Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 38, Issue 2 (2023)
GeoRes 2023, 38(2): 161-170 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2023/03/25 | Accepted: 2023/05/6 | Published: 2023/05/10
Received: 2023/03/25 | Accepted: 2023/05/6 | Published: 2023/05/10
How to cite this article
Dehbalaei M, Memarzadeh Tehran G, Danesahfard K. Key Factors in Evaluating the Implementation of the Sustainable Urban Development Policy in the Framework of the Sixth Plan. GeoRes 2023; 38 (2) :161-170
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1455-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1455-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 Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Science & Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, Science & Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, Science & Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Full-Text (HTML) (45 Views)
Introduction
Urban sustainable development refers to the pursuit of sustainable development goals within urban spaces. Its importance stems from the fact that in many countries, cities accommodate the majority of the population and serve as the main hubs for economic activities [Zhang et al., 2022]. Today, comprehensive efforts toward urban sustainable development have become an inevitable necessity, particularly in developing countries [Cappa et al., 2022; Meng et al., 2022; Salet & De Vries, 2019]. In these countries, this concept plays a pivotal role in establishing and institutionalizing civil society and gaining the public trust of citizens [Hansson, 2019]. Achieving the goals of urban sustainable development depends on the optimal implementation of formulated policies in this field. One of the country’s overarching documents concerning urban sustainable development policies is the Sixth Development Plan.
The public policy cycle, derived from the logical and rational decision-making process, provides a structured, step-by-step path for policy formulation [Nantavisit, 2021]. This cycle consists of sequential steps, including: (1) identifying, understanding, and articulating the problem, (2) referring and presenting the issue within public organizations, (3) formulating public policy, (4) legitimizing and legalizing policy, (5) communicating and implementing policy, and (6) evaluating the implemented policy [Alvani & Sharifzadeh, 2017]. Papadopoulos considers policy implementation a stage in the policy process during which policy becomes operational [Tziogas et al., 2021]. In another definition, policy implementation is a process through which programs or policies are carried out, a stage that demonstrates how plans are put into practice [Chand, 2011]. Policy implementation refers to the actions and operations of executing organizations and institutions and the manner in which they are conducted. These activities operationalize the programs and procedures defined in the policy formulation stage [Daneshfard, 2021]. Unsuccessful implementation of policies undermines public trust in both policymakers and implementers [Ghanouni et al., 2022]. The persistence of this problem results in policies losing their social legitimacy, and the public increasingly viewing them with indifference or negativity. Consequently, the relationship between citizens and the government deteriorates, and public trust, considered the greatest asset of any political system, gradually erodes [Bayati et al., 2021].
Several factors influence the successful implementation of policies. Palumbo and Calista argue that the presence of certain conditions such as clear rationales for organizing implementers, managerial and political skills, and maintaining goal priorities in the face of socioeconomic changes greatly affect successful policy implementation [Palumpo & Calista, 1990]. Ignoring these conditions, which are crucial for effective implementation, may hinder the process. Other scholars have identified numerous additional challenges, including globalization and its demands, the nature of human behavior, social phenomena and social science principles, the beliefs of various implementing actors, and the forms of cooperation and communication among implementers [Danaiefard et al., 2012].
Howlett and colleagues argue that the nature of problems significantly affects the implementation of programs designed to address them [Howlett et al., 2009]. The number of government program objectives and the scope of target groups are key factors influencing implementation. The broader and more diverse the target group, and the greater the number of objectives, the more difficult it becomes to achieve desirable behavioral impacts. Social conditions may influence how problems are perceived and, consequently, how programs are implemented. Economic changes, access to new technologies, and political shifts are also important determinants of policy implementation [Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1989]. Moreover, the organization of administrative resources, the political and economic capacities of target groups, and the clarity of policy objectives assist implementers in carrying out policies. Policy formulation must explicitly or implicitly rely on a valid causal theory to explain why the specified measures are expected to resolve the identified problem [Hogwood & Gunn, 1985; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1989]. Policies must also include clear regulations to enable implementing organizations to carry them out, and implementation should be delegated to organizations with sufficient experience and commitment [Mohammadi et al., 2016]. Within public policy studies, evaluation is considered the final stage of the policy cycle, occurring concurrently with implementation. Evaluation refers to the systematic, empirical, and objective examination of the outcomes of public policies and programs [Hill & Hupe, 2002].
Public policy is a managerial process situated at the core of citizen–government relations, exerting considerable influence on citizens’ quality of life and serving as a fundamental determinant of organizational decision-making [Sheikhbagloo et al., 2022]. Managers in any organization plan and act within the boundaries set by policies, making decisions in accordance with them. Furthermore, policies serve as essential benchmarks for monitoring and evaluating organizational performance [Alvani & Sharifzadeh, 2017]. Policy implementation begins immediately after policies are approved and legalized. In effect, it is the enactment of law, whereby organizations and employees link policy objectives with positive and desirable outcomes through their efforts [Daneshfard, 2021]. Policy evaluation, in turn, is a process aimed at assessing outcomes, implementation activities, and policy content.
Despite the formulation of public policies, their implementation has generally been unsatisfactory, and related shortcomings are increasingly evident. Reviews of prior studies on policy implementation in the country reveal numerous weaknesses. These include disregard for the value of time and lost opportunities, managerial instability in public institutions, inefficiency of implementers, misalignment of national policy implementation instruments, domestic and international crises affecting execution, lack of appropriate structures for implementing national policies, absence of integrated perspectives, and environmental and oversight barriers. Together, these issues have created a considerable gap between the current and desired states of public policy implementation [Gharabaghi et al., 2021; Aliabadi et al., 2019; Rangriz et al., 2018; Moghadas Poor et al., 2013]. Urban sustainable development policies are no exception. Thus, to reduce or eliminate the negative consequences of poor implementation and to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of such policies, it is necessary to develop an appropriate model for evaluating the implementation of urban sustainable development policies. Given the theoretical gap and the absence of a suitable model, this study seeks to provide such a framework within the context of the Sixth Development Plan. Additionally, the lack of an evaluation model for public policy implementation has been one of the main concerns of the Alborz Municipality and has motivated the researcher to pursue this topic.
Existing research indicates that structural, managerial (leadership-related), individual (implementer-related), procedural, cultural and institutional, perceptual and cognitive, resource-based, and environmental (external) factors can either facilitate or hinder policy implementation. However, previous studies have not presented an integrated and context-specific framework that collectively addresses all the factors influencing effective implementation evaluation. Instead, each model has only focused on selected parameters. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the key factors influencing the implementation of urban sustainable development policies within the framework of the Sixth Development Plan.
Methodology
This descriptive–survey research employed a qualitative–quantitative (mixed-method) approach and was conducted in 2022 within the Alborz Province Municipality Organization. Among 50 organizational experts with more than 20 years of service experience, postgraduate education, and over 10 years of managerial background, 20 participants were purposively selected until theoretical saturation was achieved. Furthermore, from a total of 250 municipal managers in Alborz, 152 individuals were randomly chosen using simple random sampling, based on the Krejcie and Morgan table (KMO=0.827; p=0.0001).
To identify the influencing parameters and their related indicators, in-depth interviews were conducted with the expert group. Each interview lasted approximately 20 minutes. Following data collection, interview transcripts were prepared, and the influential parameters were determined through coding. To extract the main codes, a multistage screening process was conducted in which similar parameters and indicators were consolidated, leading to the development of the preliminary questionnaire.
Face and content validity of the questionnaire were examined by distributing the initial version among the expert sample. After two rounds of expert review, the final questionnaire was developed using a three-point Likert scale (Essential, Neutral, Non-essential). The reliability of the instrument was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which exceeded 0.80, thereby confirming its reliability.
Since the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test indicated that the data were not normally distributed, non-parametric tests were employed for data analysis. In the descriptive section, mean and standard deviation were reported, while construct validity was examined using confirmatory factor analysis and the Fornell–Larcker criterion within the Smart PLS 2 software environment.
Findings
Based on the analysis of the interviews and expert opinions, a questionnaire comprising 52 items within the framework of six indicators was ultimately developed.
The results obtained from participants’ responses were used to assess construct validity. The importance of all items and their classification under six indicators were confirmed according to the factor loadings of each item. The results of factor analysis also demonstrated a strong correlation between the six indicators and the overall concept of policy implementation evaluation.
According to these diagrams, the factor loadings of items 39 and 40 were 0.452 and 0.480, respectively, both below the threshold of 0.5. Consequently, these items were removed from the model, and the analysis was re-run. The factor loadings of all items were ≥ 0.5, and the significance coefficients of the identified indicators were appropriate and meaningful (greater than 1.96). Therefore, no further items were excluded, and the measurement model of the study was deemed suitable.
All overall indicators of the questionnaire demonstrated sufficient reliability. Furthermore, since the average variance extracted (AVE) for each indicator exceeded the shared variance between that indicator and the others, the discriminant validity of the model was confirmed.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to identify the key factors for evaluating the implementation of urban sustainable development policies within the framework of the Sixth Development Plan.
The key evaluation factors included six main components, policy objectives and standards, policy resources and tools, policy implementers, the implementing organization, uncontrollable (external) factors, and policy implementation outcomes along with 52 indicators that were of particular importance in the evaluation process. Some of these components and indicators were identified and introduced for the first time. The findings of this research were consistent with the components and indicators reported in the studies of Norouzzadeh et al. (2021), Saedi and Dorani (2018), Abbasi et al. (2016), Rangriz et al. (2018), Hosseini et al. (2020), Derakhshan and Pilehvari (2019), Liu and Zhao (2018), Zhang et al. (2022), Salet and Veriez (2019), Giest (2018), Moseley and Thomann (2020), and Tonne et al. (2021).
The barriers and limitations to effective and complete implementation of public policies include the lack of a theoretical foundation, insufficient resources, the role of target groups, inappropriate selection of policy instruments, environmental conditions, inadequate stakeholder participation in policy formulation, conflicts between policies and implementers’ values, reductionist and one-dimensional approaches, reluctance to pilot policies in limited areas, and policy rigidity. In line with these findings, Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989) identified a range of legal and political parameters influencing different stages of the implementation process, classifying them into six general conditions for achieving successful implementation of legal objectives:
Barriers to policy implementation are identified in the study by Rangriz et al. (2018) including policy formulation, implementers, managerial, structural, financial, informational, and environmental challenges, were consistent with our results. Similarly, Aliabadi et al. (2019) report obstacles such as the absence of a unified authority, lack of legal standardization, excessive and inconsistent laws, inadequate participation of implementers and stakeholders, weak commitment and training of implementers, poor coordination, unsuitable administrative structures, insufficient political will, inadequate monitoring, and lack of enforcement guarantees, all of which resonate with the present study.
Moreover, managers’ values, including benevolence, empathy, commitment to society, sacrifice, raising awareness, service orientation, conscientiousness, respect for clients, flexibility, organizational citizenship, fairness, religious and ethical orientation, professionalism, and legal compliance, have been shown to influence policy implementation (Samadi et al., 2019). Derakhshan and Pilehvari (2019) confirm the impact of regulatory quality, rule of law, accountability, and transparency on implementation, consistent with the current findings. Saedi and Dorani (2018) highlight managerial, human, communicative, environmental, policy-related, and systemic barriers, while Abbasi et al. (2016) identify issues with policymakers, implementers, users, the nature of the policy, implementing organizations, interest groups, and external environments, all of which align with the results of this research.
Memarzade and Taherpour (2005) outline conditions influencing tax policy implementation in Iran, such as transparency of tax laws, organizational leadership, social and political conditions, significance of implementing organizations, commitment of responsible authorities, implementers’ orientation, organizational cooperation, staff motivation, diversity of taxpayers, time constraints, economic conditions, and staff knowledge, again consistent with our findings.
Behavioral and human factors have also been emphasized in policy implementation decisions, which correspond to this study’s identification of implementers’ willingness, autonomy, coalition-building, staff behavior, and skills as crucial for evaluation (Moseley & Thomann, 2020).
The importance of coordination in policy implementation is also reported by Zhang et al. (2022), Salet and Veriez (2019), and Tonne et al. (2021), findings echoed in this research. Similarly, Liu and Zhao (2018) emphasize the roles of political systems, local government decision-making, and central–local coordination, while Phulkerd et al. (2016) point to support, infrastructure, resources, and stakeholder participation as essential. Consistently, the present study highlights the need for harmonization and the application of high-quality instruments and methods in policy implementation.
Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) define three policy environments, formulation, implementation, and evaluation, along with three groups of influential parameters: actors and domains, organizational structures and bureaucratic norms, and communication networks and compliance mechanisms. These are in line with this study’s indicators of creating a supportive organizational culture, managing resistance to policy-related changes, revising rewards and incentives, managing conflicts, and strengthening performance evaluation systems.
Given that qualitative research investigates phenomena within their contexts, the findings of this study are specific to the research setting and cannot be easily generalized to other contexts. The results are grounded in the perspectives and experiences of experts within the Alborz Municipality and may not be directly transferable to other organizations. Future researchers are encouraged to design and develop localized evaluation models tailored to the scope of their organizations and to compare their findings with those of this study. Considering the diversity of missions and goals across different institutions, customized models may be required for effective evaluation of policy implementation.
Conclusion
Policy goals and standards, policy resources and instruments, policy implementers, the implementing organization, uncontrollable (external) factors, and the outcomes of policy implementation hold particular importance in the process of evaluating the implementation of sustainable urban development policies within the framework of the Sixth National Development Plan.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to all those who supported and assisted in the completion of this research.
Ethical Permission: In this study, ethical and legal standards were observed through proper citation of the references used and obtaining the necessary permissions for the distribution of questionnaires.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Authors’ Contributions: Dehbalayi M (First Author): Principal Researcher/Methodologist/Data Analyst (40%); Memarzadeh Tehran G (Second Author): Discussion Writer/Introduction Writer (35%); Daneshfard K (Third Author): Data Analyst/Introduction Writer (25%)
Funding: No funding was received for this study.
Urban sustainable development refers to the pursuit of sustainable development goals within urban spaces. Its importance stems from the fact that in many countries, cities accommodate the majority of the population and serve as the main hubs for economic activities [Zhang et al., 2022]. Today, comprehensive efforts toward urban sustainable development have become an inevitable necessity, particularly in developing countries [Cappa et al., 2022; Meng et al., 2022; Salet & De Vries, 2019]. In these countries, this concept plays a pivotal role in establishing and institutionalizing civil society and gaining the public trust of citizens [Hansson, 2019]. Achieving the goals of urban sustainable development depends on the optimal implementation of formulated policies in this field. One of the country’s overarching documents concerning urban sustainable development policies is the Sixth Development Plan.
The public policy cycle, derived from the logical and rational decision-making process, provides a structured, step-by-step path for policy formulation [Nantavisit, 2021]. This cycle consists of sequential steps, including: (1) identifying, understanding, and articulating the problem, (2) referring and presenting the issue within public organizations, (3) formulating public policy, (4) legitimizing and legalizing policy, (5) communicating and implementing policy, and (6) evaluating the implemented policy [Alvani & Sharifzadeh, 2017]. Papadopoulos considers policy implementation a stage in the policy process during which policy becomes operational [Tziogas et al., 2021]. In another definition, policy implementation is a process through which programs or policies are carried out, a stage that demonstrates how plans are put into practice [Chand, 2011]. Policy implementation refers to the actions and operations of executing organizations and institutions and the manner in which they are conducted. These activities operationalize the programs and procedures defined in the policy formulation stage [Daneshfard, 2021]. Unsuccessful implementation of policies undermines public trust in both policymakers and implementers [Ghanouni et al., 2022]. The persistence of this problem results in policies losing their social legitimacy, and the public increasingly viewing them with indifference or negativity. Consequently, the relationship between citizens and the government deteriorates, and public trust, considered the greatest asset of any political system, gradually erodes [Bayati et al., 2021].
Several factors influence the successful implementation of policies. Palumbo and Calista argue that the presence of certain conditions such as clear rationales for organizing implementers, managerial and political skills, and maintaining goal priorities in the face of socioeconomic changes greatly affect successful policy implementation [Palumpo & Calista, 1990]. Ignoring these conditions, which are crucial for effective implementation, may hinder the process. Other scholars have identified numerous additional challenges, including globalization and its demands, the nature of human behavior, social phenomena and social science principles, the beliefs of various implementing actors, and the forms of cooperation and communication among implementers [Danaiefard et al., 2012].
Howlett and colleagues argue that the nature of problems significantly affects the implementation of programs designed to address them [Howlett et al., 2009]. The number of government program objectives and the scope of target groups are key factors influencing implementation. The broader and more diverse the target group, and the greater the number of objectives, the more difficult it becomes to achieve desirable behavioral impacts. Social conditions may influence how problems are perceived and, consequently, how programs are implemented. Economic changes, access to new technologies, and political shifts are also important determinants of policy implementation [Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1989]. Moreover, the organization of administrative resources, the political and economic capacities of target groups, and the clarity of policy objectives assist implementers in carrying out policies. Policy formulation must explicitly or implicitly rely on a valid causal theory to explain why the specified measures are expected to resolve the identified problem [Hogwood & Gunn, 1985; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1989]. Policies must also include clear regulations to enable implementing organizations to carry them out, and implementation should be delegated to organizations with sufficient experience and commitment [Mohammadi et al., 2016]. Within public policy studies, evaluation is considered the final stage of the policy cycle, occurring concurrently with implementation. Evaluation refers to the systematic, empirical, and objective examination of the outcomes of public policies and programs [Hill & Hupe, 2002].
Public policy is a managerial process situated at the core of citizen–government relations, exerting considerable influence on citizens’ quality of life and serving as a fundamental determinant of organizational decision-making [Sheikhbagloo et al., 2022]. Managers in any organization plan and act within the boundaries set by policies, making decisions in accordance with them. Furthermore, policies serve as essential benchmarks for monitoring and evaluating organizational performance [Alvani & Sharifzadeh, 2017]. Policy implementation begins immediately after policies are approved and legalized. In effect, it is the enactment of law, whereby organizations and employees link policy objectives with positive and desirable outcomes through their efforts [Daneshfard, 2021]. Policy evaluation, in turn, is a process aimed at assessing outcomes, implementation activities, and policy content.
Despite the formulation of public policies, their implementation has generally been unsatisfactory, and related shortcomings are increasingly evident. Reviews of prior studies on policy implementation in the country reveal numerous weaknesses. These include disregard for the value of time and lost opportunities, managerial instability in public institutions, inefficiency of implementers, misalignment of national policy implementation instruments, domestic and international crises affecting execution, lack of appropriate structures for implementing national policies, absence of integrated perspectives, and environmental and oversight barriers. Together, these issues have created a considerable gap between the current and desired states of public policy implementation [Gharabaghi et al., 2021; Aliabadi et al., 2019; Rangriz et al., 2018; Moghadas Poor et al., 2013]. Urban sustainable development policies are no exception. Thus, to reduce or eliminate the negative consequences of poor implementation and to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of such policies, it is necessary to develop an appropriate model for evaluating the implementation of urban sustainable development policies. Given the theoretical gap and the absence of a suitable model, this study seeks to provide such a framework within the context of the Sixth Development Plan. Additionally, the lack of an evaluation model for public policy implementation has been one of the main concerns of the Alborz Municipality and has motivated the researcher to pursue this topic.
Existing research indicates that structural, managerial (leadership-related), individual (implementer-related), procedural, cultural and institutional, perceptual and cognitive, resource-based, and environmental (external) factors can either facilitate or hinder policy implementation. However, previous studies have not presented an integrated and context-specific framework that collectively addresses all the factors influencing effective implementation evaluation. Instead, each model has only focused on selected parameters. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the key factors influencing the implementation of urban sustainable development policies within the framework of the Sixth Development Plan.
Methodology
This descriptive–survey research employed a qualitative–quantitative (mixed-method) approach and was conducted in 2022 within the Alborz Province Municipality Organization. Among 50 organizational experts with more than 20 years of service experience, postgraduate education, and over 10 years of managerial background, 20 participants were purposively selected until theoretical saturation was achieved. Furthermore, from a total of 250 municipal managers in Alborz, 152 individuals were randomly chosen using simple random sampling, based on the Krejcie and Morgan table (KMO=0.827; p=0.0001).
To identify the influencing parameters and their related indicators, in-depth interviews were conducted with the expert group. Each interview lasted approximately 20 minutes. Following data collection, interview transcripts were prepared, and the influential parameters were determined through coding. To extract the main codes, a multistage screening process was conducted in which similar parameters and indicators were consolidated, leading to the development of the preliminary questionnaire.
Face and content validity of the questionnaire were examined by distributing the initial version among the expert sample. After two rounds of expert review, the final questionnaire was developed using a three-point Likert scale (Essential, Neutral, Non-essential). The reliability of the instrument was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which exceeded 0.80, thereby confirming its reliability.
Since the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test indicated that the data were not normally distributed, non-parametric tests were employed for data analysis. In the descriptive section, mean and standard deviation were reported, while construct validity was examined using confirmatory factor analysis and the Fornell–Larcker criterion within the Smart PLS 2 software environment.
Findings
Based on the analysis of the interviews and expert opinions, a questionnaire comprising 52 items within the framework of six indicators was ultimately developed.
The results obtained from participants’ responses were used to assess construct validity. The importance of all items and their classification under six indicators were confirmed according to the factor loadings of each item. The results of factor analysis also demonstrated a strong correlation between the six indicators and the overall concept of policy implementation evaluation.
According to these diagrams, the factor loadings of items 39 and 40 were 0.452 and 0.480, respectively, both below the threshold of 0.5. Consequently, these items were removed from the model, and the analysis was re-run. The factor loadings of all items were ≥ 0.5, and the significance coefficients of the identified indicators were appropriate and meaningful (greater than 1.96). Therefore, no further items were excluded, and the measurement model of the study was deemed suitable.
All overall indicators of the questionnaire demonstrated sufficient reliability. Furthermore, since the average variance extracted (AVE) for each indicator exceeded the shared variance between that indicator and the others, the discriminant validity of the model was confirmed.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to identify the key factors for evaluating the implementation of urban sustainable development policies within the framework of the Sixth Development Plan.
The key evaluation factors included six main components, policy objectives and standards, policy resources and tools, policy implementers, the implementing organization, uncontrollable (external) factors, and policy implementation outcomes along with 52 indicators that were of particular importance in the evaluation process. Some of these components and indicators were identified and introduced for the first time. The findings of this research were consistent with the components and indicators reported in the studies of Norouzzadeh et al. (2021), Saedi and Dorani (2018), Abbasi et al. (2016), Rangriz et al. (2018), Hosseini et al. (2020), Derakhshan and Pilehvari (2019), Liu and Zhao (2018), Zhang et al. (2022), Salet and Veriez (2019), Giest (2018), Moseley and Thomann (2020), and Tonne et al. (2021).
The barriers and limitations to effective and complete implementation of public policies include the lack of a theoretical foundation, insufficient resources, the role of target groups, inappropriate selection of policy instruments, environmental conditions, inadequate stakeholder participation in policy formulation, conflicts between policies and implementers’ values, reductionist and one-dimensional approaches, reluctance to pilot policies in limited areas, and policy rigidity. In line with these findings, Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989) identified a range of legal and political parameters influencing different stages of the implementation process, classifying them into six general conditions for achieving successful implementation of legal objectives:
- Clear, explicit, and consistent objectives;
- A sound causal theory;
- A legally structured implementation process that increases compliance among implementers and target groups;
- A variety of enforcement mechanisms, including incentives and sanctions, to overcome resistance;
- Adequate skills and commitment of implementers;
- Support from influential groups and executive and legislative leaders throughout the implementation process;
- Adaptation to changes in political and social conditions.
Barriers to policy implementation are identified in the study by Rangriz et al. (2018) including policy formulation, implementers, managerial, structural, financial, informational, and environmental challenges, were consistent with our results. Similarly, Aliabadi et al. (2019) report obstacles such as the absence of a unified authority, lack of legal standardization, excessive and inconsistent laws, inadequate participation of implementers and stakeholders, weak commitment and training of implementers, poor coordination, unsuitable administrative structures, insufficient political will, inadequate monitoring, and lack of enforcement guarantees, all of which resonate with the present study.
Moreover, managers’ values, including benevolence, empathy, commitment to society, sacrifice, raising awareness, service orientation, conscientiousness, respect for clients, flexibility, organizational citizenship, fairness, religious and ethical orientation, professionalism, and legal compliance, have been shown to influence policy implementation (Samadi et al., 2019). Derakhshan and Pilehvari (2019) confirm the impact of regulatory quality, rule of law, accountability, and transparency on implementation, consistent with the current findings. Saedi and Dorani (2018) highlight managerial, human, communicative, environmental, policy-related, and systemic barriers, while Abbasi et al. (2016) identify issues with policymakers, implementers, users, the nature of the policy, implementing organizations, interest groups, and external environments, all of which align with the results of this research.
Memarzade and Taherpour (2005) outline conditions influencing tax policy implementation in Iran, such as transparency of tax laws, organizational leadership, social and political conditions, significance of implementing organizations, commitment of responsible authorities, implementers’ orientation, organizational cooperation, staff motivation, diversity of taxpayers, time constraints, economic conditions, and staff knowledge, again consistent with our findings.
Behavioral and human factors have also been emphasized in policy implementation decisions, which correspond to this study’s identification of implementers’ willingness, autonomy, coalition-building, staff behavior, and skills as crucial for evaluation (Moseley & Thomann, 2020).
The importance of coordination in policy implementation is also reported by Zhang et al. (2022), Salet and Veriez (2019), and Tonne et al. (2021), findings echoed in this research. Similarly, Liu and Zhao (2018) emphasize the roles of political systems, local government decision-making, and central–local coordination, while Phulkerd et al. (2016) point to support, infrastructure, resources, and stakeholder participation as essential. Consistently, the present study highlights the need for harmonization and the application of high-quality instruments and methods in policy implementation.
Nakamura and Smallwood (1980) define three policy environments, formulation, implementation, and evaluation, along with three groups of influential parameters: actors and domains, organizational structures and bureaucratic norms, and communication networks and compliance mechanisms. These are in line with this study’s indicators of creating a supportive organizational culture, managing resistance to policy-related changes, revising rewards and incentives, managing conflicts, and strengthening performance evaluation systems.
Given that qualitative research investigates phenomena within their contexts, the findings of this study are specific to the research setting and cannot be easily generalized to other contexts. The results are grounded in the perspectives and experiences of experts within the Alborz Municipality and may not be directly transferable to other organizations. Future researchers are encouraged to design and develop localized evaluation models tailored to the scope of their organizations and to compare their findings with those of this study. Considering the diversity of missions and goals across different institutions, customized models may be required for effective evaluation of policy implementation.
Conclusion
Policy goals and standards, policy resources and instruments, policy implementers, the implementing organization, uncontrollable (external) factors, and the outcomes of policy implementation hold particular importance in the process of evaluating the implementation of sustainable urban development policies within the framework of the Sixth National Development Plan.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to all those who supported and assisted in the completion of this research.
Ethical Permission: In this study, ethical and legal standards were observed through proper citation of the references used and obtaining the necessary permissions for the distribution of questionnaires.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Authors’ Contributions: Dehbalayi M (First Author): Principal Researcher/Methodologist/Data Analyst (40%); Memarzadeh Tehran G (Second Author): Discussion Writer/Introduction Writer (35%); Daneshfard K (Third Author): Data Analyst/Introduction Writer (25%)
Funding: No funding was received for this study.
References
1. Abbasi A, Motazadiyan R, Miraii M (2016). Investigation the barriers of public policy implementation in governmental organizations. Organizational Resources Management Researches. 6(2):49-69. [Persain] [Link]
2. Aliabadi E, Azizi M, Aalam Tabriz A, Davari A (2019). Identifying the barriers in implementing entrepreneurship and innovation policy in development plans of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Quarterly Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Sciences. 8(3):95-132. [Persain] [Link]
3. Alvani M, Sharifzadeh F (2017). Public policy making process. 14th Edition. Tehran: Allameh Tabataba'i University Press. [Persain] [Link]
4. Calista DJ, Palumbo D (1990). Implementation and the policy process: Opening up the black box (contribution in political science). Westport: Praeger. [Link]
5. Bayati MA, Sayadi S, Givaki E, Salajeghe S, nikpur A (2021). Identifying obstacles to the implementation of public policies in the Central Bank's Deputy Supervisor Group using the meta-combination method. Iranian Joural of Public Administration Mission. 12(3):31-46. [Persian] [Link]
6. Cappa F, Franco S, Rosso F (2022). Citizens and cities: Leveraging citizen science and big data for sustainable urban development. Business Strategy and the Environment. 31(2):648-667. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/bse.2942]
7. Danaiefard H, Shool H, Adel A (2012). Framework plan for the proposal of public policy: Combined research. Majlis & Rahbord. 18(68):7-32. [Persain] [Link]
8. Daneshfard K (2021). Public policy making process. Tehran: Saffar. [Persain] [Link]
9. Derakhshan R, Pilehvari N (2019). Implementation pathology of administrative integrity policies with the good governance approach in Jahad Keshavarzi Organizational. Iranian Journal of Public Administration Mission. 9(32):73-90. [Persain] [Link]
10. Ghanouni H, Hashemi A, Karimi Khozani A (2022). A framework for performance evaluation of the police station transformation plan. Police Management Studies Quarterly. 17(1):135-177. [Persian] [Link]
11. Gharabaghi M, Moghimi SM, Latifi M (2021). A meta-synthesis of public policy implementation studies in Iran. Iranian Journal of Public Policy. 7(3):243-260. [Link]
12. Giest S (2018). Entrepreneurial activities in policy implementation: Sweden's national wind coordinators. Regional Environmental Change. 18:1299-1308. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10113-018-1286-x]
13. Hansson S, Arfvidsson H, Simon D (2019). Governance for sustainable urban development: The double function of SDG indicators. Area Development and Policy. 4(3):217-235. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/23792949.2019.1585192]
14. Hawlett M, Ramesh M, Perl A (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link]
15. Hill M, Hupe P (2002). Implementing public policy: An introduction to the study of operational governance. 4th Edition. California: SAGE Publications Ltd. [Link]
16. Hogwood BW, Gunn L (1985). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link]
17. Hosseini H, Daneshfard K, Memarzadeh Tehran G, Bahmanpour H (2020). Evaluation and fitting of general environment policy making model in Iran. Scientific & Research Journals Management Systems. 22(12):1-15. [Persian] [Link]
18. Liu S, Zhao X (2019). How far is educational equality for China? Analysing the policy implementation of education for migrant children. Educational Research for Policy & Practice. 18:59-74. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10671-018-9226-6]
19. Mazmanian DA, Sabatier PA (1989). Implementation and public policy. Revised Edition. Maryland: University press of America. [Link]
20. Memarzade Tehran G, Taherpour Kalantari H (2005). Effective conditions and factors on tax policies implementation. Journal of Future Studies Management. 17(4):71-80. [Persian] [Link]
21. Meng C, Du X, Ren Y, Shen L, Cheng G, Wang J (2020). Sustainable urban development: An examination of literature evolution on urban carrying capacity in the Chinese context. Journal of Cleaner Production. 277:122802. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122802]
22. Moghadas Poor S, Danaee Fard H, Kordnaeij A (2013). Exploring key factors of some public policies failure in Islamic Republic of Iran: A case study of (national) tax policies. Organizational Culture Management. 11(1):33-68. [Persian] [Link]
23. Mohammadi M, Alvani SM, Memarzadeh Tehran G (2016). The governance model designed to implement human resources policies in the public sectors of Iran; Case Study: Law on civil service management. Public Organizations Management. 4(2):13-30. [Persian] [Link]
24. Moseley A, Thomann E (2020). A behavioural model of heuristics and biases in frontline policy implementation. Policy & Politics. 49(1):49-67. [Link] [DOI:10.1332/030557320X15967973532891]
25. Nakamura RT, Smallwood F (1980). The politics of policy implementation. New York: St.Martin's Press. [Link]
26. Nantavisit N (2021). Causal factors affecting integrated policy implementation of tourism in Thailand [dissertation]. Bangkok: The Graduate School of Tourism Management National Institute of Development Administration. [Link]
27. Norouzzadeh A, Eskandarpour B, Vazifeh Damirchi G (2021). Pathology of public policy making with the approach of the statement of the second step of the revolution and the Islamic-Iranian model of progress. Journal of Islamic Revolution Studies. 67:99-120. [Persian] [Link]
28. Phulkerd S, Lawrence M, Vandevijvere S, Sacks G, Worsley A, Tangcharoensathien V (2016). A review of methods and tools to assess the implementation of government policies to create healthy food environments for preventing obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases. Implementation Science. 11(15):Unknown pages. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s13012-016-0379-5]
29. Rangriz H, Kheirandish M, Latifi Jaliseh S (2018). Exploring of public policies implementation obstacles in governmental organizations using the meta synthesis method. Iranian Journal of Public Policy. 4(1):123-138. [Persian] [Link]
30. Saedi L, Dorani A (2018). Identifying and prioritizing effective obstacles to the implementation of the public policies of the ministry of oil. Iranian Journal of Public Administration Mission. 9(2):79-88. [Persian] [Link]
31. Salet W, De Vries J (2019). Contextualisation of policy and law in sustainable urban development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 62(2):189-204. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/09640568.2017.1418304]
32. Sheikhbagloo Z, Teymournejad K, Abbaszadeh Sohroon Y (2022). Development and validation of a stakeholder participation model in public policy-making in the food and drug administration of the ministry of health. Iranian Journal of Public Administration Mission. 12(4):47-57. [Persian] [Link]
33. Chand B (2011). Public policy: Implementation approach [Internet]. New York: Social Science Research Network [Cited 2023, 24 June]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3972498 [Link] [DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3972498]
34. Tonne C, Adair L, Adlakha D, Anguelovski I, Belesova K, Berger M, et al (2021). Defining pathways to healthy sustainable urban development. Environment International. 146:106236. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.envint.2020.106236]
35. Tziogas C, Papadopoulos A, Georgiadis P (2021). Policy implementation and energy-saving strategies for the residential sector: The case of the Greek Energy Refurbishment program. Energy Policy 149:112100. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112100]
36. Weatherely R, Lipsky M (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review. 47(2):171-197. [Link] [DOI:10.17763/haer.47.2.v870r1v16786270x]
37. Zhang D, Pee LG, Pan SL, Cui L (2022). Big data analytics, resource orchestration, and digital sustainability: A case study of smart city development. Government Information Quarterly. 39(1):101626. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2021.101626]