Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
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
Abstract (1472 Views)
Aims: The multiplicity of management and incoherence of government organizations is one of the most important challenges of metropolitan management in Tehran. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of integrated management of Tehran from the perspective of government institutions.
Methodology: This applied-descriptive research was conducted in 2022 in Tehran. The effective indicators were designed using content analysis. The research tool was a researcher-made questionnaire. The statistical population was the managers and urban planning specialists of Tehran. To determine the criteria width, the AHP method was used to emphasize expert opinions, and the TOPSIS method was used to prioritize indicators.
Findings: The priority was observed in the criterion of "the existence of an extra-organizational center" in the cohesion index. In the management structure index, the priority was observed in the "correlation between organizational managers" and "the existence of a systematic view" and the least importance was observed in "the existence of a common view among the work actions of the custodian organizations". In the good governance index, the priority was observed in the "public participation" and "reporting to the competent institutions" and the least importance was observed in the "knowledge exchange meetings". In the participatory structure index, the highest and lowest priorities are related to the "effective interaction with citizens" and "the existence of information infrastructure", respectively. In the coordination index, the first and last priorities were in the sub-indices of "coordination of organizations in charge of urban affairs” and "coordination of human and financial resources". According to the TOPSIS method, the indicators of cohesion, management structure, governance, organizational structure, and coordination were the priorities for urban management by government organizations.
Conclusion: The results indicate that coherence, management structure, urban governance, coordination, and organizational structure have respectively priority for the realization of integrated urban management concerning government institutions.
Methodology: This applied-descriptive research was conducted in 2022 in Tehran. The effective indicators were designed using content analysis. The research tool was a researcher-made questionnaire. The statistical population was the managers and urban planning specialists of Tehran. To determine the criteria width, the AHP method was used to emphasize expert opinions, and the TOPSIS method was used to prioritize indicators.
Findings: The priority was observed in the criterion of "the existence of an extra-organizational center" in the cohesion index. In the management structure index, the priority was observed in the "correlation between organizational managers" and "the existence of a systematic view" and the least importance was observed in "the existence of a common view among the work actions of the custodian organizations". In the good governance index, the priority was observed in the "public participation" and "reporting to the competent institutions" and the least importance was observed in the "knowledge exchange meetings". In the participatory structure index, the highest and lowest priorities are related to the "effective interaction with citizens" and "the existence of information infrastructure", respectively. In the coordination index, the first and last priorities were in the sub-indices of "coordination of organizations in charge of urban affairs” and "coordination of human and financial resources". According to the TOPSIS method, the indicators of cohesion, management structure, governance, organizational structure, and coordination were the priorities for urban management by government organizations.
Conclusion: The results indicate that coherence, management structure, urban governance, coordination, and organizational structure have respectively priority for the realization of integrated urban management concerning government institutions.
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]