Applying and Assessing Expediency in the Framework of Governance of Urban Management of Tehran Metropolitan

Document Type : Original Research

Author
E. Dorostkar
PhD researcher in Urbanism, Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture and Art, University of Gilan, Rasht, Iran.
Abstract
Urban management governance is stated when it is intended to form in the city administration by facilitating the process, creating and increasing the participation of citizens in urban management framework. At this point, an assessment of urban management frameworks is imported and used. Challenges occur when evaluating these frameworks to enter extraordinary components. With these interpretations, the main problem in the metropolitan city of Tehran is the expediency in urban governance. The main question is that “what is the role of expediency in urban management which aims to facilitate the participation of citizens in the city? In this research, the PROMETHEE method was recognized as one of the best decision-making methods. The why of choosing this method is that it considers several criteria for comparing methods. Some of these criteria include ease of use, interpretation of the parameters, the sustainability of the results, the level of user interaction with the model and the ease of understanding the results. The framework of the urban administration framework of Tehran is composed of 14 main components and 53 sub-components, which is based on 14 main components including accountability, transparency, participation, effectiveness, equality, sustainability, observation and planning, legitimacy and bureaucracy, civil capacity, service provision, efficient economics, communication, communication, security, and expediency. The component of the expediency, giving the conditions of the status of Iran's sovereignty, has shown a completely significant effect.

Keywords

Subjects

1. صابریان، ع. (1385). مصلحت و جایگاه آن در حکومت اسلامی، فصلنامه دین و سیاست، شماره 10، ص 80-57.
2. منهاج، م. (1390). محاسبات فازی، تهران: انتشارات دانش نگار.
3. Al-Shemmeri, T., Al-Kloub, B. & Pearman, A. (1997). Model choice in multi criteria decision aid. European Journal of Operational Research, 97, P 550–560.
4. Gilliams, S., Raymaekers, D., Muys, B. & Orshoven, J. V. (2005). Comparing multiple criteria decision methods to extend a geographical information system on afforestation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 49, P 142–158.
5. Mahmoud, M. R. & Garcia, L. A. (2000). Comparison of different multi criteria evaluation methods for the red bluff diversion dam. Environmental Modeling & Software, 15, P 471–478.
6. Goumas, M. & Lygerou, V. (2000). An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects. European Journal of Operational Research, 123, P 606–613.
7. Leftwich, A. (1993). Governance, democracy and development in the Third World. Third World Quarterly, 14(3), P 605–624.
8. Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance, 26(3), P 347–368.
9. Rotberg, R. I. (2014). Good governance means performance and results. Governance, 27(3), P 511–518.
10. Grindle, M. S. (2007). Good enough governance revisited. Development Policy Review, 25(5), P 533–574.
11. Mol, A. P. J. (2009). Urban environmental governance innovations in China. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1(1), P 96–100.
12. Li, Y., Qiu, J., Zhao, B., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Bruns, A., Qureshi, S., ... Li, Y. (2017). Quantifying urban ecological governance: A suite of indices characterizes the ecological planning implications of rapid coastal urbanization. Ecological Indicators, 72, P 225–233.
13. Turner, R. A., Fitzsimmons, C., Forster, J., Mahon, R., Peterson, A., & Stead, S. M. (2014). Measuring good governance for complex ecosystems: Perceptions of coral reef-dependent communities in the Caribbean. Global Environmental Change, 29, P 105–117.
14. Han, H., & Lai, S.-K. (2012). National land use management in China, An analytical framework, Journal of Urban Management, 1(1), P 3–38.
15. Jenkins, P. (2000). Urban management, urban poverty and urban governance: Planning and land management in Maputo. Environment and Urbanization, 12(1), P 137–152.
16. Stoker, G. (1998). Public-private partnerships and urban governance, Partnerships in urban governance, Springer34–51.
17. DiGaetano, A., & Strom, E. (2003). Comparative urban governance, An integrated approach, Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), P 356–395.
18. Holzer, M., & Kim, S.-T. (2007). Digital governance in municipalities worldwide (2007), A longitudinal assessment of municipal websites throughout the world.
19. Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (1992). Does governance matter and if so, how? Process, performance and outcomes. Governance, 5(2), P 135–153.
20. Weiss, T. G. (2000). Governance, good governance and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges, Third World Quarterly, 21(5), P 795–814.
21. Sturzaker, J., & Verdini, G. (2017). Opposition and resistance: Governance challenges around urban growth in China and the UK. Journal of Urban Management, 6(1), p 30–41.
22. Lee, J.-H., & Hancock, M. (2012). Toward a framework for smart cities: A comparison of Seoul, San Francisco and Amsterdam. Research Paper, Yonsei University and Stanford University.
23. Vodoz, L. (2013). “Gouvernance et participation.” In Les horizons de la gouvernance territorial, edited by L. Vodoz, L. Thévoz, and P. Faure, 171– 183. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.
24. Brans, J. P., Mareschal, B. & Vincke, P. H. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24: P 228-238.
25. Figueira, j., Greco, S. & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, Springer Science and Business Media, Inc. USA.
26. Bilsel, R. U., Buyukozkan, G. & Ruan, D. (2006). A fuzzy preference-ranking model for a quality evaluation of hospital web sites. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 21: P 1181–1197.
27. Yilmaz, B. & Dagdeviren, M. (2011). A combined approach for equipment selection: F-PROMETHEE method and zero–one goal programming. Expert Systems with Applications, 38: P 11641–11650.
28. Menhaj, M. B., Sadeghi, M. R. & Farasat, A. (2009). A new method for fuzzy ranking based on possibility and necessity measures, Unprinted paper.
29. Aloini, D., Dulmin, R. & Mininno, V. (2010). A hybrid Fuzzy-PROMETHEE method for logistic service selection: design of a decision support tool. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 18 (4): P 345−369.
30. Zimmerman, H. J. (1990). Fuzzy set theory and its applications, Kluwer academic publishers. Norwell, Massachusetts.
31. البوطی، ر. (1992). ضوابط المصلحه، بیروت، مؤسسه الرساله.
32. غزالی، ا. (1417). المستصفی من علم الاصول، بیروت: مؤسسۀ الرساله.
Political Organizing of Space
Volume 3, Issue 4 - Serial Number 12
December 2021
Pages 271-284