Evaluation and Analysis of Urban Management with Emphasis on Desirable Urban Governance Indices (Case Study: Khorramabad)

Document Type : Research Article (Applied - Development)

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Yazd University

2 MSc Student of Geography and Urban Planning

3 PhD Student of Geography and Urban Planning

Abstract

Available challenges in today’s strongly civic world has impelled the necessity of revising civic management and modern civic management is following plans conforming native and local characteristics. The important thing under these conditions is to have suitable methods for managing these developments and their effects. Institutional capacity building, more efficient management, and selection of the optimum management model are among the most effective ways of dealing with these urban problems. One of the propounded models in urban management is desirable urban governance that has been defined as transparent and accountable management with the goal of achieving equitable and sustainable economic and social development. The purpose of this research was to study and evaluate the management structure of Khorramabad as compared with desirable urban governance. The descriptive-analytic research method was used, data was collected using questionnaires, SPSS and the SWOT model were employed to analyze the data. And sample size was determined using Cochran’s formula. Results showed that among the four possible aggressive, conservative, defensive, and competitive positions, Khorramabad had the worst one (the defensive position). Results of the T-test showed that citizens did not have a positive view concerning the governance indices, and that the confidence interval for the difference between the means was negative too. This shows that measured indices had means lower than that of the test (which was three in this research). Moreover, the experts believed the two indices of accountability and law abidance were desirable but the others were not.

Keywords


  1. آخوندی، عباس. برک پور، ناصر. اسدی، ایرج. (1387).  آسیب شناسی مدل ادارۀ امور شهر در ایران. فصلنامه پژوهش های جغرافیایی، شماره 63، صفحات 156-135.
  2. اسدی، روح الله. (1388). تحلیل جایگاه حکمروایی خوب شهری در شهر مشهد با مدل SWOT . پایان­نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه فردوسی، مشهد.
  3. اطهاری، کمال. (1386). حکمروایی شهری و مبانی نظری و ضرورت شکل گیری آن در ایران. جستارهای شهرسازی، شمارۀ 19و20.
  4. اسماعیل­زاده، حسن. صرافی، مظفر. (1385). جایگاه حکمروایی خوب برنامه­ریزی شهری طرح متروی تهران. فصلنامۀ مدرس علوم انسانی.
  5. برک­پور، ناصر. (1386). حکمروایی خوب شهری و نظام ادارۀ شهرها در ایران. مجموعه مقالات کنفرانس برنامه ریزی و مدیریت شهری. صفحات 517-491.
  6. پاپلی یزدی، محمدحسین. رجبی­سناجردی، حسین. (1382). نظریه­های شهرسازی و پیرامون شهر. انتشارات سمت، تهران.
  7. میدری، احمد. خیرخواهان، جعفر. (1383). حکمروایی خوب بنیاد توسعه. چاپ اول، انتشارات دفتر بررسی­های اقتصادی مرکز پژوهش­های مجلس شورای اسلامی، تهران.
  8. غنی­نژاد، موسی. (1387). جامعۀ مدنی، آزادی، اقتصاد، سیاست. چاپ دوم. نشر طرح نو، تهران.
  9. ممتاز، فرهاد. (1382). جامعه شناسی شهری. شرکت انتشار، تهران.
  10. کاظمیان، غلامرضا. (1383). تبیین رابطۀ ساختار حاکمیت و قدرت شهری با سازمان یابی فضایی. پایان نامۀ دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی شهری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

11. Ahmed, I., (1999). Governance and the international development community: making sense of the Bangladesh experience. Contemporary south Asia. Vol.3, No.3, pp: 295-309

12. Batterbury, s.,p.j.and Fernando, j., (2006). Rescaling governance and the impacts of political and environmental decentralization anin  troduction. World Development, vol. 34, No.11, pp:1851-1863

13. Bulkery, H., (2005). Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and networks. Political geography, No.24, pp:875- 902

14. Buizer, M., Herzel, A., (2010). Combining deliberative governance theory and discource analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans. Forest policy and economic,No.xxx,pp: 1-9.

15. -Bhuiyan, S., (2010). A crisis in governance: urban solid waste management in Bangladesh. Habitat international, No.34, pp:125- 133.

16. Hamedinger, A., (2004). The changing organization of spatial planning in Vienna.Vienna University of Technology.

17. Hyden, G., Court, J., and Mease, K., (2004). Making sense of governance: empirical evidence from sixteen developing countries. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

18. Hall, J., (2005). Governance. Published in Encyclopedia of city. Edited by Roger W. Caves, Routledge, London and New York.

19. Johnston,w.,Ronald,minis., (1993). Tward democratic decentralization: Approaches to promoting good governance. Research Triangle Institute.

20. Mercer, C., (2003). Performing partnership: civil society and the illusions of good governance in Tanzania. Political geography, No.22,pp: 741- 763

21. Mercer, M., (2003). Performing partnership:civil socity and the illusions of good governance in tanzani. Political Geography, NO.22, pp:741-763

22. Marrising, E., Bolt, G., Kempen, R., (2006). Urban governance and socialcohesion: effects of urban restructuring policies in two Dutch cities. Cities, Vol.23, No.4, pp: 279-290

23. McCarney, P., (1995). towards and Understanding of Governance. The emergency of idea and its implications for urban research in developing countries. University of Toronto.

24. Putham, R., (1993). Making democracy work. Princeton, Newjersey, Princeton University Press.

25. Perkins, H., (2009). Out from the (green) shadow? Neoliberal hegemony through the market logic of shared urban environmental governance. Political geography, No.28, pp:395- 405.

26.  Putnam, R.,(1993). Making democracy work. Princeton, Newjersey, Princeton University Press.

27.  Pierre, J., (1999). Models of urban governance: the tnetstit- utional Dimennsion of  urban politics. Urban A fairs Reviw, Vo.l4, Issue3.

28.  Roberts, M., Wright, S., O’Neil, PH., (2007). Good governance in the Pacific? Ambivalence and Possibility. Geoforum, No.38, pp: 967- 984.

29.  Rakodi, P., (2003). Politics and performance: the implications of emerging governance arrangements for urban management approaches and information systems. Habitat international, No.27, pp:523-547

30.  Sadashiva, M., (2008). Effects of civil society on urban planning and governance in Meysore, India. Doctoral thesis, Technical University of Dortmund.

31.  UN Habitat., (2009). Urban Governance index (UGI) a tool to measure progress in achieving good urban governance.

32.  www.un.habitat.org