Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

Tabriz University

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

In the 1950s, 28% of the entire world population lived in cities, while more than 50% are urban citizens now; however, evidence still points to the growing urbanization process all around the globe. Based on predictions, more than 66% of the world population will be living in cities by 2020 (Morgan, 2003). This rapid, irregular growth of cities and urban population of the world not only have changed the meaning of the urban identity and its expected functions, particularly in metropolitan areas (James, 1991), but also have transformed urban management into one of the most complicated and essential platforms for relationships between the government and the public.
Since the second half of the 20th century following the World War II, experts in urban affairs were forced into a tangible shift towards democratic urban systems and city governance approaches from micro to macro levels as a result of fundamental changes in economic, social and political status of the world along with theoretical studies and applied research on the areas of urban planning and administration (Lerner, 2008). In other words, capacity building and empowered urban administration are emphasized by approaches and methods in line with mitigating urbanization unsustainability (Taqwayi & Taajdar, 2009).
The experiences of other countries as well as many experiences gained by municipalities across Iran show that the top-down approach in the form of different plans cannot succeed in resolving urban issues (Nasiri, 2015). Subsequently, the subject of urban governance (good urban governance) was posed as a supervision over a particular type of relation between the government and the civil society, emphasizing the assignment of a portion of urban affairs administration to the citizens. This would be followed by a suitable urban administration structure so that good governance can be realized. In Iran, this structure is based on electing members of the city council by the people, while the council elects the mayor for municipality administration in line with providing the intended urban governance (Ebrahimzadeh & Assadian, 2013). To this end, the present study was conducted to evaluate the extent to which urban governance is realized in Tabriz as well as its effect on citizen satisfaction of the municipality as one of the administrative structures in which urban governance is observed.

Literature Review

The concept of governance is not a new concept and dates back to human civilization. Good governance emphasizes how to achieve a government that can foster democratic and equitable development. The most important indicators of good governance include participation, transparency, legality, accountability, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, expertise and supervision. Good governance is the result of good planning, beneficial investment in resource management, efficient participation and rational decision making. Among the research that has been done is Kennedy Stuart's essay Designing Indicators of Good Urban Governance: The Importance of Citizen Participation and Evaluation in Greater Vancouver.

Method

The present inquiry is a survey study conducted using questionnaires. The total population of the study included the clients who referred to the municipality offices in three zones throughout Tabriz (zones 2, 5, and 6), out of whom 300 were selected randomly. Questionnaires were distributed among the sample population. The reliability of the questionnaire was obtained at a confidence level of 86% using Cronbach’s alpha in the SPSS software. 
In this investigation, the collected data were analyzed and the hypotheses were tested using descriptive-inferential statistic methods, including one-sample T test, correlation and multi-variable regression using the SPSS software.
This study seeks to provide answers to the following research questions:

What is the level of citizen satisfaction with respect to the local administration pattern according to urban governance indices?
Is there a significant relationship between citizens’ satisfaction of municipality performance and efficiency of urban governance?
What is the priority regarding the effectiveness of urban governance indices in shaping a local administration pattern?
Results and Discussion

The results of t-test show that the citizen satisfaction of municipality performance in relation with the efficiency of governance indices is at a level below average with a value of below 3. The results of correlation test show a positive and significant relationship between the variable of citizen satisfaction of the local administration performance based on governance indices. This suggests that there would be a higher citizen satisfaction in case of a better performance by the municipality and an improved governance index. Finally, six indices including notification and familiarity with rights, order and legitimacy, citizens’ trust, managers’ extent of responsiveness, reverence and respect, and specialization all have considerable effects on the citizen satisfaction of municipality performance. The notification and familiarity with rights index has the highest effect (with a value of 0.224).

Conclusion

The present study was an attempt to identify the criteria and factors in shaping a suitable local administration pattern based on good urban governance and also employ them to enhance and improve citizen satisfaction of this administrative entity. The following is a conclusion of the results presented in brief:

The results show that the performance of municipalities in relation with realizing good urban governance followed by citizen satisfaction was below average.
The results also demonstrate a significant, direct relationship between citizen satisfaction and the effectiveness of governance indices in shaping a suitable local management pattern.
Ultimately, the results denote the effect of the entire investigated indices on the extent of citizen satisfaction of municipality performance. The notification and familiarity with rights index has the highest effect.

As a result, the following recommendations are listed in line with improving the effectiveness and efficiency of urban governance indices so as to enhance the citizen satisfaction of Tabriz municipality performance:

Presenting a clear definition of the responsibilities of municipality staff toward clients.
Bilateral culturalization (staff and clients) in the area of building trust between the two parties.

Keywords

1. ابراهیم زاده، ع.، و اسدیان، م. (1392). تحلیل و ارزیابی میزان تحقق پذیری حکمروایی خوب شهری در ایران (مطالعه موردی: کاشمر). مجله جغرافیا و آمایش شهری- منطقه ای، 3 (6)، 17-30.
2. آخوندی و دیگران. (1387). آسیب شناسی مدل اداره امور شهر در ایران. پژوهش های جغرافیایی، بی‌نا (63)، 135-156.
3. برک پور، ن. (1385). حکمروایی شهری و نظام اداره شهرها در ایران. مشهد: اولین کنفرانس برنامه ریزی و مدیریت شهری.
4. بوجانی، م. ح. (1386). لزوم بازبینی محتوایی مدیریت کلانشهری، روزنامـه اعتمـاد، 1.
5. پور محمدی، م.، حسین زاده دلیر، ک.، و پیری، ع. (1390). حکمروایی مطلوب شهری بر بنیان سرمایه اجتماعی: آزمون نظم نهادی- فضایی ارتباطی و فاعلیت مدی غیر اقتصادی( مطالعه موردی: کلان شهر تبریز)، مطالعات مناطق خشک، 1(1)، 36-48.
6. تقوایی، ا.، و تاجدار، ر. (1388). درآمدی بر حکمروایی خوب شهری در رویکردی تحلیلی. فصلنامه مدیریت شهری، 7(23)، 45-58.
7. توکلی، ه.، و مومنی، م. (1395).بررسی میزان تحقق پذیری شاخصهای حکمروایی خوب شهری با تاکید بر کیفیت زندگی شهری )مطالعه موردی مناطق 1 ،7و22شهر تهران(. قصلنامه مطالعات مدیریت شهری . 8(26)، 1-18.
8. حکمت نیا، ح.، ملکی، م.، موسوی، م. ن.، و افشانی، ع. ر.(1396). سنجش میزان تحقق پذیری حکمروایی خوب شهری در ایران (مطالعه موردی: شهر ایلام). پژوهش های جغرافیای انسانی، 49(3)، 607-619.
9. حکمت نیا، م. و موسوی، م.ن. (1386). میزان و عوامل موثر بر رضایتمندی شهروندان از عملکرد شهرداری (مطالعه موردی:یزد). مجله جغرافیا و توسعه، 5(9)، 181-196.
10. خلیلی، ا،. خ، ا.،حسینی، ف. (1392). سنجش حکمروایی خوب شهری در بافت فرسوده و ارائه راهکارهای عملیاتی به منظور بهبود آن(نمونه موردی: محله پامنار تهران). قزوین: اولین همایش ملی شهرسازی و معماری در گذر زمان، دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی.
11. رهنما، م.ر.، مافی، ع.، و اسدی، ر.ا. (1389). تحلیل جایگاه حکمروایی خوب شهری در مشهد با الگوی SWOT . مجله جغرافیاوتوسعه ناحیه ای، 8 (15)، 224-198.
12. زندیه، ا. (1395). بررسی عملکرد شهرداری‌ها در چارچوب رویکرد حکمروایی خوب شهری (نمونه موردی شهر ملایر). فصلنامه آمایش محیط،10(39)، 59-76
13. زیاری، ک.ا.، پور احمد، ا.، حاتمی نژاد، ح.، و باستین، ع.(139). سنجش و ارزیابی اثرات حکمروایی خوب شهری بر زیست پذیری شهرها (مطالعه موردی: شهر بوشهر). نشریه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهری، 9(34)، 1-18.
14. زیبایی، ن. (1387). حکمروایی شهری زمینه ساز پایداری شهری.مدیریت شهری. بازیابی در دی ماه 1387، از http:// city managrer. Blogfa.com.
15. شماعی، ع.، و میرزازاده، ح. (1397). تحلیل فضایی تاب آوری مناطق شهر تبریز در برابر زلزله. مجله مخاطرات محیط طبیعی، 8 (20)، 245-266.
16. طهاری، ک.، برک پور، ن.، کاظمیان، غ. ر.، و مهدیزاده، ج. (1386). حکمروایی شهری مبانی و ضرورت شکل گیری آن در ایران(گفتگو). جستارهای شهرسازی، 6(19 و20)،8-17.
17. عربشاهی، ز. (1383). قانون برنامه چهارم زیر ذره بین حکمروایی خوب شهری. ماهنامه پژوهشی- آموزشی، (69)، 11-15.
18. کریمی، آ.،مرادی، ث.ا.،تابعی، ن. (1396). توسعه پایدار محله ای در چارچوب حکمروایی خوب شهری( مطالعه موردی: محلات منطقه شش شهرداری تهران). فصلنامه جغرافیا و مطالعات محیطی ، 6(22)، 21-36.
19. محمدی، ج.،کمالی باغراهی، ا. (1395). تحلیل شاخص های حکمروایی خوب شهری در راستای توسعه شهری (مورد شناسی: محدوده بافت فرسوده شهر کرمان). فصلنامه جغرافیا و آمایش شهری- منطقه ای،6 (21)، 153-170.
20. ملکی، م.(1395). بررسی عملکرد شهرداری در چهارچوب حکمروایی خوب و شایسته شهری(مطالعه موردی: نواحی شهر ایلام). فصلنامه علمی- ترویجی فرهنگ ایلام. 17(52)، 63-80.
21. نصیری، ا. (1394). ارزیابی عملکرد مدیریت ناحیه محوری بر کارامدی حکمروایی مطلوب شهری(مطالعه موردی: منطقه 4 تهران). مجله پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهری، 6(21)، 139-156.
22. نقش محیط، مهندسین مشاور شهرسازی و معماری. (1390). مطالعات طرح جامع شهر تبریز.
23. نوبری، ن.، ورحیمی، م. (1389).حکمرانی خوب شهری(یک ضرورت تردیدناپذیر، مرکز مطالعات و برنامه ریزی شهر تهـران، نشریه دانـش شـهر، (11).
24. Atkinson, R. (1998). The new urban governance and urban regeneration: Managing community participation. Retrieved from http://Findariticles.com.
25. Bahreni, M. H., & Hosseinzadeh, K. (2004). The effective factor in investment security in Iran. Jostarhaie Eghtesadi (Economic Quests). Biannual Journal of Hozeh & University Research Center, 1(2), 109-156.
26. Bontenball, M. C. (2009). Strengthening urban governance in the South through city-to-city cooperation: Towards an analytical framework. Habitat International, 2(33), 181-189.
27. Bulkery, H. (2005). Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography, 24(8), 875-902.
28. Dekker, K., & Kempen, R. (2000). Urban governance within the big cities policy. Journal of cities, 21(1), 55-64.
29. Devaney, L. (2016). Good governance? Perceptions of accountability, transparency and effectiveness in Irish food risk governance. Food Policy, 62, 1-10.
30. Gjerde, M., & de Sylva, S. (2018). Governance and recovery: comparing recent disaster recoveries in Sri Lanka and New Zealand. Procedia engineering, 212, 527-534.
31. Gore, T., & Wells, P. (2009). Governance and evaluation: The case of EU regional policy horizontal priorities. Evaluation and Program, 32(2), 158-167.
32. Haus, M., & Klausen, J. E. (2004, July). Urban leadership and community involvement ingredients for good governance? Paper presented at City Futures Conference, Chicago.
33. James, M. B. (1991). Managing the modern city. Chicago: Centre for Governmental Stickles.
34. John, P. (2001). Local governance in Western Europe. London: Sage Publications.
35. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzil, M. (2007). The worldwide governance indicators project: Answering the critics. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
36. Kauko, T. (2012). An institutional analysis of property development, good governance and urban sustainability. European Planning Studies, 20(12), 2053-2071.
37. Lerner, D. (2008). The Passing of traditional society modernizing the Middle East. New York: Free Press.
38. Marrising, E. V., Bolt, G., & Kempen, R. V. (2006). Urban governance and social cohesion: Effects of urban restructuring policies in two Dutch cities. Cities, 23(4), 279-290.
39. Mccall, M. K. (2003). Seeking good governance in participatory GIS: A review of processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat International, 27(4), 549-573.
40. McCarney, P., Halfani, M., & Rodriguez, A. (1995). Towards an understanding of governance: the emergence of an idea and its implications for urban research in developing countries. Urban research in the developing world, 4, 91-141.
41. McCarney, P., Halfani, M., & Rodriguez, A. (1995). Towards an understanding of governance: the emergence of an idea and its implications for urban research in developing countries. Urban Research in the Developing World, 4, 91-141.
42. Morgan, T. M. (2003). Environmental health. Canada: Wadsworth.
43. Plumptre, T., & Graham, J. (1999). Governance and good governance. Institute on Governance: Ontario, Canada.
44. Sadashiva, M. (2008). Effects of civil society on urban planning and governance in Meysore, India (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Technical University of Dortmund, Germany.
45. Shylendra, H. S. & Kishore, B. (2005). Good governance and poverty alleviation programs: A critical analysis of Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (sgsy). Journal of Rural Management, 1(2), 203-221.
46. Srinivas, H. (1996). Governance: A working definition. Retrieved from http:// soc. Titech. ac.jp.
47. Stewart, K. (2006). Designing good urban governance indicators: The importance of citizen participation and its evaluation in Greater Vancouver. Cities, 23(3), 196-204.
48. Unchs. (2000). Norms for good urban governance. Retrieved from http://UNCHS.org.
CAPTCHA Image