A Qualitative Study of effective Agents on the destruction of Gardens in Tehran Metropolis based on Grounded Theory approach

According to Tehran environmental prospect document, Tehran 1404, by 1404 Tehran will be a clean, green city in compliance with latest standards of global cities. Based on this document, in the light of divine elevated instructions, by then, citizens of Tehran will have institutionalized environmental ethics and demand for preservation of unique natural resources. But, in the literature of sustainable cities, to have a green city as desirable as future Tehran necessitates that urban management organize responsible treatment of nature by providing physical, technological, institutional and legal infrastructure and, accordingly, lead individuals to treat nature ethically based on policies of sustainable urban development. Therefore, ethical treatment of nature is defined as obeying rules and norms that control methods of distributing and possessing natural resources. In such a case, people are regarded as law-abiding and hence respectful of ethics. Although there is a law for protecting and expanding green space in cities which is guaranteed by all powers (judiciary, executive and legislative) as well as urban management, as the administrator within their duties and authorities, gardens are still being damaged in Tehran. It is theoretically assumed that friendly behavior of citizens with nature can be guaranteed by changing environmental governance through institutional, policy and lawful mechanisms. This study, which is ontologically based on the interpretivist paradigm, conducts deep interviews with key informants using theoretical sampling method to define the process and elements that damage gardens in Tehran within the framework of grounded theory. The results indicate that ignoring the role of environmental laws in society and lack of credit for the law of preservation and expansion of urban green space as social norms convince individuals that the society recognizes breach of environmental laws and destruction of environment to obtain profit. The crisis of environmental ethics as an internal agent also facilitates destruction of gardens. In other words, it makes people ignore their conscience while destroying gardens and avoid feeling ethical commitment to preserve gardens. But individuals’ strength of will to destroy gardens in order to gain profit, in spite of the law of preserving and expanding urban green space, is affected by consequences, costs and benefits they expect from destroying gardens. Regarding the lack of decisive judiciary and disciplinary institutions to stop destruction of gardens, individuals dare to destroy gardens by exerting deception, force and influence and disobeying the law of preserving and expanding green space. They expect to gain profit because urban management lacks sufficient competence and prefers urban management over the law of green space. Absence of supervision and sensitivity for executing the law of green space as well as the dependence of urban economy on profit aggravate this issue. Even if judiciary and disciplinary institutions are decisive in punishing disobedience to the law of green space and prohibition of destruction of gardens, the profit gained from destroying gardens will exceed the costs for preserving them; this is because of the confusion in related laws. Therefore, one would have a positive attitude towards profit gain as the main reason for destroying gardens. In view of the above, it seems that treatment of environment is affected by internal and external factors. Ethical treatment of environment cannot be defined as obeying rules and norms that control methods of distributing and possessing natural resources in society. Ethical treatment of environment is rather a persuasive issue that is not confined to any place and time and is achieved by dignity of ego, but accomplishing it through legal principles and rules will not be feasible and desirable due to its restrictions in comparison with ethics.