Volume 10, Issue 38 (Spring 2022)
IUESA 2022, 10(38): 143-168 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sasanpour F, Faryabi A, Joshanpur M, Ramezani Y. Analysis of Indicators of Good Urban Governance in Urban Areas (Case study: District 16 of Tehran). IUESA 2022; 10 (38) :143-168
URL: http://iueam.ir/article-1-1871-en.html
URL: http://iueam.ir/article-1-1871-en.html
1- Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran , sasanpour@khu.ac.ir
2- Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
3- Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4- Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
2- Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
3- Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4- Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract: (1024 Views)
In recent decades, reforming the structure of the country's management system and adapting it to new developments in the field of urban management and attention to new approaches to good urban governance according to the physical, social and economic characteristics of Iranian cities have been considered by managers and urban planners. The present study was conducted to measure and rank the six districts of Tehran's 16th district in terms of good urban governance by analytical-descriptive method and using data extracted from field questionnaires in the statistical community of 16th district by random sampling. It then uses the VIKOR model to rank areas and evaluate them using indicators of participation, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, justice-oriented, accountability, efficiency-effectiveness, and consensus-based. Shannon's entropy weighting model showed that the indicators of participation, rule of law and responsibility play the role of the most important indicators of research. The results show that District 3 was recognized as the best district and District 1 as the weakest district in providing indicators of good urban governance. In general, there is not much difference between the different areas of District 16 in terms of indicators of good urban governance and the performance of the whole District 16 in providing indicators of good urban governance is evaluated as weak.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2021/01/2 | Accepted: 2021/07/16 | Published: 2022/05/31 | ePublished: 2022/05/31
Received: 2021/01/2 | Accepted: 2021/07/16 | Published: 2022/05/31 | ePublished: 2022/05/31
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
