Geography and Urban Space Development

The Role of Smart Governance in Promoting Urban Social Resilience (Case Study: Mashhad Metropolis)

Document Type : Scientific-Research

Authors

Jalal Biuki 1
katayoon alizadeh 2
Hamid Jafari 3

1 PhD Candidate, Department of Geography, Ma.C. Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Ma.C. Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Ma.C. Islamic Azad University, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jgusd.2024.87743.1415
Abstract
Abstract
Today, smart approaches in urban planning have put sustainable and effective solutions in front of policy makers and urban planners to face urban challenges and risks. Meanwhile, smart urban governance is an effective and innovative approach to realize smart and participatory urban management to face urban challenges and make cities resilient and increase social resilience as one of the basic foundations of realizing urban resilience. In this regard, the present research with practical goal setting and "descriptive-analytical" method has tried to study the role of smart governance in the realization of social resilience in urban areas 1, 4 and 10 (as representative of inferior, middle and prosperous areas). ‌Shahri) in the city of Mashhad to be analyzed. In this regard, survey method and questionnaire tool were used to collect data. The sample size is 384 residents of sample areas in Mashhad city, who were selected by stratified sampling method with relative allocation. For data analysis, SPSS software and sample T-Tech test and MEREC multi-criteria decision-making model were used, as well as structural equation modeling in the form of PLS software. The obtained results showed that the role of smart governance in realizing social resilience in areas 1, 4 and 10 of Mashhad shows a positive and meaningful relationship. The results of this research can be useful and effective in informing policymakers and urban planners about the priorities of realizing smart urban governance and urban social resilience and the ways to improve and realize them in the city of Mashhad.

Keywords: Smart governance, social resilience, intelligent participation, social development planning, Mashhad city.


Extended abstract
1.Introduction
Today, cities are rapidly adopting smart innovations to meet their needs and achieve sustainable development goals. Smart urban governance, as one of the fundamental indicators of smart cities, is a process that pursues urban management and planning through smart policymaking, smart planning, and smart services for citizens. Smart governance is not limited to modern technologies; it also includes the participation of social groups, administrative health and transparency, social sustainability, and active citizen participation. On the other hand, cities face numerous natural and man-made hazards, making urban resilience, especially social resilience, a basic priority. Social resilience includes components such as adaptability, trust, social capital, social knowledge, social cohesion, and value-based and planning qualities. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of smart governance in promoting social resilience in Mashhad metropolis. This research emphasizes a comparative study of districts 1 (privileged), 4 (underprivileged), and 10 (middle-class) as representatives of different socio-economic classes. The necessity of this research arises from the fact that no in-depth study has simultaneously examined smart governance and social resilience in Mashhad. Most previous studies have separately addressed good governance or resilience, leaving a research gap regarding the interaction between these two concepts. The significance of this research lies in its ability to help policymakers and urban planners reduce citizen vulnerability, increase public participation, and improve quality of life in Mashhad. Given Mashhad's special position as the second largest metropolis in Iran and the existence of socio-spatial inequalities, this research can guide future planning for smartization and social resilience.
2. Method
This research is applied-developmental in nature and descriptive-analytical in methodology. Data were collected through documentary (library) and survey (questionnaire) methods. The statistical population consisted of citizens aged 18 and over living in districts 1, 4, and 10 of Mashhad. The sample size was determined as 384 participants using Cochran’s formula with 95% confidence level and 5% error margin. The sampling method was stratified sampling with proportional allocation based on the population of each district: district 1 (81 participants), district 4 (140 participants), and district 10 (103 participants). The research instruments were two researcher-made questionnaires developed after studying theoretical foundations and literature. The first questionnaire measured smart governance with 28 indicators across four components (smart policymaking, smart structure, smart services, and smart participation). The second questionnaire measured social resilience with 51 indicators across five domains (knowledge and skills, community facilities, perceivable values and norms, planning processes, and others). To ensure validity, face validity was used. The questionnaires were reviewed by 10 urban management experts (5 university professors and 5 managers from Mashhad Municipality), and necessary corrections were applied. KMO and Bartlett tests indicated sampling adequacy. For reliability, a pilot test was conducted on 50 citizens, yielding Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.921 for smart governance and 0.901 for social resilience, indicating good reliability. Data analysis was performed at three levels: first, using SPSS software with one-sample t-test to examine mean scores; second, using PLS software with structural equation modeling to assess the impact of smart governance on social resilience; and finally, using the MEREC model to prioritize indicators for both variables.

3. Results
The one-sample t-test results showed that the mean scores of all smart governance and social resilience indicators in all three districts were significantly lower than the average (3) (p-value < 0.05). Among smart governance components, ‘smart policymaking’ had the highest priority for realization, while in social resilience, ‘planning processes (design and development)’ ranked first. Structural equation modeling results indicated that smart governance has a positive and significant effect on promoting social resilience (R²=0.622, Q²=0.648). Among smart governance components, smart policymaking had the strongest impact (path coefficient = 0.259). Additionally, the MEREC model showed that planning processes (weight 0.328) in social resilience and smart policymaking (weight 0.467) in smart governance are the top priorities for planning.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
The findings confirm that smart governance can act as a positive intervening force to enhance social resilience in Mashhad. This result aligns with studies by Okada (2018) and Lopez & Castro (2020), which emphasize the role of smart technologies and participatory management in increasing community adaptive capacity. The high priority of "smart policymaking" indicates that citizens value transparency, use of modern technologies, and support for elites in decision-making processes. The priority of ‘planning processes’ in social resilience reflects the need for participatory planning, transparent communication channels, and constructive interaction between social groups and responsible institutions. In conclusion, smart governance is not only a modern urban management approach but also an effective tool for reducing vulnerability, increasing public participation, and improving quality of life in Mashhad. Recommendations include strengthening smart participation infrastructure in underprivileged areas (district 4), developing smart urban services in affluent areas (district 1), and expanding smart urban spaces in middle-class areas (district 10).

Keywords

Smart Governance
Social Resilience
Smart Participation
Social Development Planning
Mashhad Metropolis
Subjects
1.      تقی‌پور، ع.ا.، و شمس پویا، م. ک. (1403). تحلیلی بر وضعیت حکمروایی شایسته در نقاط شهری استان سمنان. جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری، 12(3)، 138-119.
2.      توانایی مروی، ل.، بهزادفر، م.، مفیدی شمیرانی، س. م. (1401). واکاوی چالش‌های پیش روی تحقق‌پذیری شهر هوشمند مطالعه موردی: شهر مشهد. مجله شهر پایدار، 5(1) 45-58.
3.      حاتمی­نژاد، ح.، فرهادی خواه ح.، آروین، م. و رحیم‌پور، ن. (۱۳۹۶). بررسی ابعاد مؤثر بر تاب­آوری شهری با استفاده از مدل ساختاری تفسیری (نمونه موردی: شهر اهواز). فصلنامه دانش پیشگیری و مدیریت بحران. 7(1)، 45-35.
4.      حسینی، س.ا.، لعلی نیت، ا.، و حیدری نیا، س. (1398). تبیین الگوی مدیریت هوشمند شهری. راهکاری نوین برای بهبود حکمرانی شهری. فصلنامه پژوهش­های جغرافیای برنامه­ریزی شهری. 4، 743-762
5.      حیدری، م.ت.، رسول­زاده، ز.، حسنعلی­زاده، م.، و نصرتی­هشی، م. (۱۴۰۰). تبیین اثرات حکمروایی مطلوب شهری بر تاب­آوری اجتماعی شهروندان در برابر اپیدمی کووید-۱۹ (مطالعه موردی: شهر تبریز). فصلنامه شهر پایدار، ۴(۴)، ۱۷-۳۳.
6.      دیوان‌بیگی، ک.، و حجازی، س. ح. (1397). تأثیر حکمروایی شهری بر تاب­آوری اجتماعی. تهران: چهارمین همایش ملی معماری و شهر پایدار.
7.      راه نجات، م.، هاشمی، س.ع.، شریف‌زاده، ف.، و سعدی، م.ر. (۱۳۹۹). نسبت‌سنجی حکمروایی خوب و شهر هوشمند (مطالعه موردی: تهران). فصلنامه راهبرد اجتماعی فرهنگی، ۳۴، ۶۷ -۹۰
8.      روستایی، ش.، نعیمی مطلق، ش.، و درویشی، ف. (1397). ارزیابی رابطه رضایت شهروندی و الگوی عملکرد مدیریت محلی مبتنی بر شاخص­های حکمروایی مطلوب شهری؛ مطالعه­موردی مناطق 2، 5 و 6 شهر تبریز. جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری، 5(2)، 127-144.
9.      روشنایی، ح.، احمدیان، م. ع.، و خوارزمی، ا.ع. (1403). تحلیل مقایسه­ای وضع موجود و مطلوب شاخص­های حکمروایی خوب شهری در شهر جدید گلبهار از دیدگاه شهروندان و مدیران. جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری، 11(1)، 1-17.
10.  فیروزی، م.ع.، و علیزاده، ه. (1396). تحلیل و پیش‌بینی تحقق رویکرد حکمروایی شهری در مدیریت شهری اهواز. فضای جغرافیایی، 17(58)، 265-284.‎
11.  ملکی، س.، آروین، م.، و بذرافکن، ش. (1397). بررسی نقش الگوی حکمروایی خوب­شهری در تحقق شهر تاب‌آور (مطالعه­موردی: شهر اهواز). دانش شهرسازی، 2(4)، 1-18.
12.  مرادپور، ن.،پوراحمد، ا.، حاتمی‌نژاد، ح.، و زیاری، ک.ا. (1403). تحلیل وضعیت تاب‌آوری شهر تهران با رویکرد مرور سیستماتیک. جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری, 11(1)، 134-111.
 
13.   Alizadeh, H., & Sharifi, A. (2020). Assessing resilience of urban critical infrastructure networks: A case study of Ahvaz, Iran. Sustainability, 12(9), 3691
14.   Alizadeh, H., & Sharifi, A. (2022). Social Resilience Promotion Factors during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights from Urmia, Iran. Urban Science, 6(1), 14.
15.   Chelleri, L., Baravikova, A. (2021). Understanding of urban resilience meanings and principles across Europe. Cities, 108, 102985
16.   De Guimarães, J. C. F., Severo, E. A., Júnior, L. A. F., Da Costa, W. P. L. B., & Salmoria, F. T. (2020). Governance and quality of life in smart cities: Towards sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 119926.
17.   Guimarães, J., Severo, E., Salmoria, F. (2020). Governance and quality of life in smart cities: Towards sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 20, 119926.
18.   Harris, S., Weinzettel, J., Bigano, A., & Källmén, A. (2020). Low carbon cities in 2050? GHG emissions of European cities using production-based and consumption-based emission accounting methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119206.
19.   Jiang, H. (2020). Smart urban governance in the ‘smart’ era: Why is it urgently needed? Cities, 103004.
20.   Jiang, H., Geertman, S., & Witte, P. (2021). Smart urban governance: an alternative to technocratic “smartness”. GeoJournal, 1-17.
21.   Kwok, A. H., Doyle, E. E., Becker, J., Johnston, D., & Paton, D. (2016). What is ‘social resilience’? Perspectives of disaster researchers, emergency management practitioners, and policymakers in New Zealand. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 19, 197-211.
22.   Maclean, K., Cuthill, M., & Ross, H. (2014). Six attributes of social resilience. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(1), 144-156.
23.   Ribeiro, P., Gonçalves, L. (2019). Urban resilience: A conceptual framework, Sustainable Cities and Society. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101625
24.   Saja, A. A., Goonetilleke, A., Teo, M., & Ziyath, A. M. (2019). A critical review of social resilience assessment frameworks in disaster management. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 35, 101096.
25.   Sharifi, A. (2020). A global dataset on tools, frameworks, and indicator sets for smart city assessment. Data in Brief, 29, 105364
26.   Sharifi, A. (2020). A typology of smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101936.
27.   UN/ISDR (2004) http://www.unisdr.org/eng/terminology/terminology-2004-eng.htm
28.   UNDP. (2004). A User’s Guide. 2013-10-23 [2016-07-15]. http://www. undp. org/oslocentre/docs07/undp_users_guide_ online_version. pdf.
29.   Wilhelm, R., Ruhlandt, S. (2018). The governance of smart cities: A systematic literature revie. Cities, 81, 1-23
 
 
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.

  • Receive Date 07 July 2024
  • Revise Date 27 November 2024
  • Accept Date 31 December 2024

Home

Submit Manuscript

Contact Us

Cooperation with the association