Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 40, Issue 4 (2025)
GeoRes 2025, 40(4): 287-293 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
Research code: ART-1836
History
Received: 2025/09/30 | Accepted: 2025/11/29 | Published: 2025/12/1
Received: 2025/09/30 | Accepted: 2025/11/29 | Published: 2025/12/1
How to cite this article
Kolyaei Y, Malek Hosseini A, Shams M. Structural and Economic Barriers to Bold Urban Management in Kermanshah, Iran. GeoRes 2025; 40 (4) :287-293
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1836-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1836-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Urban Geography and Urban Planning, Malayer Campus (Ma.C.), Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran
Abstract (1112 Views)
Aims: Cities in developing countries have faced complex challenges in urban management over recent decades, including excessive centralization, financial constraints, and weak technological infrastructure. However, the implementation of this approach encounters serious institutional and economic barriers. The concept of “bold urban management” has emerged as an innovative approach to improving quality of life and achieving sustainable development. This study was conducted to identify and analyze the structural and economic barriers to bold urban management in the metropolis of Kermanshah.
Methodology: This qualitative study, carried out in 2025 in Kermanshah employed a qualitative phenomenological approach, using semi-structured interviews with 11 urban managers and experts. Data were analyzed through thematic coding and descriptive statistical features were extracted.
Findings: Excessive centralization in decision-making, lack of effective delegation of authority to local levels, chronic budgetary limitations, heavy reliance on government funding, and outdated technological infrastructure were the main obstacles to bold urban management in Kermanshah. These factors restricted the operational capacity of urban institutions and weaken the autonomy of local managers.
Conclusion: Institutional centralization, weak technological infrastructures, and organizational cultural resistance are among the most significant obstacles to realizing bold urban management in Kermanshah.
Methodology: This qualitative study, carried out in 2025 in Kermanshah employed a qualitative phenomenological approach, using semi-structured interviews with 11 urban managers and experts. Data were analyzed through thematic coding and descriptive statistical features were extracted.
Findings: Excessive centralization in decision-making, lack of effective delegation of authority to local levels, chronic budgetary limitations, heavy reliance on government funding, and outdated technological infrastructure were the main obstacles to bold urban management in Kermanshah. These factors restricted the operational capacity of urban institutions and weaken the autonomy of local managers.
Conclusion: Institutional centralization, weak technological infrastructures, and organizational cultural resistance are among the most significant obstacles to realizing bold urban management in Kermanshah.
References
1. Ahern J (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning. 100(4):341-343. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021]
2. Albino V, Berardi U, Dangelico RM (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production. 102:1-19. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/10630732.2014.942092]
3. Arnstein SR (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35(4):216-224. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/01944366908977225]
4. Baycan-Levent T, Kundak S (2009). Planning for resilient cities: Lessons from Istanbul. Cities. 26(4):185-194. [Link]
5. Devas N, Amis P, Beall J, Grant U, Mitlin D, Rakodi C, et al (2001). Urban governance and poverty: Lessons from a study of ten cities in the global South. International Development Planning Review. 23(4):345-370. [Link]
6. El-Shahat M (2018). Urban governance challenges in Cairo. Middle East Journal of Urban Studies. 12(2):45-63. [Link]
7. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities (2024). Citizen participation and smart urban governance. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities. 6(2):145-160. [Link]
8. Ghasemi A (2024). State decentralization and good urban governance in Iran. State Studies. 10(38):121-162. [Persian] [Link]
9. Grindle MS (1997). Getting good government: Capacity building in the public sectors of developing countries. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. [Link]
10. Hajilou M, Meshkini A, Ghaedrahmati S, Mirehei M (2024). Investigating financial motivators and demotivators of urban sprawl through the lens of municipalities: A case of Qom, Iran. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy. 17:1435-1461. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s12061-024-09591-w]
11. Hosseinpour M, Kalantari M, Jafarpour Ghalehteimouri K (2025). Exploring urban future: Enhancing good urban governance through scenario planning in Urmia city, Iran. City and Built Environment. 3:18. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s44213-025-00056-5]
12. Meerow S, Newell JP, Stults M (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning. 147:38-49. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011]
13. North DC (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511808678]
14. NUP (2023). National urban policy programme in I.R. Iran. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. [Link]
15. OECD & UN-Habitat (2024). Global state of national urban policy 2024. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1787/4db6994c-en]
16. Rhodes RAW (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies. 44(4):652-667. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x]
17. Roy A (2011). Urbanisms, worlding practices and the theory of planning. Planning Theory. 10(1):6-24. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/1473095210386065]
18. Sharma R, Singh G (2022). Digital technologies and smart governance in developing cities. Cities. 120:103-118. [Link]
19. Sotarauta M, Beer A (2017). Governance, leadership and urban development: Theoretical insights and empirical evidence. London: Routledge. [Link]
20. Souza ML (2015). Urban Political Ecology and Governance in São Paulo. Urban Studies, 52(11), 2032-2048. [Link]
21. UN-Habitat (2020). Innovative governance for urban futures. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. [Link]
22. UN-Habitat (2024). World cities report 2024: Urban futures. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. [Link]
23. World Bank (2021). World development report 2021: Data for better lives. Washington, DC: World Bank. [Link]
24. Zali N, Soltani A, Najafi P, Ebadi Qajari S, Mehrju M (2024). Digital twins for smarter Iranian cities: A future studies perspective. Computational Urban Science. 4:43. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s43762-024-00155-9]