیه (λ) و ضرایب تعدیل‌کننده محیطی (μ) می‌شود. این ضرایب، امکان تنظیم مدل نسبت به شرایط محیطی مختلف را فراهم کرده و قابلیت انعطاف‌پذیری مورد نیاز را برای پاسخ‌گویی به مقتضیات خاص هر فضای شهری تأمین می‌کنند. معادلۀ پیشنهادی، بر اهمیت شرایط محیطی در تصمیمات شهرسازی تأکید داشته و نقش قابل توجهی در افزایش شفافیت و انطباق‌پذیری فرایند تصمیم‌سازی ایفا می‌کند.
یافته‌ها
یافته‌های این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد بهره‌گیری از فناوری بلاک‌چین در فرایند تصمیم‌گیری شهرسازی می‌تواند به بهبود کارایی و دقت در تصمیمات منجر شود. مکانیزم‌های اجماع مبتنی بر بلاک‌چین، این امکان را فراهم می‌کنند که تصمیمات شهری علاوه بر اتکا بر داده‌های محیطی، همواره قابل تنظیم و تطبیق با شرایط متغیر شهرها باشند. از طریق ادغام بینش‌های نخبگان و داده‌های محیطی، مدل پیشنهادی می‌تواند به ایجاد یک چهارچوب تصمیم‌گیری کارآمدتر، منعطف‌تر و پویاتر در حکمرانی شهری کمک کند. افزون بر این، یافته‌ها بر اهمیت استمرار مشورت با نخبگان شهری تأکید دارند، به‌ گونه‌ای که تصمیمات شهرسازی به‌ صورت پویا، متناسب با چالش‌ها و فرصت‌های نوظهور تنظیم شوند.
در نهایت، نتایج این پژوهش دارای دلالت‌های مهمی برای استفاده از بلاک‌چین در حکمرانی شهری هستند، به‌ویژه در زمینۀ ایجاد فرایندهای تصمیم‌گیری شفاف، پاسخ‌گو و مبتنی بر داده. این یافته‌ها، نه‌تنها یک چهارچوب نظری نوین را برای تلفیق سیستم‌های غیرمتمرکز با مکانیزم‌های تصمیم‌سازی شهری ارائه می‌دهند، بلکه ابزارهای عملیاتی مورد نیاز را برای مدیران و برنامه‌ریزان شهری فراهم می‌کنند تا بتوانند فناوری‌های نوین را در مدل‌های حکمرانی خود ادغام کنند. معادلۀ اجماع‌سازی تطبیقی پیشنهادی، می‌تواند به‌ عنوان یک ابزار استاندارد برای بهبود فرایندهای تصمیم‌گیری در شهرسازی به کار گرفته شود و از این طریق، کیفیت تصمیمات شهری را ارتقا دهد و در نهایت، مداخلات شهری را در جهت پاسخ‌گویی به پیچیدگی‌های شهرهای مدرن کارآمدتر و پایدارتر سازد.
نتیجه‌گیری
این پژوهش، با پیوند دادن فناوری بلاک‌چین و فرایند تصمیم‌سازی در شهرسازی، به ‌طور قابل توجهی در این حوزۀ علمی نوآوری ایجاد کرده است. مدل پیشنهادی، نه‌تنها رویکردی جدید را برای ارتقای اجماع‌سازی غیرمتمرکز ارائه می‌کند، بلکه یک روش‌شناسی جامع برای تلفیق این رویکردها در سیستم‌های حکمرانی شهری ارائه می‌دهد. این مدل، می‌تواند شیوۀ برنامه‌ریزی شهری را متحول کرده و آن را به فرایندی شفاف‌تر، جامع‌تر و سازگارتر با محیط‌های پیچیده و پویای شهری تبدیل کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

تصمیم‌گیری توزیع‌شده

روش‌های داده‌محور

فرایند اجماع

مدل‌های اجماع‌سازی

مشارکت نخبگان

20.1001.1.28212118.1404.6.3.13.6

موضوعات

برنامه ریزی شهری

عنوان مقاله English

Comparative Utilization of Blockchain-Based Consensus Algorithms in the Digital Economy for Achieving Elite Consensus in Strategic Urban Planning

نویسندگان English

Sanaz Saeidi Mofrad ¹

Hadi Farhangdoust ²

¹ Associated professor, Department of Urbanism, Ma.C., Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

² Master of Islamic Architecture, Department of Islamic Art and Architecture, Faculty of Islamic Art and Architecture, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran

چکیده English

Introduction
The increasing complexity of decision-making processes necessitates a more structured and data-driven approach in urban planning. Traditionally, urban planning decisions have been centralized, with limited input from relevant experts, leading to suboptimal decisions that may not reflect urban environments’ dynamic and multi-dimensional nature. This research addresses the critical need for sustainable environmental interventions from consultation-based decision-making processes with urban elites. The key challenge highlighted in this study is the shift from centralized decision-making to a more inclusive, evidence-based, decentralized consensus-building framework that continuously and sustainably integrates expert knowledge.
The central aim of this study is to explore the potential of blockchain-based consensus algorithms in enhancing the effectiveness of decision-making in strategic urban planning. The goal is to identify how these data-driven, decentralized systems can be adapted to the unique needs of urban planning processes that rely heavily on expert consensus, especially when addressing complex urban challenges. Specifically, the research investigates the adaptability of blockchain consensus mechanisms as the origin framework (source context), compared to the expert-based consensus mechanisms employed in urban planning, which serve as the target context. This comparative approach is essential to determine whether blockchain’s systematic data validation can be integrated into urban planning’s diverse and environmental data, ensuring decision-making is not only data-driven but also contextually sensitive.
The necessity of this research arises from the pressing need to move away from centralized urban decision-making, which often neglects the diverse perspectives of urban elites and experts. In many urban governance models, a top-down approach fails to consider the varying complexities of urban spaces, leading to policies ill-suited to local conditions. Given the high costs and long-term implications of urban planning decisions, there is an urgent need for a methodological shift that fosters transparency, accountability, and adaptability. Blockchain offers a promising avenue by facilitating a distributed decision-making framework that could potentially resolve these issues, providing a more effective way to ensure sustainable urban interventions and long-term city resilience.
Materials and Methods
Methodologically, the research employs a comparative analysis to assess the potential compatibility between blockchain-based consensus algorithms and expert-based urban planning mechanisms. The study follows a structured approach by first identifying the core capabilities of both the blockchain and urban planning consensus processes. This leads to identifying three structural equations reflecting the consensus processes in the blockchain and urban planning contexts. These equations serve as the basis for understanding the relationships between different factors and their role in achieving consensus within each system. Subsequently, the research investigates the validity and relevance of these structural equations to ensure their applicability in real-world scenarios. Through this process, the study identifies key factors crucial to bridging the gap between these two distinct approaches.
As the study progresses, it focuses on reducing the complexity of integrating these systems by employing De Morgan’s laws, which facilitate the identification of necessary and sufficient conditions within the consensus-building process. These conditions help define the essential components that must be present for a successful alignment between blockchain and urban planning mechanisms. The research then presents a simplified version of the general structural equation, further refining it to enhance precision and applicability. Developing twenty distinct scenarios based on the relationships between these necessary and sufficient conditions allows for exploring various urban planning contexts, ensuring that the proposed model can be adjusted to suit different urban environments.
A key contribution of this study is the formulation of an adaptable consensus equation, which includes an initial constraint coefficient (λ) and environmental adjustment factors (μ). These components allow for the flexibility required to adjust the model to the specific conditions of various urban contexts. This adaptable equation reflects the unique environmental factors influencing urban planning and the need for a tailored approach in each decision-making process. By introducing these adjustment factors, the model emphasizes the importance of considering local conditions in urban planning decisions, thereby improving the overall transparency and responsiveness of the decision-making process.
The results of this research underscore the importance of integrating blockchain technology into the decision-making process in urban planning. The adaptability of blockchain-based consensus models ensures that urban planning decisions are grounded in data and responsive to urban environments’ changing needs and conditions. By incorporating expert insights and environmental data, this model offers a more flexible, dynamic, and efficient framework for urban governance. Furthermore, the research highlights the need for ongoing consultations with urban elites, ensuring that urban planning decisions are continually refined and improved in line with emerging challenges and opportunities.
Findings
Ultimately, the findings of this study provide valuable insights into the potential applications of blockchain in urban planning, particularly in creating more transparent, accountable, and data-driven decision-making processes. The implications of these findings extend beyond theoretical frameworks, offering practical tools for urban planners and decision-makers who seek to integrate new technologies into their governance models. The proposed adaptable consensus equation can serve as a standard tool for enhancing decision-making in urban planning, improving the quality of decisions, and ensuring that urban interventions are both sustainable and effective in addressing the complexities of modern cities.
Conclusion
This research contributes significantly to the field by bridging the gap between blockchain technology and urban planning decision-making. It offers a novel perspective on how decentralized systems can enhance consensus-building and provides a comprehensive methodology for integrating these systems into urban governance. The proposed model has the potential to reshape how cities approach planning, making the process more inclusive, transparent, and adaptable to the ever-changing urban landscape.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Consensus Models

Consensus Process

Data-Driven Methods

Distributed Decision-Making

Elite Participation

Abdelghaffar, A. (2024, October 10). Public Choice Theory in City Planning. Retrieved from URBAN DESIGN ‎LAB: https://urbandesignlab.in/public-choice-theory-in-city-planning
Afzali, M., Modiri, M., & Farhudi, R. (2019). Prioritizing Indicators in the make Smart Process (Case Study: Kerman City). Journal of Urban Research and Planning, 9(35), 21-30. doi:20.1001.1.22285229.1397.9.35.2.5 [In Persian]
Agbodzakey , J. (2024). Consensus in Collaborative Governance. In Collaborative Governance Primer (pp. 91–‎‎101). Gewerbestrasse , Switzerland: Springer Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57373-6‎
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly ‎Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500. doi:10.2307/1879431‎
Alqahtany, A. M., Rezgui, Y., & Li, H. (2014). A Consensus-Based Framework for the Sustainable Urban Planning ‎Development: “As an Approach for Saudi Arabian Cities”. International Journal of Environmental ‎Science and Development, 5(2), 124-131. doi:10.7763/IJESD.2014.V5.463‎
Antal, C., & et al. (2021). Distributed Ledger Technology Review and Decentralized Applications Development ‎Guidelines. Future Internet, 13(3), 62. doi:10.3390/fi13030062‎
Arafat, S. M. (2025). A Study of Blockchain Consensus Protocols. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Preprint. Retrieved ‎from https://ia.cr/2025/637‎
Arakawa, N., & Bader, L. R. (2022). Consensus development methods: Considerations for national and global ‎frameworks and policy development. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 18(1), 2222-2229. ‎doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.06.024‎
Arrow, K. J., & Debreu, G. (1954). Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy. Econometrica, 22(3), ‎‎265-290. doi:10.2307/1907353‎
Bandura, A., Dorothea, R., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. ‎The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575–582. doi:10.1037/h0045925‎
Bao , H. X., & Robinson, G. M. (2022). Behavioural land use policy studies: Past, present, and future. Land Use ‎Policy, 115, 106013. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106013‎
Baradaran Khanian, Z., Panahi, H., & Asgharpur, H. (2023). Identification and Prioritizing of Key Factors Affecting Smart City based on Futures Studies Approach (The Case Study of Tabriz Metropolis). Quarterly Journal of Applied Theories of Economics, 10(1), 89-128. doi:10.22034/ecoj.2023.53876.3123 [In Persian]
Bashir, I. (2023). Mastering Blockchain (4th ed.). Birmingham, England: Packt Publishing.‎
Becker, G. S. (2013). The Economic Approach to Human Behavior (Kindle ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago ‎Press.‎
Benet, J. (2014, Jul 14). IPFS - Content Addressed, Versioned, P2P File System. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1407.3561‎
Bentov, I., Lee, C., Mizrahi, A., & Rosenfeld, M. (2014). Proof of Activity: Extending Bitcoin’s Proof of Work via ‎Proof of Stake. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 42(3), 34 - 37. ‎doi:10.1145/2695533.2695545‎
Bhushan, B., Khamparia, A., Sagayam, K. M., Sharma, S. K., Abdul Ahad, M., & Debnath, N. C. (2020). Blockchain ‎for smart cities: A review of architectures, integration trends and future research directions. Sustainable ‎Cities and Society, 61, 102360. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102360‎
Bibri , S. E. (2021). Data-driven smart sustainable cities of the future: An evidence synthesis approach to a ‎comprehensive state-of-the-art literature review. Sustainable Futures, 3, 100047. ‎doi:10.1016/j.sftr.2021.100047‎
Bijker, W. E. (1997). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge: ‎The MIT Press.‎
Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1999). The Calculus of Consent (Vol. 3). Carmel, Indiana: Liberty Fund.‎
Büyüközkan, G., & Tüfekçi, G. (2021). A decision-making framework for evaluating appropriate business ‎blockchain platforms using multiple preference formats and VIKOR. Information Sciences, 571, 337-357. ‎doi:10.1016/j.ins.2021.04.044‎
Castells, M. (2015). Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age (2nd ed.). Cambridge ‎and Oxford, UK: Polity.‎
Cerf, M., Matz, S., & Berg, A. (2020). Using Blockchain to Improve Decision Making That Benefits the Public ‎Good. Frontiers in Blockchain, 3. doi:10.3389/fbloc.2020.00013‎
Cernansky, R. (2024, March 7). ‎Fashion’s cotton supply chain is broken. Will brands agree to fix it?‎. Retrieved ‎from VOGUE BUSINESS: https://www.voguebusiness.com/story/sustainability/cotton-supply-chain-is-‎broken-will-brands-agree-to-fix-it-sourcery-fashion
Charitonidou, M. (2022). Urban scale digital twins in data-driven society: Challenging digital universalism in ‎urban planning decision-making. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 20(2), 238-253. ‎doi:10.1177/14780771211070005‎
Chinnasamy, P., Vinothini, C., Arun Kumar, S., Sundarraj, A. A., Annlin Jeba, S. V., & Praveena, V. (2021). ‎Blockchain Technology in Smart-Cities. In Blockchain Technology: Applications and Challenges (pp. ‎‎179–200). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-69395-4_11‎
Coinbase. (2025, 3 11). What is Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS)? Retrieved from Coinbase: ‎https://www.coinbase.com/en-nl/learn/crypto-glossary/what-is-delegated-proof-of-stake-dpos
da Cruz , N. F. (2022). Networked Urban Governance: A Socio-Structural Analysis of Transport Strategies in London ‎and New York. Urban Affairs Review, 59(6), 1908-1949. doi:10.1177/10780874221117463‎
Dahl, R. A. (2020). On Democracy. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.‎
Dhir, R. (2023, February 28). James M. Buchanan: Early Life, Education, Works. Retrieved from Investopedia: ‎https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/james-m-buchanan-jr.asp
Din, J., & Su, H. (2024). Blockchain-Enabled Smart Grids for Optimized Electrical Billing and Peer-to-Peer Energy ‎Trading. Energies, 17(22), 5744. doi:10.3390/en17225744‎
Dyer, G. M., & et al. (2024). Commentary: A road map for future data-driven urban planning and environmental ‎health research. Cities, 155, 105340. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2024.105340‎
Elragal, A., & Elgendy, N. (2024). A Data-Driven Decision-Making Readiness Assessment Model: The Case of a ‎Swedish Food Manufacturer. Decision Analytics Journal, 10, 100405. doi:10.1016/j.dajour.2024.100405‎
Entezarian, N., & mehraeen, M. (2024). Application of Artificial Intelligence in Smart Cities: A Systematic Review using the Methodi Ordinatio. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 40(1), 5-35. doi:10.22034/jipm.2024.715630 [In Persian]
Epstein, J. M. (2008). Why Model? Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(4), 12.‎
Esmaeilpour Zanjani, N., Pietra, C., & De Lotto, R. (2024). Machine Learning in Urban Decision-Making: Potential, ‎Challenges, and Experiences. In Networks, Markets & People (pp. 334–343). Springer Cham. ‎doi:10.1007/978-3-031-74679-6_33‎
Eyal, I., Gencer, A. E., Sirer, E. G., & Renesse, R. v. (2016). Bitcoin-NG: A Scalable Blockchain Protocol. 13th ‎USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation. SANTA CLARA, CA.‎
Fadayi, A., Gorji, M., & Samiee, R. (2021). Identifying the components of smart sustainable development in the field of urban management. Journal of Studies in Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Agricultural Development, 8(3), 19-34. doi:10.22069/jead.2021.19229.1498 [In Persian]
Fasth, T., Bohman, S., Larsson, A., Ekenberg, L., & Danielson , M. (2020). Portfolio Decision Analysis for ‎Evaluating Stakeholder Conflicts in Land Use Planning. Group Decision and Negotiation, 29, 321–343. ‎doi:10.1007/s10726-020-09656-4‎
Fefer, J. P., De-Urioste Stone, S., Daigle, J., & Silka, L. (2016). Using the Delphi Technique to Identify Key Elements ‎for Effective and Sustainable Visitor Use Planning Frameworks. SAGE Open, 6(2). ‎doi:10.1177/2158244016643141‎
Foroughi, M., Andrade, B. d., Roders, A. P., & Wang, T. (2023). Public participation and consensus-building in ‎urban planning from the lens of heritage planning: A systematic literature review. Cities, 135, 104235. ‎doi:10.1016/j.cities.2023.104235‎
Fukuyama, F. (2018). Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment. New York: Farrar, Straus and ‎Giroux.‎
Fung, A., Graham, M., & Weil, D. (2008). Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency (Reprint ed.). ‎Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.‎
Gadekallu, T. R., & et al. (2021). Blockchain for Edge of Things: Applications, Opportunities, and Challenges. ‎arXiv, 2110.05022. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2110.05022‎
Gheisari, N., Zaker Esfahani, A., & Jalalzadeh , V. (2022). Developmental Instability in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Elite Consensus, Participatory Processes, Decentralization. Iranian Pattern of Progress, 10(1), 7-27. DOR:20.1001.1.23295599.1401.10.1.7.1 [In Persian]
Gilad, Y., Hemo, R., Micali, S., Vlachos, G., & Zeldovich, N. (2017). Algorand: Scaling Byzantine Agreements for ‎Cryptocurrencies. SOSP ‘17: Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (pp. 51 ‎‎- 68). Shanghai China: Association for Computing Machinery, New York. doi:10.1145/3132747.3132757‎
Haber, S., & Stornetta, W. S. (1991). How to time-stamp a digital document. Journal of Cryptology, 3(2), 99–111. ‎doi:10.1007/BF00196791‎
Head, B. W. (2022). Political Governance of Wicked Problems. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-‎‎030-94580-0_3‎
Herzog, R. H., Degkwitz, T., & Verma, T. (2025). The Urban Model Platform: A Public Backbone for Modeling and ‎Simulation in Urban Digital Twins. arXiv, 2506.10964. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.10964‎
Higgins, S. (2022, Dec 10). Intel Unveils ‘Sawtooth Lake’ Proposal at Hyperledger Meeting. Retrieved from ‎CoinDesk: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2016/04/07/intel-unveils-sawtooth-lake-proposal-at-hyperledger-meeting
Hollands, R. G. (2015). Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Cambridge Journal of Regions, ‎Economy and Society, 8(1), 61–77. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsu011‎
Hosseini, S., Laali Niyat, I., & Heidarinia, S. (2020). Analysis of the Pattern of Urban Smart Management, a New Way to Improve Urban Governance. Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR), 7(4), 743-762. doi:10.22059/jurbangeo.2019.276474.1064 [In Persian]
Hosseinpour, F. (2025, 05 18). What is a consensus algorithm? — What role does it play in blockchain technology? Retrieved from Programstore Magazine: https://blog.programstore.ir/الگوریتم-اجماع-چیست [In Persian]
Hua, W., & et al. (2022). Blockchain technologies empowering peer-to-peer trading in multi-energy systems: From ‎advanced technologies towards applications. IET Smart Grid, 5(4), 219-222. doi:10.1049/stg2.12081‎
Hussein, Z., Salama, M. A., & El-Rahman , S. A. (2023). Evolution of blockchain consensus algorithms: a review on ‎the latest milestones of blockchain consensus algorithmsZiad Hussein. Cybersecurity, 6, 30. ‎doi:10.1186/s42400-023-00163-y
Iberdrola. (2025, 2). Blockchain technology at the service of urban management. Retrieved 2 2025, from ‎Blockchain and urban management: https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/our-innovation-model/blockchain-for-smart-cities-urban-management
IMNA News Agency. (2024, 10 20). Artificial Intelligence Governance: The Key to Changes in Urban Management. Retrieved from IMNA News Agency: https://imna.ir/x8QbB [In Persian]
Investopedia Team. (2023, Aug 18). Proof of Elapsed Time (PoET) Definition, Purposes, Vs. PoW. Retrieved from ‎Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/proof-elapsed-time-cryptocurrency.asp
Jiang , H., Geertman, S., & Witte, P. (2021). Smartening urban governance: An evidence-based. Reg Sci Policy ‎Pract, 13, 744–758. doi:10.1111/rsp3.12304‎
Jones. (2025, April 17). Leveraging Blockchain for Supply Chain Transparency: Case Studies and Insights. ‎Retrieved from BLOCKCHAIN APP FACTORY: https://www.blockchainappfactory.com/blog/leveraging-‎blockchain-supply-chain-transparency-case-studies
Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.‎
Kapucu, N., & Hu, Q. (2020). Network Governance: Concepts, Theories, and Applications. Oxfordshire, England: ‎Routledge.‎
Karantias, K., Kiayias, A., & Zindros, D. (2019). Proof-of-Burn. Retrieved from Cryptology ePrint Archive: ‎https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1096.pdf
King, S., & Nadal, S. (2012). Ppcoin: Peer-to-peer crypto-currency with proof-of-stake. White Paper, 1-6. Retrieved ‎from https://procon.bg/article/ppcoin-peer-peer-crypto-currency-proof-stake
Kolb, J., Abdelbaky, M., Katz, R. H., & Culler, D. E. (2020). Core Concepts, Challenges, and Future Directions in ‎Blockchain: A Centralized Tutorial. ACM Comput. Surv, 53(1), 39. doi:10.1145/3366370‎
Korherr, P., Kanbach, D. K., Kraus, S., & Mikalef, P. (2022). From intuitive to data-driven decision-making in digital ‎transformation: A framework of prevalent managerial archetypes. Digital Business, 2, 100045. ‎doi:10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100045‎
Koutsikouri, D., Hylving, L., Bornemark, J., & Lindberg, S. (2024). Human judgment in the age of automated ‎decision-making systems. In Research Handbook on Artificial Intelligence and Decision Making in ‎Organizations (pp. 392 (144–159)). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar. ‎doi:10.4337/9781803926216.00017‎
Krawitz, A. (2019, September 4). Tracr Aiming to Be More Than a Blockchain. Retrieved from RAPAPORT: ‎https://rapaport.com/news/tracr-aiming-to-be-more-than-a-blockchain/‎
Kurz, S., Maaser, N., & Mayer, A. (2023). Advances in Collective Decision Making. Cham: Springer. ‎doi:10.1007/978-3-031-21696-1‎
Lamport, L. (1982). The Byzantine Generals Problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems ‎‎(TOPLAS), 4(3), 382 - 401. doi:10.1145/357172.357176‎
Larimer, D. (2022, Oct 02). Delegated Proof Of Stake (DPoS). Retrieved from GeeksforGeeks: ‎https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/delegated-proof-of-stake/‎
Lartey, D., & Law, K. M. (2025). Artificial intelligence adoption in urban planning governance: A systematic ‎review of advancements in decision-making, and policy making. Landscape and Urban Planning, 258, ‎‎105337. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105337‎
Li, Y., Li, G., & Kou, G. (2022). Consensus reaching process in large-scale group decision making based on opinion ‎leaders. Procedia Computer Science, 199, 509-516. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.062‎
Liu, Y., Lu, Q., Zhu, L., Paik, H.-Y., & Staples, M. (2023). A systematic literature review on blockchain governance. ‎Journal of Systems and Software, 197, 111576. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.111576‎
Lotfi, S., & Mohammedi Kazem Abadi, L. (2021). Identification and analysis of drivers affecting the development of urban management with a Scenario-based Approach (Case study: Arak city). Sustainable Development of Geographical Environment, 3(5), 87-105. doi:10.52547/sdge.3.5.87 [In Persian]
McFarlane, G. (2024, Apr 14). Inside Intel: A Look at the Mega Chipmaker. Retrieved from Investopedia: ‎https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/100214/inside-intel-look-mega-chipmaker.asp
Mello, P. A. (2021). Research Design. In P. A. Mello, Qualitative Comparative Analysis: An Introduction to ‎Research Design and Application. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.‎
Mirmohammadi, F., & jelokhni-niaraki, m. (2018). Applying fuzzy majority C approach for determining optimal sites for urban footbridge (A case Study in district #1 of Mashhad). Journal of Research and Urban Planning, 9(33), 137-148. [In Persian]
Moore, A. A. (2016). Decentralized decision-making and urban planning: A case study of density for benefit ‎agreements in Toronto and Vancouver. Canadian Public Administration, 59(3), 425-447. ‎doi:10.1111/capa.12179‎
Moroni, S., & Chiffi, D. (2022). Uncertainty and Planning: Cities, Technologies and Public Decision-Making. ‎Perspectives on Science, 30(2), 237–259. doi:10.1162/posc_a_00413‎
Mosaddegh, N., Nazmfar, H., & Norouzi Sani, P. (2021). Feasibility study of smart city realization in Ardabil city based on smart growth indicators. Geography (Regional Planning), 10(40), 778-794. DOR:20.1001.1.22286462.1399.10.40.2.1 [In Persian]
Motepalli, S., & Jacobsen, H.-A. (2021). Reward Mechanism for Blockchains Using Evolutionary Game Theory. ‎arXiv, 2104.05849. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2104.05849‎
Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Retrieved from bitcoin.org: ‎https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 36(1), 48-49. ‎doi:10.1073/pnas.36.1.48‎
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (2nd ed.). Cambridge: ‎Cambridge University Press.‎
Pacchi, C. (2018). Epistemological critiques to the technocratic planning model: the role of Jane Jacobs, Paul ‎Davidoff, Reyner Banham and Giancarlo De Carlo in the 1960s. City, Territory and Architecture, 5, 17. ‎doi:10.1186/s40410-018-0095-3‎
Pandey, E. (2018, Sep 26). Blockchain in the supply chain. Retrieved from axios: ‎https://www.axios.com/2018/09/26/blockchain-ibm-walmart-food-trust-supply-chain
Pigou, A. C. (2013). The Economics of Welfare: Volume I. New York : Cosimo Classics.‎
Pourahmad, A., Ziari, K., Hataminejad, H., & Parsa, S. (2018). Explanation of Concept and Features of a Smart City. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar, 15(58), 5-26. [In Persian]
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1985). Order Out of Chaos (New Ed ed.). Waukegan, IL, US: FONTANA PRESS.‎
Proof of burn. (2018, Jan 15). Retrieved from bitcoin.it: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn‎
Protocol Labs. (2017, July 19). Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network. Retrieved from filecoin: ‎https://filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf
Pueyo, J. M. (2025, January 1). Smart contracts for participatory budgeting. Retrieved from CRYPTO BOOST ‎NEWS: https://www.cryptoboostnews.com/posts/smart-contracts-for-participatory-budgeting
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78. ‎doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0002‎
Ragin, C. C. (1998). The Logic of Qualitative Comparative Analysis. International Review of Social History, ‎‎43(SUPPLEMENT 6: new methods for social history), 105-124.‎
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond (Illustrated ed.). Chicago, Illinois: ‎University of Chicago Press.‎
Rajabi Jurshari, M., Amir Azodi, T., Sarvar, R., & Tavakoli Nia, J. (2023). Evaluation of the realization of the smart city with the emphasis on the quality of urban life. Case Study: District 2 of Tehran. Journal of Applied Researches in Geographical Sciences, 23(70), 487-504. doi:10.61186/jgs.23.70.487 [In Persian]
Rawls, J. (2020). A Theory of Justice (2nd-Kindle ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts : Belknap Press: An Imprint of ‎Harvard University Press.‎
Rehmani, M. H. (2021). Blockchain Consensus Algorithms. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71788-9_4‎
Rhodes, R. A. (2007). Understanding Governance: Ten Years On. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243-1264. ‎doi:10.1177/0170840607076586‎
Rida, A. (2024, OCT 28). Blockchain in Smart Cities: A Path to Environmental Sustainability? Retrieved from ‎EARTH.ORG: https://earth.org/blockchain-in-smart-cities-a-path-to-environmental-sustainability/‎
Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (Eds.). (2009). Configurational Comparative Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: ‎SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781452226569‎
Roig Tierno, N., Gonzalez Cruz, T. F., & Llopis Martinez, J. (2017). An overview of qualitative comparative ‎analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2(1), 15-23. doi:10.1016/j.jik.2016.12.002‎
Russell, S. (2019). Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. New York: Viking.‎
Rutten, R. (2024). The Ragin revolution. In R. Rutten, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (pp. 22–33). Cheltenham, ‎United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781839104527.00007‎
Saeed, N., Wen, F., & Afzal, M. Z. (2024). Decentralized peer-to-peer energy trading in microgrids: Leveraging ‎blockchain technology and smart contracts. Energy Reports, 12, 1753-1764. ‎doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2024.07.053‎
Sajadian, M., Firoozi, M., & PourAhmad, A. (2022). Systematic review of the process of smart city studies in scientific societies in Iran. Journal of Future Cities Vision, 3(1), 19-41. [In Persian]
Salimitari, M., Chatterjee, M., & Fallah, Y. P. (2020). A survey on consensus methods in blockchain for resource-‎constrained IoT networks. Internet of Things, 11, 100212. doi:10.1016/j.iot.2020.100212‎
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. C. Wright, & M. Johnston, ‎Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER - Nelson.‎
Shahat Osman , A. M., & Elragal, A. (2021). Smart Cities and Big Data Analytics: A Data-Driven Decision-Making ‎Use Case. Smart Cities, 4(1), 286-313. doi:10.3390/smartcities4010018‎
Sharma, P. (2020). Opportunities and struggles of decentralized governance reform for urban municipalities in ‎India. World Development Perspectives, 17, 100174. doi:10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100174‎
Shen, C., & Pena-Mora, F. (2018). Blockchain for Cities—A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access, 6, 76787-‎‎76819. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2880744‎
Shmelev, S. E. (Ed.). (2020). Sustainable Cities Reimagined. NewYork: Routledge.‎
Singh, J., Sajid, M., Gupta, S. K., & Haidri, R. A. (2022). Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies for ‎Smart City. In Intelligent Green Technologies for Sustainable Smart Cities (pp. 317-330). Hoboken, New ‎Jersey: WILEY. doi:10.1002/9781119816096.ch15‎
Slomp, A. (2024). Overcoming Challenges in Municipal Decision-Making for Urban Greenery Implementation. ‎Master thesis, D.A. Teigiserová (mentor), D.F.J. Schraven, Faculty: Civil Engineering & Geosciences. ‎Retrieved from https://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:4f150dca-1f91-456a-bddb-bd6fd2a5b0ae
Sniderman, E., & et. al. (2024). A Multidisciplinary Consensus‐Building Exercise to Define and Prioritize Topics in ‎Supportive Care of Children With Cancer at a Global Level. Cancer Medicine, 13(21), e70377. ‎doi:10.1002/cam4.70377‎
Sprenger, J., & Hartmann, S. (2019). Bayesian Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.‎
Stapper, E. W., Van der Veen, M., & Janssen-Jansen, L. B. (2019). Consultants as intermediaries: Their perceptions ‎on citizen involvement in urban development. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 38(1), ‎‎60-78. doi:10.1177/2399654419853583‎
Stone, D. (2024). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Third- kindle ed.). NewYork: W. W. Norton ‎& Company.‎
Stufano Melone, M. R., Borgo, S., & Camarda, D. (2025). Digital Twins Facing the Complexity of the City: Some ‎Critical Remarks. Sustainability, 17(7), 3189. doi:10.3390/su17073189‎
Sunny, F. A., & et al. (2022). A Systematic Review of Blockchain Applications. IEEE Access, 10(6). ‎doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3179690‎
Surowiecki, J. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. NewYork: Vintage.‎
Susskind, L. E. (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement. Sage, ‎Los Angeles, Washington DC: Sage.‎
Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain. Sebastopol, California: O’Reilly Media, Inc.‎
Taghvaei, M., & Shafiei, M. (2022). Analysis of Indicators and Explanation of Strategies for Achieving Urban Intelligence: A Case Study of Isfahan. Spatial Planning, 12(1), 51-80. doi:10.22108/sppl.2022.131222.1621 [In Persian]
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. ‎London: Penguin Books.‎
Vasin, P. (2023, Oct 23). Blackcoin’s Proof-of-Stake Protocol v3.1. Retrieved from blackcoin.org: ‎https://blackcoin.org/blackcoin-pos-protocol-v3.1-whitepaper.pdf
Viale, R. (2025). Behavioral city. Frontiers in Built Environment, 10, 1501853. doi:10.3389/fbuil.2024.1501853‎
Wang, J., Sikdar, S., Shepherd, T., Zhao, Z., Jiang, C., & Xia, L. (2019). Practical algorithms for multi-stage voting ‎rules with parallel universes tiebreaking. Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial ‎Intelligence and Thirty-First Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference and Ninth ‎AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 2189 - 2196). Honolulu, Hawaii, ‎USA: AAAI Press. doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33012189‎
Whig, P. (2023). Blockchain Revolution: Innovations, Challenges, and Future Directions. International Journal of ‎Machine Learning for Sustainable Development, 5(3), 16-25.‎
White, R., Engelen, G., & Uljee, I. (2015). Modeling Cities and Regions as Complex Systems: From Theory to ‎Planning Applications. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. ‎doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262029568.001.0001‎
Wilkinson, N. (2012). An Introduction to Behavioral Economics (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.‎
WNCT. (2025, Jun 17). ORIGYN Launches Certification Cost Calculator and Certificate Viewer to Simplify Real-‎World Asset Tokenization. Retrieved from EIN Presswire: https://europeanbusinessmagazine.com/accessnewswire/origyn-launches-certification-cost-calculator-and-certificate-viewer-to-simplify-real-world-asset-tokenization/
Wood, G. (2014). Ethereum: A Secure Decentralized Generalised Transaction Ledger. Ethereum Project Yellow ‎Paper, 151, 1-32. https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf‎
Yang, L., Yang, H., Zhao, X., & Yang, Y. (2022). Study on Urban Resilience from the Perspective of the Complex ‎Adaptive System Theory: A Case Study of the Lanzhou-Xining Urban Agglomeration. International ‎Journal Of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(20), 13667. doi:10.3390/ijerph192013667‎
Yu, R., Chen, Y., Jin, Y., & Zhang, S. (2025). Evaluating the Impact of Digital Transformation on Urban Innovation ‎Resilience. Systems, 13(1). doi:10.3390/systems13010008‎
Zabidian Torghi, E. (1403). Urban planning process for making cities smart in Iran. Infrastructure studies. Tehran: Islamic Parliament Research Center (IPRC). Retrieved from https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/report/show/1824997 [In Persian]
Zabidian Torghi, E. (1403). Urban planning process for making cities smart in Iran. Civil and Urban Development Department, Infrastructure Studies Office. Tehran: Monthly magazine of expert reports of Islamic Parliament Research Center (IPRC). doi:10.22034/report.mrc.2025.1403.32.10.20326 [In Persian]
Zarandi, S. (2024). An Overview of Comparative Research Methods: Theories, Approaches and Perspectives. Comparative Studies in Public Administration, 1(4), 1-21. doi:10.22098/cpa.2024.14476.1029 [In Persian]
Zheng, Y., Hao, Q., Wang, J., Gao, C., Chen, J., Jin, D., & Li, Y. (2024). A Survey of Machine Learning for Urban ‎Decision Making: Applications in Planning, Transportation, and Healthcare. ACM Computing Surveys, ‎‎57(4), 1 - 41. doi:10.1145/3695986‎