بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر ارتقاء زیست پذیری با رویکرد حکمروایی شهری مطالعه موردی: شهر بوشهر

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

گروه جغرافیای انسانی و برنامه‌ریزی، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

افت کیفیت زندگی شهری در اثر بروز مشکلات پیچیده در ابعاد اقتصادی، اجتماعی و زیست‌محیطی از جمله افزایش روزافزون بیکاری، فقر و نابرابری، کیفیت و کمیت نامطلوب خدمات، کمبود زیرساخت‌های مناسب شهری، افزایش آلودگی‌های زیست‌محیطی، توسعه بافت‌های فرسوده و ناکارآمد، حاشیه‌نشینی و گسترش آسیب‌های اجتماعی، و ناتوانی نظام سنتی و تمرکزگرای مدیریت شهری، اهمیت بهره‌گیری از الگوی حکمروایی خوب شهری با هدف ارتقاء زیست‌پذیری را ضروری ساخته است. هدف این پژوهش، ارزیابی عوامل مؤثر الگوی حکمروایی خوب شهری بر زیست‌پذیری شهر بوشهر است. این پژوهش از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نظر روش توصیفی–پیمایشی است. ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها شامل پرسش‌نامه‌ای ۴۰ سؤالی بود که با استفاده از مطالعات کتابخانه‌ای و تحقیقات گذشته تدوین شد و شاخص‌های حکمروایی خوب شهری شامل مشارکت، عدالت، توافق و اجماع محوری، کارایی و اثربخشی، قانونمندی، شفافیت، مسئولیت‌پذیری و پاسخگویی را ارزیابی می‌کرد. جامعه آماری پژوهش شامل اساتید دانشگاهی، مدیران و کارشناسان آشنا به موضوع تحقیق در شهر بوشهر بود که با نمونه‌گیری هدفمند، ۴۰ نفر به‌عنوان نمونه انتخاب شدند. اطلاعات جمع‌آوری‌شده با استفاده از نرم‌افزارهای SPSS21 و Lisrel تجزیه‌وتحلیل شد. نتایج نشان داد که شاخص‌های شفافیت (۰.۹)، مسئولیت‌پذیری (۰.۸۹) و عدالت (۰.۸۲) بیشترین تأثیر را بر ارتقاء زیست‌پذیری شهر بوشهر دارند. دستیابی به شهری با قابلیت زندگی بالا مستلزم مشارکت فعال شهروندان، تمرکززدایی مسئولیت‌ها و تفویض اختیارات، و ارتقای نقش نهادهای مدنی، بخش خصوصی و مردم محلی است. مدیریت شهری بوشهر باید با برنامه‌ریزی‌های عملی زمینه مداخله و مشارکت بیشتر شهروندان در سیاست‌گذاری، تصمیم‌سازی، نظارت و اجرا را فراهم سازد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Urban Livability Enhancement through a Good Urban Governance Approach: Evidence from Bushehr City

نویسندگان [English]

  • Keramatolah Zayyari
  • Ahmad Pourahmad
  • Hosein Hataminejad
  • Ali Bastin
Department of Human Geography and Planning, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

ABSTRACT
Rapid urbanization and the emergence of complex economic, social, and environmental challenges—such as rising unemployment, poverty and inequality, inadequate urban services, insufficient infrastructure, environmental degradation, the expansion of deteriorated urban fabrics, social marginalization, and the inefficiency of centralized urban management systems—have significantly undermined urban quality of life. In this context, the adoption of good urban governance has become essential for improving urban livability. This study aimed to examine the influence of good urban governance indicators on urban livability in Bushehr City, Iran. The research was applied in purpose and employed a descriptive–survey methodology. Data were collected using a 40-item questionnaire developed based on a review of the literature and previous empirical studies. The questionnaire evaluated key dimensions of good urban governance, including participation, equity, consensus orientation, efficiency and effectiveness, rule of law, transparency, responsibility, and accountability. The statistical population consisted of university academics, urban managers, and experts familiar with urban planning issues in Bushehr, from whom 40 respondents were selected through purposive sampling. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS 21 and LISREL software. The results indicated that transparency (0.90), responsibility (0.89), and equity (0.82) had the strongest effects on enhancing urban livability in Bushehr. The findings suggest that achieving a more livable city requires active citizen participation, decentralization of authority and responsibilities, and strengthening the role of civil society institutions, the private sector, and local communities. Accordingly, urban management in Bushehr should adopt inclusive and operational planning strategies to expand citizen involvement in policymaking, decision-making, monitoring, and implementation processes.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
In response to the escalation of these challenges, the concept of improving quality of life—closely associated with urban livability—has gained increasing attention in urban studies literature over recent decades, alongside the paradigms of sustainable development and sustainable urban development. In its broad and fundamental sense, livability refers to the achievement of a high quality of life and can be understood as the capacity of a place to provide favorable living conditions through effective urban planning and sustainable spatial development. Extensive discussions surrounding the concept of livability address issues such as sustainability, transportation, vibrant environments, and various social dimensions, indicating that achieving urban livability—often equated with a successful city—depends on environmental vitality, ecological sustainability, and the effective resolution of social, economic, environmental, and cultural challenges. Bushehr City, the capital of Bushehr Province, similar to many other cities in Iran, faces numerous challenges that have complicated effective urban management. Rising unemployment, poverty and inequality, inadequate quality and quantity of urban services, insufficient infrastructure, increasing environmental pollution, the expansion of deteriorated and inefficient urban fabrics, informal settlements, and the proliferation of social problems have collectively contributed to a significant decline in urban livability. Addressing these challenges and improving quality of life and urban livability are unlikely to be achieved under traditional and centralized urban management models without appropriate planning frameworks, strengthened urban governance, and enhanced citizen participation.
One of the contemporary approaches to urban management is the model of good urban governance, which has been promoted by the United Nations as a means of enhancing sustainability and reducing poverty in developing countries. Accordingly, the primary objective of this study is to examine the factors of good urban governance that influence the enhancement of urban livability in Bushehr City, with particular emphasis on identifying the governance indicators that exert the greatest impact on improving urban livability
 
Methodology
This study was applied in purpose and employed a descriptive–survey research design. The research indicators were developed based on an extensive review of the relevant literature and previous empirical studies. Eight key dimensions of good urban governance were examined, including participation, equity, consensus orientation and community-centeredness, efficiency and effectiveness, rule of law, transparency, responsibility, and accountability. These dimensions were measured using a 40-item questionnaire. The study sample consisted of 40 respondents, including university faculty members, urban managers, and experts familiar with the research subject in Bushehr City. The participants were selected using purposive sampling. Data were collected using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “very low” to “very high,” with scores assigned from 1 to 5, respectively. Data analysis was conducted using structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which is a subset of SEM. The analyses were performed using LISREL software to examine the relationships between good urban governance indicators and urban livability and to assess the validity of the measurement model
 
Results and discussion
The data analysis reveals that transparency, with a standardized coefficient of 0.90, exerts the strongest influence on urban livability in Bushehr City. This finding highlights the critical role of transparent urban governance in building public trust, ensuring clear and continuous information dissemination, and facilitating open access to information. Transparency enhances citizens’ confidence in urban management institutions and strengthens active public participation in decision-making processes as well as oversight of policy implementation. Responsibility, with a standardized coefficient of 0.89, ranks as the second most influential indicator, underscoring the importance of institutional and managerial commitment to assigned duties and responsiveness to citizens’ needs. Responsible urban governance promotes accountability, improves the quality of public services, and contributes to more effective and citizen-oriented urban management. Equity, with a standardized coefficient of 0.82, also demonstrates a significant effect on urban livability. This indicator emphasizes the provision of equal opportunities, gender equity, fair access to urban services, and the balanced distribution of land uses. The strong influence of equity reflects its direct contribution to enhancing citizen satisfaction and overall quality of life, particularly in cities facing socio-economic disparities.
Other governance indicators—including accountability (0.69), efficiency and effectiveness (0.67), participation (0.63), rule of law (0.60), and consensus orientation (0.58)—play complementary roles in promoting urban livability. Although their individual effects are relatively lower, their collective influence indicates that sustainable urban development requires a balanced integration of transparency, equity, efficiency, and active citizen participation. These findings suggest that urban livability cannot be achieved through isolated governance mechanisms but rather through a holistic and coordinated governance framework that aligns institutional performance with community engagement and social justice principles.
 
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to examine the role of good urban governance indicators in enhancing the livability of Bushehr City. Given the multiple economic, social, environmental, and institutional challenges facing contemporary cities—including poverty, unemployment, inefficiencies in urban services, the expansion of deteriorated urban fabrics, and the proliferation of social problems—the adoption of a good urban governance framework emerges as a comprehensive and effective approach for improving quality of life and strengthening urban management capacity. The findings indicate that transparency, responsibility, and equity exert the strongest influence on urban livability, while other indicators—such as accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, participation, rule of law, and consensus orientation—play complementary roles. Transparency enhances public trust by ensuring continuous information flow and open access to data, thereby fostering active citizen participation in decision-making processes and oversight of urban policies and programs. Responsibility among urban institutions and managers serves as a cornerstone for accountability and the improvement of service quality. Furthermore, urban equity contributes to improved quality of life by promoting equal opportunities, fair distribution of resources, and equitable access to urban services and facilities. Overall, the results underscore that improving urban livability in Bushehr requires a shift away from traditional, centralized management approaches toward inclusive, transparent, and participatory governance structures. Strengthening good urban governance principles can facilitate more effective policymaking, enhance institutional performance, and ultimately contribute to the creation of a more livable and sustainable urban environment.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors' Contribution
The authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved the content of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • governance
  • livability
  • quality of life
  • urban management
  • Bushehr
  1. ابراهیمی، جمشید و چاره‌جو، فرزین. (1402). بررسی نقش حکمروایی خوب در بازآفرینی بافت‌های فرسوده شهری (مطالعه موردی: شهر کامیاران). پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، 55(4)، 113-137. https://doi.org/10.22059/jhgr.2022.335894.1008427
  2. ارغان، عباس؛ آسادات‌همایونی، پانته‌آ و ولوجردی، نگار. (1395). تبیین نقش حکمروایی خوب شهری در مدیریت مطلوب زمین. چهارمین کنفرانس ملی پژوهش‌های کاربردی در مهندسی عمران، معماری و مدیریت شهری، 1-17.
  3. اسفیدانی، محمدرحیم و محسنین، شهریار. (1392). مدل‌سازی معادلات ساختاری (آموزشی و کاربردی) به کمک نرم‌افزار لیزرل. تهران: انتشارات مهربان نشر.
  4. اطهاری، کمال؛ برک‌پور، ناصر؛ کاظمیان، غلامرضا و مهدی‌زاده، جواد. (1386). حکمروایی شهری: مبانی نظری و ضرورت شکل‌گیری آن در ایران. فصلنامه جستارهای شهرسازی، 6(19-20)، 8-17.
  5. ایوانس، باب؛ جوز، مارکو؛ ساندبک، سوزان و تئوبالد، کیت. (1390). اداره شهرهای پایدار. (غلامرضا کاظمیان و خدر فرجی‌راد، مترجمان). تهران: انتشارات پرهام نقش.
  6. برآبادی، محمود. (1383). حکمروایی خوب شهری. ماهنامه شهرداری‌ها، 6(69)، 23-28.
  7. برآبادی، محمود. (1384). الفبای شهر. تهران: انتشارات سازمان شهرداری‌ها و دهیاری‌های کشور.
  8. برک‌پور، ناصر. (1385). حکمروایی شهری و نظام اداره شهرها در ایران. همایش برنامه‌ریزی و مدیریت شهری.
  9. برک‌پور، ناصر و اسدی، ایرج. (1390). مدیریت و حکمروایی شهری. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه هنر.
  10. تقوایی، علی‌اکبر و تاجدار، رسول. (1388). درآمدی بر حکمروایی خوب شهری: یک رویکرد تحلیلی. فصلنامه مدیریت شهری، 23، 1-15.
  11. جعفری‌اسدآبادی، حمزه. (1393). قابلیت زیست‌پذیری شهرها در راستای توسعه پایدار شهری (مطالعه موردی: کلان‌شهر تهران). پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه خوارزمی تهران.
  12. حاتمی‌نژاد، حسین؛ بذرافکن، شهرام و آروین، محمود. (1396). تحلیل نقش الگوی حکمروایی خوب شهری در کاهش آسیب‌پذیری مسکن شهری در برابر زلزله. مطالعات برنامه‌ریزی سکونتگاه‌های انسانی، 3(40)، 599-617.
  13. حاتمی‌نژاد، حسین؛ شریف‌زاده، ابراهیم؛ و شیخی، عبدالله. (1394). ارزیابی حکمروایی خوب در پایداری محله‌های شهری پیرانشهر.  مجله شهر پایدار، 2(2)، 105-126. https://doi.org/10.22034/jsc.2018.89876
  14. حبیبی، داوود. (1392). بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر افول سرزندگی و زیست‌پذیری در بافت‌های تاریخی و فرسوده (مطالعه موردی: محله سنگ سیاه شیراز). مطالعات شهر ایرانی-اسلامی، 14، 67-82.
  15. خراسانی، محمدامین. (1391). تبیین زیست‌پذیری روستاهای پیرامون شهری با رویکرد کیفیت زندگی (مطالعه موردی: شهرستان ورامین). رساله دکتری، دانشگاه تهران.
  16. شماعی، علی؛ ولی‌زاده، الهام و صادقی، سمیه. (1395). نقش حکمروایی خوب شهری بر درآمدهای پایدار شهرداری‌ها (مطالعه موردی: منطقه 19 شهرداری تهران). اولین کنفرانس ملی علوم جغرافیا، 1-19.
  17. شهیدی، محمدحسین. (1386). شهرسازی، حمل‌ونقل و حکمروایی شهری. جستارهای شهرسازی، 19-20، 52-59.
  18. عربشاهی، زهرا. (1383). برنامه قانون چهارم زیر ذره‌بین: حکمروایی خوب شهری. فصلنامه شهرداری‌ها، 69، 15-17.
  19. علیزاده، کتایون و روشنایی، حامد. (1396). نقش حکمروایی خوب در برندسازی شهری (مطالعه موردی: شاندیز). جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری، 4(1)، 115-137. https://doi.org/10.22067/gusd.v4i1.59974
  20. فرزین‌پاک، شهرزاد. (1383). آموختنی‌های شهر: حکمروایی خوب چیست؟. ماهنامه شهرداری‌ها، 69، 19-22.
  21. مازندرانی، عظیمه. (1392). شناسایی اصول و معیارهای شهر زیست‌پذیر و سنجش زیست‌پذیری در منطقه 5 شهر تهران. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه هنر.
  22. محمدنژاد، علی؛ قربانی‌سپهر، آرش؛ شمس‌پویا، محمدکاظم و لشگری، علی‌اصغر. (1394). تحلیل نقش حکمروایی خوب شهری در توسعه پایدار گردشگری (مورد پژوهی: شهر تهران). چهارمین کنفرانس الگوی اسلامی ایرانی پیشرفت، 1-25.
  23. هنرورصدیقیان، نازنین. (1395). بررسی چالش‌های توسعه زیست‌پذیری شهری در منطقه یک مشهد. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.
  24. حکمت‌نیا، حسن؛ ملکی، محمد؛ موسوی، میرنجف؛ و افشانی، علیرضا. (1396). سنجش میزان تحقق‌پذیری حکمروایی خوب شهری در ایران (مطالعه موردی: شهر ایلام). پژوهش‌های جغرافیای انسانی، 49(3)، 607-619.
  25. DOI: 10.22059/jhgr.2016.57235
  26. Abdul Aziz, N. (2007). Linking urban form to a liveable city. Malaysian Journal of Environmental Management, 8, 79–95.
  27. Alizadeh, K., & Roshanaei, H. (2017). The role of good governance in urban branding (Case study: Shandiz). Geography and Urban Space Development, 4(1), 115-137. https://doi.org/10.22067/gusd.v4i1.59974[in persian].
  28. Arabshahi, Z. (2004). The Fourth Development Plan program under the microscope: Good urban governance. Municipalities Quarterly, 69, 15-17. [in persian].
  29. Arghan, A., Asadat Homayouni, P., & Valojerdi, N. (2016). Explaining the role of good urban governance in optimal land management. Proceedings of the 4th National Conference on Applied Research in Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Management, 1-17. [in persian].
  30. Athari, K., Barakpour, N., Kazemian, G., & Mahdizadeh, J. (2007). Urban governance: Theoretical foundations and the necessity of its formation in Iran. Journal of Urban Planning Essays, 6(19-20), 8-17. [in persian].
  31. Barabadi, M. (2004). Good urban governance. Municipalities Monthly, 6(69), 23-28. [in persian].
  32. Barabadi, M. (2005). The alphabet of the city. Publications of the Organization of Municipalities and Village Administrations of Iran. [in persian].
  33. Barakpour, N. (2006). Urban governance and the urban management system in Iran. Conference on Planning and Urban Management. [in persian].
  34. Barakpour, N., & Asadi, I. (2011). Urban management and governance. University of Art Publications. [in persian].
  35. brahimi, J., & Charehjoo, F. (2023). Investigating the role of good governance in the regeneration of worn-out urban fabrics (Case study: City of Kamyaran). Human Geography Research, 55(4), 113-137. https://doi.org/10.22059/jhgr.2022.335894.1008427[in persian].
  36. Department of Infrastructure and Transport. (2011). Our cities, our future: A national urban policy framework for a productive, sustainable and liveable future. Australian Government.
  37. Devaney, L. (2016). Good governance? Perceptions of accountability, transparency and effectiveness in Irish food risk governance. Food Policy, 62, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.04.003
  38. Douglass, M., Le, T. H., Lowry, K., & Nguyen, T. H. (2004). The livability of mega-urban regions in Southeast Asia—Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City, Jakarta and Manila compared [Conference presentation]. International Conference on the Growth Dynamics of Mega-Urban Regions in East and Southeast Asia, Singapore.
  39. Esfidani, M. R., & Mohsenin, S. (2013). Structural equation modeling (Educational and practical) using LISREL software. Mehraban Nashr Publications. [in persian].
  40. Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S., & Theobald, K. (2011). Governing sustainable cities (G. Kazemian & K. Faraji-Rad, Trans.). Parham Naghsh Publications. (Original work published 2005) [in persian].
  41. Farzinpak, S. (2004). Urban learnings: What is good governance?. Municipalities Monthly, 69, 19-22. [in persian].
  42. Habibi, D. (2013). Investigating factors affecting the decline of vitality and livability in historical and worn-out textures (Case study: Sang-e Siyah neighborhood, Shiraz). Journal of Iranian-Islamic City Studies, 14, 67-82. [in persian].
  43. Hataminejad, H., Bazrafkan, S., & Arvin, M. (2017). Analysis of the role of good urban governance model in reducing the vulnerability of urban housing to earthquakes. Journal of Studies of Human Settlements Planning, 3(40), 599-617. [in persian].
  44. Hataminejad, H., Sharifzadeh, E., & Sheikhi, A. (2015). Evaluation of good governance in the sustainability of urban neighborhoods in Piranshahr. Journal of Sustainable City, 2(2), 105-126. https://doi.org/10.22034/jsc.2018.89876[in persian].
  45. Hekmatnia, H., Maleki, M., Mousavi, M. N., & Afshani, A. (2017). Assessing the realization level of good urban governance in Iran (Case study: Ilam City). Human Geography Research, 49(3), 607-619. https://doi.org/10.22059/jhgr.2016.57235 [in persian].
  46. Honarvar Sedighian, N. (2016). Investigating the challenges of developing urban livability in District 1 of Mashhad [Masters thesis, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad]. [in persian].
  47. Jafari Asadabadi, H. (2014). The livability potential of cities in line with sustainable urban development (Case study: Tehran Metropolis) [Masters thesis, Kharazmi University of Tehran]. [in persian].
  48. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2005). Measuring governance using cross-country perceptions data. The World Bank.
  49. Kauko, T. (2012). An institutional analysis of property development, good governance and urban sustainability. European Planning Studies, 20(12), 2053–2071. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722926
  50. Khorasani, M. A. (2012). Explaining the livability of peri-urban villages with a quality of life approach (Case study: Varamin County) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran]. [in persian].
  51. Koroso, N. H., Van der Molen, P., Tuladhar, A. M., & Zevenbergen, J. A. (2013). Does the Chinese market for urban land use rights meet good governance principles? Land Use Policy, 30(1), 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.010
  52. Lewis, D., & Mioch, J. (2005). Urban vulnerability and good governance. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 13(2), 50–53.
  53. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.
  54. Lynch, K. (1981). Good city form. MIT Press.
  55. Mazandarani, A. (2013). Identifying the principles and criteria of a livable city and measuring livability in District 5 of Tehran [Masters thesis, University of Art]. [in persian].
  56. Ministry for the Environment. (2002). Creating great places: Liveable urban environments—Process, strategy, action. Government of New Zealand.
  57. Mohammadnejad, A., Ghorbani Sepehr, A., Shams Pouya, M. K., & Lashgari, A. A. (2015). Analysis of the role of good urban governance in sustainable tourism development (Case study: Tehran). Proceedings of the 4th Conference on the Iranian-Islamic Model of Progress, 1-25. [in persian].
  58. National Association of Regional Councils. (2010). The livable communities act. https://www.narc.org
  59. Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. (2013). City life: Rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Social Indicators Research, 110(2), 433–451.
  60. Shahidi, M. H. (2007). Urban planning, transportation and urban governance. Urban Planning Essays, 19-20, 52-59. [in persian].
  61. Shamaie, A., Valizadeh, E., & Sadeghi, S. (2016). The role of good urban governance on sustainable revenues of municipalities (Case study: District 19 of Tehran Municipality). Proceedings of the 1st National Conference on Geographical Sciences, 1-19. [in persian].
  62. Shamsuddin, S., Abu Hassan, N. R., & Bilyamin, S. F. (2012). Walkable environment in increasing the liveability of a city. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50, 167–178.
  63. Smit, W. (2016). Urban governance and urban food systems in Africa: Examining the linkages. Cities, 58, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.05.001
  64. Song, Y. (2011). A livable city study in China: Using structural equation models [Master's thesis, Uppsala University].
  65. Stein, E. K. (2002). Community and quality of life. National Academy Press.
  66. Taghvaei, A. A., & Tajdar, R. (2009). An introduction to good urban governance: An analytical approach. Urban Management Quarterly, 23, 1-15. [in persian].
  67. Timmer, V., & Seymour, N. K. (2005). The livable city [Working group discussion paper]. World Urban Forum 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada. International Centre for Sustainable Cities.
  68. United Nations Development Programme. (1997a). Defining core characteristics of good governance. Management Development and Governance Division, UNDP.
  69. United Nations Development Programme. (1997b). Strengthening capacity for people-centred development. Management Development and Governance Division, UNDP.