Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 37, Issue 3 (2022)
GeoRes 2022, 37(3): 439-448 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2022/06/26 | Accepted: 2022/08/29 | Published: 2022/07/1
Received: 2022/06/26 | Accepted: 2022/08/29 | Published: 2022/07/1
How to cite this article
Mirmasodi S, Ziari Y, Joodaki H. Realization of Integrated Urban Management Emphasizes the Role of Government Organizations in the Tehran Metropolis. GeoRes 2022; 37 (3) :439-448
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1368-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1368-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 Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Humanities, Qeshm International Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qeshm, Iran
2- Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Humanities, Tehran Central Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Islamshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Islamshahr, Iran
2- Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Humanities, Tehran Central Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Basic Sciences, Islamshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Islamshahr, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (90 Views)
Introduction
The accelerating expansion of urbanization is one of the defining characteristics of contemporary social life and has profound impacts on human societies. Although urban life is socially complex and affects both the individual and collective dimensions of citizens’ lives, it also generates numerous challenges. Today, urban authorities and planners are confronted with a wide range of environmental, economic, social, and physical problems that threaten urban sustainability (Purvis & Grainger, 2004).
Urban management has been defined in various ways. According to Dijk et al. (2006), urban management is a process of developing, implementing, coordinating, and evaluating strategies that are carried out within a political framework, with the involvement of urban actors and with due consideration of private-sector objectives and citizens’ interests, ultimately aiming to achieve sustainable urban development. More broadly, urban management can be understood as a comprehensive organizational system composed of formal and informal elements and stakeholders operating across the social, economic, and physical dimensions of urban life, with the purpose of administering, controlling, and guiding the city’s integrated and sustainable development. In Ehsanifard’s definition, urban management refers to the organizational framework of urban development, encompassing policies, programs, plans, and operational measures designed to ensure that population growth is aligned with access to essential infrastructure, housing, and employment. Accordingly, the effectiveness of urban management is strongly dependent on contextual factors such as political stability, social cohesion, and economic prosperity, as well as on factors such as the skills and motivations of policymakers and policy users. Under these conditions, the organizational framework and characteristics of urban governance and management, particularly the executive role of the public and governmental sectors play a decisive role in its success (Ehsanifard, 2013).
One of the management models that has consistently been regarded by planners, legislators, and urban managers as both desirable and cost-effective is the integrated urban management model. Indeed, the growing complexity of urban issues, especially in large cities, necessitates a holistic approach (Sahabi & Hanaei, 2020). Integrated urban management involves assuming an active role in the development, management, and coordination of urban resources in order to achieve urban development goals and respond to citizens’ needs (Latifi, 2004). In this model, coordinated and integrated urban management is centered on municipalities and relevant governmental and public institutions, operating under the supervision and local policymaking authority of city councils, and it represents the general framework envisioned in defining municipal responsibilities. Without such unity and inter-organizational coordination, the efficiency and effectiveness of actions and resources devoted to urban administration and development are seriously undermined. McGill (1998) emphasizes the integration of organizational regulations as a prerequisite for achieving effective urban management.
Integrated urban management is considered one of the contemporary necessities of urban governance, as urban problems are systemic and interconnected, and their management should therefore be entrusted to a specific organization or a coordinated set of organizations through inter-organizational collaboration. Inter-organizational collaboration refers to interactions among independent organizations and represents a pattern of social relations encompassing various forms of cooperation (Gazendam, 2006). Such collaboration has an interactive structure that emphasizes cooperation and participation among organizations to achieve shared objectives (Bailey & Koner, 1995). Strong coordination among administrative organizations requires clear delineation of organizational responsibilities, the absence of conflicting goals, and a commitment to participation in inter-organizational coordination processes (Christensen & Lægreid, 2008). The establishment of integrated management facilitates the uniform and systematic implementation of plans and projects, resulting in savings of both time and cost.
In Iran, urban management responsibilities are distributed among approximately 25 organizations, leading to an inefficient urban structure and increasingly complex urban problems. Each organization approaches urban issues from the perspective of its own mandates and capacities, resulting in a lack of comprehensive vision. Moreover, limited communication, consultation, and cooperation among these organizations further exacerbate the challenges. Over the past several decades, various proposals have been put forward to improve the urban management system and overcome fragmentation in order to achieve integrated urban management in Iran; however, none have been effectively implemented. Despite extensive discussions, particularly by policymakers and executive managers using terms such as coordinated urban management, integrated urban management, and monistic urban management, neither conceptual clarity nor the necessary organizational structures for their realization have been adequately articulated (Asadi & Barakpour, 2021). Although research on integrated urban management in Iran remains at an early stage, recent years have witnessed growing scholarly attention to this issue, as reflected in both international and domestic studies.
Wolfram (2017), for example, have concluded that four stages influence the approach of people-centered and sustainable cities: empowerment, urban capacities, the integration of fundamental innovations into cities, and the adoption of the most up-to-date governance approaches to addressing citizens’ problems. Sheng (2010) have argued that rapid urbanization not only affects India’s national economy but also complicates governance challenges, and identified decentralization of governance, along with greater citizen participation in urban management, as a key solution. Due to their structural complexity, metropolitan areas require integrated management approaches in urban administration, with cost savings and the provision of citizen needs–based programs being among the most significant advantages of integrated urban management. Turner and Barth have examined government accountability, legitimacy, and capacity in policymaking, sound decision-making, effective implementation, service provision, and legislation as key criteria influencing integrated urban management. Babaie and Ebrahimi (2016) have identified coordination, good governance, adaptability, unity of command, coherence, institutional framework, interaction, organizational structure, and a systems perspective as critical factors in achieving integrated urban management. Sahabi and Hanaei (2020) have emphasized the creation of favorable local conditions, the promotion and encouragement of businesses, support for the functioning of local markets, and more efficient use of existing local resources as important determinants of integrated urban management. Ashtiani Eraghi et al. (2020) have concluded that governmental institutions possess the greatest decision-making power in urban management and, consequently, exert the strongest influence on the realization of integrated urban management in Tehran. Sanaie et al. (2020) have found that, in macro-level analyses of knowledge and information trends, citizens’ awareness of laws and regulations showed the highest consensus and certainty, while in analyses of public and citizen participation trends, the cooperation of local councils was of paramount importance. Hajiloo et al. (2019) have argued that achieving consensus among local authorities on the overall urban development system, ensuring inter-organizational coordination, adherence to the rule of law, preventing interference by unrelated groups in organizational duties, and updating regulations in line with contemporary needs are essential. Sarvar et al. (2017) identify legal frameworks, weaknesses in information infrastructure, overlapping organizational responsibilities, and the multiplicity of political perspectives as the most influential factors affecting the realization of integrated urban management in Tehran from the perspective of urban experts and managers.
Tehran, as the capital and a major metropolitan area, faces numerous challenges in urban management due to the involvement of multiple organizations in decision-making and city administration. This multiplicity complicates service provision, fulfillment of urban needs, and policy implementation, leading to disorder, increased costs, reduced service quality, and limited success in implementing policies and programs. Achieving sustainable urban development in Tehran requires an integrated urban management system across all levels of planning, decision-making, and implementation. Accordingly, this study examines the role of governmental organizations in the realization of integrated urban management and the key criteria influencing it in the city of Tehran.
Methodology
This descriptive–applied study was conducted in 2022 within the territorial boundaries of the city of Tehran. In terms of data collection, the research adopted a descriptive–survey approach, while in terms of purpose it was applied in nature.
The case study area is the city of Tehran. With an area of approximately 730 square kilometers, Tehran is located between 35°34′ and 35°59′ north latitude and 51°05′ and 51°53′ east longitude. The city is bounded by Shemiranat County to the north, Damavand County to the east, Varamin, Rey, and Eslamshahr counties to the south, and Shahriar and Karaj counties to the west. Administratively, Tehran is divided into 22 districts, 134 sub-districts, and 374 neighborhoods. District 4, with an area of 73 square kilometers, is the largest urban district, followed by District 5 with 59 square kilometers, whereas Districts 10 and 17 are the smallest, each covering about 8 square kilometers. The total population of Tehran and its 22 districts is approximately 8,737,510. Among these districts, District 4 has the largest population (865,467 residents), followed by District 5 (848,433 residents), while District 22 has the smallest population (140,567 residents).
In this study, the indicators and sub-indicators affecting the role of governmental organizations in achieving integrated urban management were identified through content analysis and a review of relevant scientific literature and theoretical frameworks. Data were collected using a researcher-developed questionnaire, which was evaluated and refined based on expert opinions. The questionnaire consisted of five main indicators and 42 sub-indicators, operationalized through 56 closed-ended items. A five-point Likert scale ranging from very desirable to very undesirable was used for item measurement. A total of 30 experts, selected through purposive sampling from among urban managers and urban planning specialists, participated in the study. Questionnaire validity was assessed by distributing it among members of the target population, and its reliability was confirmed using internal consistency testing. Following this evaluation, 14 items that received unfavorable or very unfavorable assessments were removed. Ultimately, the study focused on five principal dimensions of integrated urban management: good governance, coordination, unity of command, organizational structure, and managerial structure.
To determine the relative importance of the selected criteria, a multi-criteria decision-making approach was employed. Expert judgments were collected through pairwise comparisons, enabling the derivation of relative weights for the criteria. This approach was selected due to its simplicity, rational comparison structure, and flexibility in adding or removing criteria. Based on these comparisons, the priority of each criterion influencing integrated urban management was identified using specialized decision-support software.
In addition, the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solutions (TOPSIS) was applied to rank alternatives based on their relative closeness to an ideal solution. This method evaluates options by comparing their distance from both the best and the worst possible conditions. The procedure involved constructing an evaluation matrix, normalizing the data, applying criterion weights, identifying ideal and non-ideal solutions, calculating the relative distances of alternatives from these solutions, and ultimately ranking the alternatives according to their relative closeness to the ideal state.
To integrate the weighting and ranking processes, the normalized matrices obtained during the analysis were multiplied by the final weights derived from the weighting method. After completing the subsequent analytical steps, the ideal solution was identified, and the relative closeness of each alternative to this ideal solution was calculated for all sub-indicators. This combined approach enabled a comprehensive assessment of the role of governmental organizations in achieving integrated urban management in Tehran.
Findings
After extracting the data from the questionnaires, pairwise comparisons were conducted using the AHP method, and the weight and rank of each sub-indicator were calculated. In the next stage, by constructing an expert judgment matrix within the TOPSIS framework and applying the weights obtained from AHP, the ideal solution as well as the positive and negative ideal solutions were determined for each indicator and sub-indicator. Subsequently, the distance of each indicator from the positive and negative ideal solutions was calculated, and finally, by computing the relative closeness of each indicator to the ideal solution, the indicators influencing integrated urban management were prioritized.
The results indicate that cohesion ranked first in priority, followed by managerial structure in second place. Organizational structure ranked third, coordination fourth, and urban governance fifth. Accordingly, cohesion emerged as the highest-priority indicator. This indicator comprises sub-indicators such as the existence of a central body for reviewing and designing plans prior to implementation, the presence of an inter-organizational planning and decision-making center, and the establishment of an inter-organizational leadership core to address managerial fragmentation. These findings highlight the critical importance of supra-organizational guidance and oversight in coordinating the dispersed operations of multiple organizations, or alternatively, the need for a strong overarching structure in this regard.
To improve integrated urban management, coordination and integration in organizational operations are essential, which can only be achieved through centralized supervision and guided decision-making. Otherwise, fragmentation and lack of cohesion in administrative affairs, insufficient attention to operational requirements, unawareness of parallel programs implemented by other organizations, and neglect of completed plans may lead to poor coordination and increase the likelihood of failure in managerial programs within governmental organizations. One of the key objectives of a supra-organizational planning center should be to monitor the programs of governmental and private organizations, the city council, the municipality, and other relevant institutions. Such oversight would not only ensure awareness of ongoing and completed programs, overarching goals, and executive projects, but also promote inter-organizational cohesion and coordination in pursuit of long-term managerial objectives.
Based on the findings, the managerial structure indicator ranked second. Its sub-indicators include organizational cohesion among managers of urban-related agencies in relation to executive actions, making key organizational decisions through public deliberation processes, rigorous supervision over compliance with regulations and directives, adopting a holistic perspective when addressing complex urban issues, fostering shared perspectives among the operational activities of urban organizations, and aligning the visions and objectives of these organizations. Given the conceptual overlap between the indicators of cohesion and managerial structure, their high prioritization is expected. Strengthening cohesion is therefore likely to enhance the managerial structure, and vice versa. For instance, sub-indicators such as “shared perspectives among the operational activities of urban organizations” and “alignment of visions and objectives among urban agencies” can be facilitated through the establishment of a supra-organizational planning center and overarching supervision associated with the cohesion indicator. Moreover, employing consultation and public deliberation in organizational decision-making, adopting holistic approaches to complex urban problems, and strengthening oversight of executive performance are among the measures that should be emphasized to enhance the managerial capacity of governmental organizations in the city of Tehran.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of achieving integrated urban management in the Tehran metropolitan area from the perspective of governmental institutions. Today, due to the proliferation and complexity of problems in metropolitan cities, traditional management approaches have lost their effectiveness, and the modern paradigm of integrated urban management is considered a potential means of mitigating metropolitan challenges. Given the influential role of governmental institutions in urban management and decision-making processes required for the realization of integrated urban management, this study focused on key dimensions of integrated urban management, namely urban governance, coordination and unity of command, and managerial and organizational structures (institutional capacity-building) in relation to governmental organizations.
The research findings indicate that, in order of priority, cohesion, managerial structure, urban governance, coordination, and organizational structure play the most significant roles in achieving integrated urban management in relation to governmental institutions. From the perspective of employees and managers of governmental organizations, cohesion is the most critical component in attaining integrated urban management. The lack of cohesion in urban management policymaking, both at the macro and operational levels, has led to numerous challenges in the implementation of urban plans. Due to parallel decision-making processes and overlapping functions among service-providing organizations, the establishment of a centralized planning, supervision, and supra-organizational guidance body, as a coordinating entity for all service organizations and for the design and evaluation of executive and operational programs is essential. The importance of the cohesion indicator has also been emphasized in the studies of Safaei Pour et al. (2020) and Ashtianiaraghi et al. (2020).
An examination of the sub-indicators of managerial structure reveals three overarching objectives within this dimension: adopting a systemic perspective, strengthening supervision and evaluation mechanisms, and enhancing organizational coherence. The fragmentation of urban management in Iran has resulted in inefficient urban structures and has intensified urban challenges. Numerous organizations, such as governorates, water, electricity, gas, and telecommunications companies, the Ministry of Education, and many other institutions, often intervene in urban affairs without sufficient coordination. Each organization approaches urban issues based on its own infrastructure and scope of responsibilities, resulting in the absence of a comprehensive and unified perspective. Another manifestation of the lack of a systemic approach is the limited participation of organizations in collectively addressing urban problems. Particularly in a metropolis such as Tehran, the lack of coordinated participation among responsible institutions leads to excessive expenditure of energy and resources and the wastage of substantial national assets. According to some experts, the necessity of integrated urban management lies in resolving inconsistencies and overlaps in the duties of service organizations, reducing the multiplicity of decision-making centers in cities, and consequently decreasing public dissatisfaction. In this regard, the findings of Babaie and Ebrahimi (2016) are consistent with the results of the present study. Within the managerial structure dimension, the sub-indicator “making managerial decisions through public deliberation processes” received the highest rank, underscoring the importance of intra-organizational participation in key managerial decision-making.
The necessity of coordination arises from the interdependencies and relationships among different units within an organization as well as between multiple organizations. Inevitably, addressing certain issues requires inter-organizational cooperation and, consequently, coordination and collaboration. As organizations become vertically fragmented and outsource services that were previously delivered internally, coordination with external organizations becomes increasingly important for achieving performance objectives. Therefore, designing mechanisms for managing inter-organizational relationships becomes imperative. Moreover, harmony among administrative managers emerges when they make joint decisions and undertake collective actions on behalf of shared objectives. Coordination can be examined from both intra-organizational and inter-organizational perspectives. The process of inter-organizational coordination includes establishing decision-making rules, policy discussions, and information exchange among involved organizations, which in turn influences intra-organizational decisions. Given these considerations, urban services generally require inter-organizational coordination. In terms of outcomes, coordination may be weak, moderate, or strong. Consistent with the findings of this study, Christensen and Laegreid (2008) argue that weak coordination implies that inter-organizational decisions have little influence on intra-organizational decisions, whereas strong coordination, particularly in administrative systems requires several key elements. These include the clear delineation of responsibilities among involved ministries and organizations to prevent task overlap, and the absence of conflicting organizational goals, along with a transparent commitment to participation in inter-organizational coordination processes and their effective implementation. In line with the findings of this study regarding the impact of organizational and inter-organizational coordination on achieving integrated urban management, the studies of Gorgani et al. (2014) and Douma and Schreuder (2017) may also be cited.
Strengthening the organizational structure of governmental institutions is another effective factor in achieving integrated urban management. Among the sub-indicators of this dimension, effective interaction with citizens was considered the most important by respondents. The relationship between the city and citizenship is reciprocal: people shape cities, and urban conditions, in turn, exert a profound and unavoidable influence on their lives. Reforming urban structures and optimizing urbanization require improving this relationship, a responsibility that falls upon urban management. This task must be approached comprehensively and carefully, as achieving an ideal city is a long, complex, and demanding process requiring sustained effort. Emphasizing citizens’ right to participate in urban management contributes to the realization of citizenship rights and fosters the structural foundations of civil society. Accordingly, this can guide urban management toward achieving its intended objectives. In this context, the sub-indicator “strengthening communication infrastructures” plays a crucial role in creating effective channels for improved interaction with citizens. Furthermore, enhanced communication and information infrastructures can also facilitate inter-organizational interaction. These findings are consistent with the results reported by Taghvaee et al. (2010). Other sub-indicators within the organizational structure dimension, in descending order of importance, include job and task diversity within organizations, employee commitment to urban-related executive affairs, and interaction between managers and employees. Enhancing motivation and commitment in the workplace requires attention to behavioral parameters, such as strengthening self-confidence and improving effective communication between managers and staff. By promoting job diversity and incorporating employees’ perspectives into planning processes, human resource efficiency can be improved, thereby contributing to enhanced organizational performance. In this regard, the study by Samadian (2011) is noteworthy.
Within the good governance indicator, the top three priorities were, respectively, citizen participation in the design of projects, programs, and actions; reporting organizational performance to competent authorities; and reporting organizational performance to citizens. Citizen participation in decision-making, planning, and all urban activities has been a focal point for managers, planners, and scholars of social development. Participation is regarded as a key indicator of leadership and organizational maturity. It represents a process through which all social groups are involved in all stages of development, enabling the emergence of their capacities and capabilities and fostering their material and spiritual advancement. Consequently, in recent years, citizen participation in urban affairs has occupied a central position in academic and political discourse, being widely recognized as a fundamental element in achieving democracy and sustainable development. Therefore, public participation in urban decision-making can be considered one of the core elements of people-centered governance, and increased citizen involvement in urban affairs can play a valuable role in establishing urban balance. Transparency in reporting performance to citizens and other organizations, along with accountability, are additional influential factors in the realization of integrated urban management by governmental institutions. Transparency in articulating plans, decisions, and performance not only facilitates public participation but also provides an opportunity to benefit from collective insights to improve performance. Consistent with the findings of this study, Taghvaee et al. (2010) and Khademolhosseini and Arefipour (2011) emphasize the role of public participation, accountability, and transparency in achieving effective urban management and sustainable development.
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are proposed to facilitate the realization of integrated urban management with an emphasis on governmental organizations:
Conclusion
The findings of the study indicate that, in order of priority, the indicators of cohesion, managerial structure, urban governance, coordination, and organizational structure play the most significant roles in the realization of integrated urban management in relation to governmental institutions in the city of Tehran.
Acknowledgments: No acknowledgments were reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: No ethical approval was reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Authors’ Contributions: Mirmasodi SP (First Author), Introduction Writer/Main Researcher (40%); Ziari YA (Second Author), Methodologist /Discussion Writer (40%); Joodaki H (Third Author), Assistant Researcher/Statistical Analyst (20%)
Funding: No funding was reported by the authors.
The accelerating expansion of urbanization is one of the defining characteristics of contemporary social life and has profound impacts on human societies. Although urban life is socially complex and affects both the individual and collective dimensions of citizens’ lives, it also generates numerous challenges. Today, urban authorities and planners are confronted with a wide range of environmental, economic, social, and physical problems that threaten urban sustainability (Purvis & Grainger, 2004).
Urban management has been defined in various ways. According to Dijk et al. (2006), urban management is a process of developing, implementing, coordinating, and evaluating strategies that are carried out within a political framework, with the involvement of urban actors and with due consideration of private-sector objectives and citizens’ interests, ultimately aiming to achieve sustainable urban development. More broadly, urban management can be understood as a comprehensive organizational system composed of formal and informal elements and stakeholders operating across the social, economic, and physical dimensions of urban life, with the purpose of administering, controlling, and guiding the city’s integrated and sustainable development. In Ehsanifard’s definition, urban management refers to the organizational framework of urban development, encompassing policies, programs, plans, and operational measures designed to ensure that population growth is aligned with access to essential infrastructure, housing, and employment. Accordingly, the effectiveness of urban management is strongly dependent on contextual factors such as political stability, social cohesion, and economic prosperity, as well as on factors such as the skills and motivations of policymakers and policy users. Under these conditions, the organizational framework and characteristics of urban governance and management, particularly the executive role of the public and governmental sectors play a decisive role in its success (Ehsanifard, 2013).
One of the management models that has consistently been regarded by planners, legislators, and urban managers as both desirable and cost-effective is the integrated urban management model. Indeed, the growing complexity of urban issues, especially in large cities, necessitates a holistic approach (Sahabi & Hanaei, 2020). Integrated urban management involves assuming an active role in the development, management, and coordination of urban resources in order to achieve urban development goals and respond to citizens’ needs (Latifi, 2004). In this model, coordinated and integrated urban management is centered on municipalities and relevant governmental and public institutions, operating under the supervision and local policymaking authority of city councils, and it represents the general framework envisioned in defining municipal responsibilities. Without such unity and inter-organizational coordination, the efficiency and effectiveness of actions and resources devoted to urban administration and development are seriously undermined. McGill (1998) emphasizes the integration of organizational regulations as a prerequisite for achieving effective urban management.
Integrated urban management is considered one of the contemporary necessities of urban governance, as urban problems are systemic and interconnected, and their management should therefore be entrusted to a specific organization or a coordinated set of organizations through inter-organizational collaboration. Inter-organizational collaboration refers to interactions among independent organizations and represents a pattern of social relations encompassing various forms of cooperation (Gazendam, 2006). Such collaboration has an interactive structure that emphasizes cooperation and participation among organizations to achieve shared objectives (Bailey & Koner, 1995). Strong coordination among administrative organizations requires clear delineation of organizational responsibilities, the absence of conflicting goals, and a commitment to participation in inter-organizational coordination processes (Christensen & Lægreid, 2008). The establishment of integrated management facilitates the uniform and systematic implementation of plans and projects, resulting in savings of both time and cost.
In Iran, urban management responsibilities are distributed among approximately 25 organizations, leading to an inefficient urban structure and increasingly complex urban problems. Each organization approaches urban issues from the perspective of its own mandates and capacities, resulting in a lack of comprehensive vision. Moreover, limited communication, consultation, and cooperation among these organizations further exacerbate the challenges. Over the past several decades, various proposals have been put forward to improve the urban management system and overcome fragmentation in order to achieve integrated urban management in Iran; however, none have been effectively implemented. Despite extensive discussions, particularly by policymakers and executive managers using terms such as coordinated urban management, integrated urban management, and monistic urban management, neither conceptual clarity nor the necessary organizational structures for their realization have been adequately articulated (Asadi & Barakpour, 2021). Although research on integrated urban management in Iran remains at an early stage, recent years have witnessed growing scholarly attention to this issue, as reflected in both international and domestic studies.
Wolfram (2017), for example, have concluded that four stages influence the approach of people-centered and sustainable cities: empowerment, urban capacities, the integration of fundamental innovations into cities, and the adoption of the most up-to-date governance approaches to addressing citizens’ problems. Sheng (2010) have argued that rapid urbanization not only affects India’s national economy but also complicates governance challenges, and identified decentralization of governance, along with greater citizen participation in urban management, as a key solution. Due to their structural complexity, metropolitan areas require integrated management approaches in urban administration, with cost savings and the provision of citizen needs–based programs being among the most significant advantages of integrated urban management. Turner and Barth have examined government accountability, legitimacy, and capacity in policymaking, sound decision-making, effective implementation, service provision, and legislation as key criteria influencing integrated urban management. Babaie and Ebrahimi (2016) have identified coordination, good governance, adaptability, unity of command, coherence, institutional framework, interaction, organizational structure, and a systems perspective as critical factors in achieving integrated urban management. Sahabi and Hanaei (2020) have emphasized the creation of favorable local conditions, the promotion and encouragement of businesses, support for the functioning of local markets, and more efficient use of existing local resources as important determinants of integrated urban management. Ashtiani Eraghi et al. (2020) have concluded that governmental institutions possess the greatest decision-making power in urban management and, consequently, exert the strongest influence on the realization of integrated urban management in Tehran. Sanaie et al. (2020) have found that, in macro-level analyses of knowledge and information trends, citizens’ awareness of laws and regulations showed the highest consensus and certainty, while in analyses of public and citizen participation trends, the cooperation of local councils was of paramount importance. Hajiloo et al. (2019) have argued that achieving consensus among local authorities on the overall urban development system, ensuring inter-organizational coordination, adherence to the rule of law, preventing interference by unrelated groups in organizational duties, and updating regulations in line with contemporary needs are essential. Sarvar et al. (2017) identify legal frameworks, weaknesses in information infrastructure, overlapping organizational responsibilities, and the multiplicity of political perspectives as the most influential factors affecting the realization of integrated urban management in Tehran from the perspective of urban experts and managers.
Tehran, as the capital and a major metropolitan area, faces numerous challenges in urban management due to the involvement of multiple organizations in decision-making and city administration. This multiplicity complicates service provision, fulfillment of urban needs, and policy implementation, leading to disorder, increased costs, reduced service quality, and limited success in implementing policies and programs. Achieving sustainable urban development in Tehran requires an integrated urban management system across all levels of planning, decision-making, and implementation. Accordingly, this study examines the role of governmental organizations in the realization of integrated urban management and the key criteria influencing it in the city of Tehran.
Methodology
This descriptive–applied study was conducted in 2022 within the territorial boundaries of the city of Tehran. In terms of data collection, the research adopted a descriptive–survey approach, while in terms of purpose it was applied in nature.
The case study area is the city of Tehran. With an area of approximately 730 square kilometers, Tehran is located between 35°34′ and 35°59′ north latitude and 51°05′ and 51°53′ east longitude. The city is bounded by Shemiranat County to the north, Damavand County to the east, Varamin, Rey, and Eslamshahr counties to the south, and Shahriar and Karaj counties to the west. Administratively, Tehran is divided into 22 districts, 134 sub-districts, and 374 neighborhoods. District 4, with an area of 73 square kilometers, is the largest urban district, followed by District 5 with 59 square kilometers, whereas Districts 10 and 17 are the smallest, each covering about 8 square kilometers. The total population of Tehran and its 22 districts is approximately 8,737,510. Among these districts, District 4 has the largest population (865,467 residents), followed by District 5 (848,433 residents), while District 22 has the smallest population (140,567 residents).
In this study, the indicators and sub-indicators affecting the role of governmental organizations in achieving integrated urban management were identified through content analysis and a review of relevant scientific literature and theoretical frameworks. Data were collected using a researcher-developed questionnaire, which was evaluated and refined based on expert opinions. The questionnaire consisted of five main indicators and 42 sub-indicators, operationalized through 56 closed-ended items. A five-point Likert scale ranging from very desirable to very undesirable was used for item measurement. A total of 30 experts, selected through purposive sampling from among urban managers and urban planning specialists, participated in the study. Questionnaire validity was assessed by distributing it among members of the target population, and its reliability was confirmed using internal consistency testing. Following this evaluation, 14 items that received unfavorable or very unfavorable assessments were removed. Ultimately, the study focused on five principal dimensions of integrated urban management: good governance, coordination, unity of command, organizational structure, and managerial structure.
To determine the relative importance of the selected criteria, a multi-criteria decision-making approach was employed. Expert judgments were collected through pairwise comparisons, enabling the derivation of relative weights for the criteria. This approach was selected due to its simplicity, rational comparison structure, and flexibility in adding or removing criteria. Based on these comparisons, the priority of each criterion influencing integrated urban management was identified using specialized decision-support software.
In addition, the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solutions (TOPSIS) was applied to rank alternatives based on their relative closeness to an ideal solution. This method evaluates options by comparing their distance from both the best and the worst possible conditions. The procedure involved constructing an evaluation matrix, normalizing the data, applying criterion weights, identifying ideal and non-ideal solutions, calculating the relative distances of alternatives from these solutions, and ultimately ranking the alternatives according to their relative closeness to the ideal state.
To integrate the weighting and ranking processes, the normalized matrices obtained during the analysis were multiplied by the final weights derived from the weighting method. After completing the subsequent analytical steps, the ideal solution was identified, and the relative closeness of each alternative to this ideal solution was calculated for all sub-indicators. This combined approach enabled a comprehensive assessment of the role of governmental organizations in achieving integrated urban management in Tehran.
Findings
After extracting the data from the questionnaires, pairwise comparisons were conducted using the AHP method, and the weight and rank of each sub-indicator were calculated. In the next stage, by constructing an expert judgment matrix within the TOPSIS framework and applying the weights obtained from AHP, the ideal solution as well as the positive and negative ideal solutions were determined for each indicator and sub-indicator. Subsequently, the distance of each indicator from the positive and negative ideal solutions was calculated, and finally, by computing the relative closeness of each indicator to the ideal solution, the indicators influencing integrated urban management were prioritized.
The results indicate that cohesion ranked first in priority, followed by managerial structure in second place. Organizational structure ranked third, coordination fourth, and urban governance fifth. Accordingly, cohesion emerged as the highest-priority indicator. This indicator comprises sub-indicators such as the existence of a central body for reviewing and designing plans prior to implementation, the presence of an inter-organizational planning and decision-making center, and the establishment of an inter-organizational leadership core to address managerial fragmentation. These findings highlight the critical importance of supra-organizational guidance and oversight in coordinating the dispersed operations of multiple organizations, or alternatively, the need for a strong overarching structure in this regard.
To improve integrated urban management, coordination and integration in organizational operations are essential, which can only be achieved through centralized supervision and guided decision-making. Otherwise, fragmentation and lack of cohesion in administrative affairs, insufficient attention to operational requirements, unawareness of parallel programs implemented by other organizations, and neglect of completed plans may lead to poor coordination and increase the likelihood of failure in managerial programs within governmental organizations. One of the key objectives of a supra-organizational planning center should be to monitor the programs of governmental and private organizations, the city council, the municipality, and other relevant institutions. Such oversight would not only ensure awareness of ongoing and completed programs, overarching goals, and executive projects, but also promote inter-organizational cohesion and coordination in pursuit of long-term managerial objectives.
Based on the findings, the managerial structure indicator ranked second. Its sub-indicators include organizational cohesion among managers of urban-related agencies in relation to executive actions, making key organizational decisions through public deliberation processes, rigorous supervision over compliance with regulations and directives, adopting a holistic perspective when addressing complex urban issues, fostering shared perspectives among the operational activities of urban organizations, and aligning the visions and objectives of these organizations. Given the conceptual overlap between the indicators of cohesion and managerial structure, their high prioritization is expected. Strengthening cohesion is therefore likely to enhance the managerial structure, and vice versa. For instance, sub-indicators such as “shared perspectives among the operational activities of urban organizations” and “alignment of visions and objectives among urban agencies” can be facilitated through the establishment of a supra-organizational planning center and overarching supervision associated with the cohesion indicator. Moreover, employing consultation and public deliberation in organizational decision-making, adopting holistic approaches to complex urban problems, and strengthening oversight of executive performance are among the measures that should be emphasized to enhance the managerial capacity of governmental organizations in the city of Tehran.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of achieving integrated urban management in the Tehran metropolitan area from the perspective of governmental institutions. Today, due to the proliferation and complexity of problems in metropolitan cities, traditional management approaches have lost their effectiveness, and the modern paradigm of integrated urban management is considered a potential means of mitigating metropolitan challenges. Given the influential role of governmental institutions in urban management and decision-making processes required for the realization of integrated urban management, this study focused on key dimensions of integrated urban management, namely urban governance, coordination and unity of command, and managerial and organizational structures (institutional capacity-building) in relation to governmental organizations.
The research findings indicate that, in order of priority, cohesion, managerial structure, urban governance, coordination, and organizational structure play the most significant roles in achieving integrated urban management in relation to governmental institutions. From the perspective of employees and managers of governmental organizations, cohesion is the most critical component in attaining integrated urban management. The lack of cohesion in urban management policymaking, both at the macro and operational levels, has led to numerous challenges in the implementation of urban plans. Due to parallel decision-making processes and overlapping functions among service-providing organizations, the establishment of a centralized planning, supervision, and supra-organizational guidance body, as a coordinating entity for all service organizations and for the design and evaluation of executive and operational programs is essential. The importance of the cohesion indicator has also been emphasized in the studies of Safaei Pour et al. (2020) and Ashtianiaraghi et al. (2020).
An examination of the sub-indicators of managerial structure reveals three overarching objectives within this dimension: adopting a systemic perspective, strengthening supervision and evaluation mechanisms, and enhancing organizational coherence. The fragmentation of urban management in Iran has resulted in inefficient urban structures and has intensified urban challenges. Numerous organizations, such as governorates, water, electricity, gas, and telecommunications companies, the Ministry of Education, and many other institutions, often intervene in urban affairs without sufficient coordination. Each organization approaches urban issues based on its own infrastructure and scope of responsibilities, resulting in the absence of a comprehensive and unified perspective. Another manifestation of the lack of a systemic approach is the limited participation of organizations in collectively addressing urban problems. Particularly in a metropolis such as Tehran, the lack of coordinated participation among responsible institutions leads to excessive expenditure of energy and resources and the wastage of substantial national assets. According to some experts, the necessity of integrated urban management lies in resolving inconsistencies and overlaps in the duties of service organizations, reducing the multiplicity of decision-making centers in cities, and consequently decreasing public dissatisfaction. In this regard, the findings of Babaie and Ebrahimi (2016) are consistent with the results of the present study. Within the managerial structure dimension, the sub-indicator “making managerial decisions through public deliberation processes” received the highest rank, underscoring the importance of intra-organizational participation in key managerial decision-making.
The necessity of coordination arises from the interdependencies and relationships among different units within an organization as well as between multiple organizations. Inevitably, addressing certain issues requires inter-organizational cooperation and, consequently, coordination and collaboration. As organizations become vertically fragmented and outsource services that were previously delivered internally, coordination with external organizations becomes increasingly important for achieving performance objectives. Therefore, designing mechanisms for managing inter-organizational relationships becomes imperative. Moreover, harmony among administrative managers emerges when they make joint decisions and undertake collective actions on behalf of shared objectives. Coordination can be examined from both intra-organizational and inter-organizational perspectives. The process of inter-organizational coordination includes establishing decision-making rules, policy discussions, and information exchange among involved organizations, which in turn influences intra-organizational decisions. Given these considerations, urban services generally require inter-organizational coordination. In terms of outcomes, coordination may be weak, moderate, or strong. Consistent with the findings of this study, Christensen and Laegreid (2008) argue that weak coordination implies that inter-organizational decisions have little influence on intra-organizational decisions, whereas strong coordination, particularly in administrative systems requires several key elements. These include the clear delineation of responsibilities among involved ministries and organizations to prevent task overlap, and the absence of conflicting organizational goals, along with a transparent commitment to participation in inter-organizational coordination processes and their effective implementation. In line with the findings of this study regarding the impact of organizational and inter-organizational coordination on achieving integrated urban management, the studies of Gorgani et al. (2014) and Douma and Schreuder (2017) may also be cited.
Strengthening the organizational structure of governmental institutions is another effective factor in achieving integrated urban management. Among the sub-indicators of this dimension, effective interaction with citizens was considered the most important by respondents. The relationship between the city and citizenship is reciprocal: people shape cities, and urban conditions, in turn, exert a profound and unavoidable influence on their lives. Reforming urban structures and optimizing urbanization require improving this relationship, a responsibility that falls upon urban management. This task must be approached comprehensively and carefully, as achieving an ideal city is a long, complex, and demanding process requiring sustained effort. Emphasizing citizens’ right to participate in urban management contributes to the realization of citizenship rights and fosters the structural foundations of civil society. Accordingly, this can guide urban management toward achieving its intended objectives. In this context, the sub-indicator “strengthening communication infrastructures” plays a crucial role in creating effective channels for improved interaction with citizens. Furthermore, enhanced communication and information infrastructures can also facilitate inter-organizational interaction. These findings are consistent with the results reported by Taghvaee et al. (2010). Other sub-indicators within the organizational structure dimension, in descending order of importance, include job and task diversity within organizations, employee commitment to urban-related executive affairs, and interaction between managers and employees. Enhancing motivation and commitment in the workplace requires attention to behavioral parameters, such as strengthening self-confidence and improving effective communication between managers and staff. By promoting job diversity and incorporating employees’ perspectives into planning processes, human resource efficiency can be improved, thereby contributing to enhanced organizational performance. In this regard, the study by Samadian (2011) is noteworthy.
Within the good governance indicator, the top three priorities were, respectively, citizen participation in the design of projects, programs, and actions; reporting organizational performance to competent authorities; and reporting organizational performance to citizens. Citizen participation in decision-making, planning, and all urban activities has been a focal point for managers, planners, and scholars of social development. Participation is regarded as a key indicator of leadership and organizational maturity. It represents a process through which all social groups are involved in all stages of development, enabling the emergence of their capacities and capabilities and fostering their material and spiritual advancement. Consequently, in recent years, citizen participation in urban affairs has occupied a central position in academic and political discourse, being widely recognized as a fundamental element in achieving democracy and sustainable development. Therefore, public participation in urban decision-making can be considered one of the core elements of people-centered governance, and increased citizen involvement in urban affairs can play a valuable role in establishing urban balance. Transparency in reporting performance to citizens and other organizations, along with accountability, are additional influential factors in the realization of integrated urban management by governmental institutions. Transparency in articulating plans, decisions, and performance not only facilitates public participation but also provides an opportunity to benefit from collective insights to improve performance. Consistent with the findings of this study, Taghvaee et al. (2010) and Khademolhosseini and Arefipour (2011) emphasize the role of public participation, accountability, and transparency in achieving effective urban management and sustainable development.
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are proposed to facilitate the realization of integrated urban management with an emphasis on governmental organizations:
- Establishing a coordination council to enhance collaboration among governmental organizations
- Forming a supervisory committee to oversee the implementation of governmental organizational activities in the field of urban management
- Clearly and precisely defining the scope of responsibilities of each governmental organization
- Reforming institutional frameworks and facilities to improve intra- and inter-organizational interactions among governmental bodies in urban affairs
- Establishing a central body to coordinate urban policies, resolutions, and planning processes
- Evaluating and monitoring the performance of governmental organizations and their responsible officials
Conclusion
The findings of the study indicate that, in order of priority, the indicators of cohesion, managerial structure, urban governance, coordination, and organizational structure play the most significant roles in the realization of integrated urban management in relation to governmental institutions in the city of Tehran.
Acknowledgments: No acknowledgments were reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: No ethical approval was reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Authors’ Contributions: Mirmasodi SP (First Author), Introduction Writer/Main Researcher (40%); Ziari YA (Second Author), Methodologist /Discussion Writer (40%); Joodaki H (Third Author), Assistant Researcher/Statistical Analyst (20%)
Funding: No funding was reported by the authors.
Keywords:
References
1. Asadi I, Barakpour N (2011). Urban management and governance. Tehran: Art University of Tehran. [Persian] [Link]
2. Ashtianiaraghi MR, Sarvar R, Zivyar P, Fallahtabar N (2020). Realization of integrated urban management with emphasis on the role and power of actors' different levels of Tehran's urban management. Research and Urban planning. 11(40):31-46. [Persian] [Link]
3. Babaei M, Ebrahimi S (2016). Studying the components of integrated urban management in Isfahan. Journal of Urban Economics. 1(1):17-36.[Persian] [Link]
4. Bailey D, Koner KM (1995). Community based consortia: One model for creation and development. Journal of Community Practice. 2(1):21-42. [Link] [DOI:10.1300/J125v02n01_02]
5. Christensen T, Laegrid P (2008). The challenger of coordination in central government organization, the Norwegian case. Public Organization Rewive. 8(97):97-116. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11115-008-0058-3]
6. Dijk V, Pieter M (2006). Managing Cities in Developing Countries: The theory and practice of urban management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [Link]
7. Douma S, Schreuder H (2017). Economcic approaches to organization. 6th Edition. London: Pearson Media company. [Link]
8. Ehsanifard AA, Ehsanifard M (2013). Strategic model to measure, manage and evaluate the effective performance of municipalities with a combined model BSC & EFQM: Case study: Zones 3 and 18 of Tehran. Urban Management. 11(31):7-25. [Persian] [Link]
9. Gazendam HWM (2006). Coordination mechanisms in multi-actor system. New Jersey: Wiley Publishing Company. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/0471781266.ch5]
10. Gorgani R (2014). Examining integration of Tehran urban management system (Case study urban services mission). Journal of Development Evolution Managment. 5(13):29-37. [Persian] [Link]
11. Hajiloo Z, Arghan A, Daryabari S J, Farhoodi R (2019). An analysis of the effective factors on tehran city metropolitan city's urban management system for integrated urban management. Quarterly of Geography and Regional Planning. 9(1):141-159. [Persian] [Link]
12. Hwang CL, Yoon K (2015). Portfolio management: Stock ranking by multiple attribute decision making methods. Technology and Investment. 6(4):141-150. [Link] [DOI:10.4236/ti.2015.64016]
13. Ioannou K, Tsantopoulos G, Arabatzis G (2019). A decision support system methodology for selecting wind farm installation locations using AHP and TOPSIS: Case study in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace region, Greece. Energy Policy. 132:232-246. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.020]
14. Khademolhosseini A, Arefipour S (2012). Participatory urban planning and position of people in urban planning (Case study: Region six Esfahan). Journal of Studies of Human Settlements Planning. 7(19):108-123. [Persian] [Link]
15. Lesinski G (2015). Application of value focused thinking and fuzzy systems to assess system architecture. Procedia Computer Science. 61:168-175. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.182]
16. Latifi G (2004). Urban management in Iran. Social Sciences. 2004;11(27):75-100. [Persian] [Link]
17. McGill R (1998). Urban management in developing countries. Cities. 15(6):463-471. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0264-2751(98)00041-9]
18. Purvis M, Grainger A (2004). Exploring sustainable development: Geographical perspectives. London: Routledge Company. [Link]
19. Saaty TL (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research. 145(1):85-89. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8]
20. Saaty RW (1987). The analytic hierarchy process-what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling. 9(3-5):161-176. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8]
21. Saberifard R, Soofi F, Mahmudi Y (2013). Effective components in achieving effective urban management in Iran. In: Proceeding of the National Conference on Integrated Urban Management and its Role in Sustainable Urban Development. 17-18 December 2013. Sanandaj: Iran. [Link]
22. Safaei Pour M, Razavi SM, Mohaghegh Z, Ramazan Poor Asadiyeh K (2020). Measuring and assessing the status of components of urban integration management in Ahvaz Metropolis. Journal Management System. 10(37):1-22. [Persian] [Link]
23. Samadian A (2011). Survey of the influencing factors on the inter-organizational entrepreneurship of municipality staff Tehran branch. Urban Management Studies. 2(4):63-80. [Persian] [Link]
24. Sanaie S, Sarvar R, Ezatpanah B (2020). Analysis of effective components in the realization of integrated management of Tehran urban area. Geographical Journal of Territory. 17(66):44-60. [Persian] [Link]
25. Sarvar R, Ashtiani Eraghi MR, Akbari M (2017). Analysis of factors affecting the realization of an integrated urban management using factor analysis (Case study metropolis Tehran). Geography. 15(52):37-52. [Persian] [Link]
26. Sheng YK (2010). Good urban governance in Southeast Asia. Environment and Urbanization Asia. 1(2):1-25. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/097542531000100203]
27. Taghvaee M, Babanasab R, Mousavi CH (2010). An analysis of assessment of effective factors on citizens' participation in civic management: Case study of district 4 of Tabriz. Urban Regional Studies and Research. 1(2):19-36. [Persian] [Link]
28. Wolfram M (2017). Grassroots niches in urbancontexts: Exploring governance innovationsfor sustainable development in Seoul. Procedia Engineering. 198:622-641. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.116]