Analysis of good urban governance indicators (Case study: Kahnuj city)

Document Type : Research Article (Applied - Development)

Authors

1 Ph.D student, Geography Department, Najaf Abad Unit, Islamic Azad University, Najaf Abad, Iran

2 bAssistant Professor, Tourism Research Center, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

3 Assistant professor, Department of Geography, Najaf Abad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najaf Abad, Iran

4 Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

10.22103/JUSG.2020.2015

Abstract

Objective: The theory of good urban governance is a new theory that makes it possible to implement sustainable development in society. The purpose of this study is to investigate the indicators of good governance in Kahnuj city and to try to identify the differences and similarities in the type of view and perception of key stakeholders in the subject of good governance (ie citizens, managers and experts) of governance indicators in Kahnuj.                                                           
Methods: The research method is quantitative in nature and in terms of descriptive-analytic purpose. The data gathering tool is a researcher-made questionnaire based on Kahnuj city governance indices. Kahnuj is the year that 380 members of the statistical population and 30 managers and experts of Kahnuj city were randomly sampled.
Results: The findings of the study indicate that the overall score of the governance index is lower than the average for citizens (2.73) and for experts it is below average (2.86), indicating a low status of urban governance in both groups. Also, surveys showed that out of the seven main indicators of urban governance examined in this study, 70% of them had lower average citizen ratings than experts, and the only two indicators of participation and performance status were the opposite. Findings show that the most disagreement among citizens with managers and experts is in the indicators of transparency, consensus and accountability and the most common among them in the indicators of effectiveness and efficiency.                      
Conclusion: Therefore, reforms in the administrative, administrative and political structures, efficient and up-to-date laws, and in particular increased awareness of citizens about the laws, should include the end result of these proposals that can increase public confidence in the law and the Because its implementation will result in institutions and organizations of urban management.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Amis, P., Kumar, S (2000). The global campaign for good urban governance. Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 12. No. 1, pp. 197-202.
Andrews, M. (2010). Good government means different things in different countries. Governance. Nol.23, No. 1, pp. 7-35.
Certomà, C., Notteboom, B. (2017). Informal planning in a transactive governmentality. Re-reading planning practices through Ghent’s community gardens. Planning Theory, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 51-73.
Damian Ilodigwe1 (2017). Communication and Diplomacy as an Instrument of Good Governance and Sustainable Economic Development, Journal of Power, Politics & Governance, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Golusin (2011). The Review of The Achieved Degree of Sustainable Development in South EastreanEroup-The use of Linear Regression Method Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review15 ,pp.766-772.
Habitat, U. N. (2002). The Global Campaign on Urban Governance–Concept Paper. UN HABITAT, Nairobi.
Habitat, U. N. (2006). State of the World’s Cities 2006/7. New York: United Nations.
Hall, p. (2001). Global City- Regions in the Twenty- First Century, in Scott, A. (ed),Global City- Regions: Trends, Theory, Policy, Oxford university press.
Joel Bothello, Afshin Mehrpouya (2018). Between regulatory field structuring and organizational roles: Intermediation in the field of sustainable urban
development, Regulation & Governance.
Jürgen Wiemann, The New Middle Classes: Advocates for Good Governance, Inclusive
Growth and Sustainable Development?, World Economy and Development Financing Department, German Development Institute, Bonn, Germany.
Kadago, Joseph, Sandholz Simone, Hamhaber Johannes (2010). Good urban governance, actors relations and paradigms: Lessons from Nairobi, Kenya, and Recife, Brazil, 46th ISOCARP Congress.
Kozová, M., Dobšinská, Z., Pauditšová, E., Tomčíková, I., &Rakytová, I. (2016). Network and participatory governance in urban forestry: An assessment of examples from selected Slovakian cities. Forest Policy and Economics.
Mahlkow, N., Lakes, T., Donner, J., Köppel, J., &Schreurs, M. (2016). Developing storylines for urban climate governance by using Constellation Analysis—insights from a case study in Berlin, Germany. Urban Climate, No.17, pp. 266-283.
Marc, Wolfram (2017). Grassroots niches in urban contexts: exploring governance
innovations for sustainable development in Seoul, Procedia Engineering. No. 198, pp. 622 – 641.
Mukomo, S. (1996). On sustainable urban development in sub-Sahran Africa.Cities ,Vol.13, No.40, pp.265-271.
Neto, S. (2016). Water governance in an urban age. Utilities Policy, No.43, pp.32-41.
RathinBiswasa, Arnab Janaa, Kavi Aryab, KrithiRamamrithamb, A good-governance framework for urban management. a Centre for Urban Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India
b Department of Computer Science Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai 400076, India.
Sheng, Y. K. (2010). Good urban governance in Southeast Asia. Environment and Urbanization Asia, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.131-147.
Shohelrezaamina, umma tamimab (2016). patial pattern of SuStainable urban Development indicator for the montreal urban community,Urban Transitions Conference, Shanghai, September 2016.
Willis,M.(2006). Sustainability: The I Ssue of our Age, And a Concern for Local Goverenment, Poblic Management, No88, pp. 8-12.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 15 October 2019
  • Revise Date: 26 November 2020
  • Accept Date: 18 March 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics