Explaining the model of smart governance with the approach of popular participation in urban decision making (Case study: Tehran)

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
H. gholami 1
M. mirehei 2
A. Javid 3
1 Master of Urban Management, University of Tehran (Urban Services Expert, District 6, Tehran)
2 PhD in Geography and Urban Planning, Assistant Professor, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran
3 Doctor of Urban Planning, Deputy of Urban Planning of Tehran Municipality
10.50541/HSMSP.26.1.113
Abstract
Many studies emphasize the various components of smart cities, the speed and nature of their governance processes, and the diverse claims to the legitimacy of smart city governance. These indicate that the definitions and conceptualization of smart cities in developing countries are probably darker and can benefit from a regular combination of knowledge. In addition, the digital world's approach to non-digital issues such as social justice, politics, ideology, legality, and regulation suggests that smart city development governance is intertwined with many layers of complexity. It can be more complicated for some developing countries that are still meeting the basic needs of all citizens. The complexity of governance issues that developing countries have with different countries shows that a regular review of the literature is critical to discover what is available in the existing literature on growing smart cities in developing countries. In this regard, the present study examines and analyzes participation in urban decision-making, emphasizing smart urban governance in Tehran.



Methodology

The present study is descriptive-analytical. In terms of purpose, it is in the category of applied research. The information required for this research has been collected in two ways: library and field. In the field method, the collection of primary data according to the research questions has been done by designing a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire. The statistical population of this study includes municipal employees in 22 districts of Tehran with a population of 500 people. The method of selecting specialists was the snowball technique, in which the available expert was asked to introduce experts who were aware of the research topic. However, few of them were fully aware of the research topic. Therefore, the researcher used the snowball sampling method to identify subject-aware samples, and he continued to do so until all familiar examples of smart urban governance were identified. The sample consisted of 15 employees of Tehran Municipality. The data collection tool was a questionnaire; its validity was confirmed as face validity as well as divergent validity (divergent validity results are presented in the findings section). In order to evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire, Cronbach's alpha and combined reliability were exerted, and, considering the results presented in the research findings, the reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed.



Results and discussion

The value of t-statistic obtained for the effect of participation in decision-making on smart urban governance is equal to 20.843, which is higher than 1.96. Therefore, the effect of participation in decision-making on smart urban governance is confirmed. On the other hand, the value of the obtained path coefficient is equal to 0.622, which is a positive path coefficient, which shows the direct impact of participation on decision-making on smart urban governance. It can also be said that participation in decision-making can explain 38.6% of the variance of the dependent variable, i.e., smart urban governance. The t-statistic value obtained for the effect of political control on smart urban governance is equal to 2.615; also, it equals to 13.870 for the effect of social participation on smart urban governance, which ​​are greater than 1.96; hence, the effect of components of participation in decision-making on smart urban governance is endorsed. On the other hand, the values of the obtained path coefficients for the effect of political supervision and social participation on smart urban governance are 0.132 and 0.584, respectively, which are positive path coefficients, indicating a direct effect. Components of decision-making are based on smart urban governance.





Conclusion

Citizens' participation in decisions can have many positive effects. Accordingly, this issue was examined with emphasis on smart urban governance in Tehran. The results of the research show that participation can be effective in two ways in the direction of urban decisions for smart urban governance, one in the form of participation with political supervision and the other in the form of social participation. Both variables indicate the significant importance of participation. In fact, it can be said that participation is both politically and socially influential. The realization of this type of citizen participation in urban development is possible in different ways, such as the political activity of residents, importance of residents for politics, share of female representatives in city administration, number of representatives per resident, number of political parties per resident, strategic insight, responsibility for problems related to urban governance, consensualism according to urban culture and identity, social participation based on the principles of smart governance, interaction with citizens, cooperation, appropriate opinion polls on citizenship rights, and social inclusion. Therefore, it is necessary to provide contexts and capacities to help change their lives in cities, and this can be achieved through the above.

Keywords

Subjects

1- اسماعیل زاده حسن، کوزه گر لطفعلی، علیان مهدی، آدینه وند علی اصغر(1395) فراتحلیلی بر پژوهش های حوزه ی حکمروایی شهری در ایران. برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا، دوره20، شماره1، صص.40-1.
2- برک پور، ناصر و اسدی، ایرج (1395). مدیریت و حکمرانی شهری. تهران.، دانشگاه هنر. معاونت پژوهشی.
3- چشم میشی، محسن، اجزاء شکوهی، محمد، (1396)، نگرشی بر حکمروایی هوشمند به عنوان پارادایمی نوین در مدیریت شهری، دومین همایش بیت المللی گردشگری، جغرافیا و محیط زیست پاک، تهران.
4- ربانی طاها، افتخاری عبدالرضا رکن الدین، مشکینی ابوالفضل، رفیعیان مجتبی(1397) تحلیل موانع نهادی آینده حکمروایی توسعه پایدار کلانشهر تهران. برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا، دوره22، شماره1، صص.153-124.
5- رشنوفر, آیت؛ مسلم عارفی و علی حسنوند، ۱۳۹۵، بررسی اصول شهر هوشمند و کاربرد های آن در اداره و حکمرانی شهری، اولین کنفرانس ملی شهر هوشمند، قم، شرکت مشاوران شهر هوشمند.
6- روستایی، شهریور، پورمحمدی، محمدرضا، قنبری، حکیمه (1396)، بررسی نقش ساختاری حکمروایی خوب شهری در ایجاد شهرهای هوشمند (نمونه مورد مطالعه: شهرداری تبریز)، نشریه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهری، سال هشتم، شماره سی و یکم، ص 146-123.
7- قهرمانی، علی، برادران، محمدمهدی، مرآتی، احسان (1395)، نقشه مفهومی حکمروایی هوشمند مبتنی بر درهم تنیدگی انگاره های زیست بوم حکمروایی خوب، اولین کنفرانس ملی شهر هوشمند.
8- مرادی، شیما (1397)، بررسی سیر موضوعی مطالعات حوزه شهر هوشمند. پژوهشنامه علم سنجی، دوفصلنامه علمی پژوهشی دانشگاه شاهد/ زودآیند، دوره7، شماره3، صص.45-20.
9- موحد علی، قاسمی کفرودی سجاد، کمان رودی موسی، ساسان پور فرزانه (1394) بررسی توسعه محله‌های شهری با تاکید بر الگوی حکمروایی خوب شهری مورد مطالعه (منطقه ۱۹ شهرداری تهران). برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا، دوره19، شماره1، صص. 180-147.
10- Alawadhi, S., & Scholl, H. J. (2016). Smart Governance: A Cross-Case Analysis of Smart City Initiatives. In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 2953-2963). IEEE.
11- Alonso, R. G., & Lippez-De Castro, S. (2016). Technology helps, people make: A smart city governance framework grounded in deliberative democracy. In: Gil-Garcia J., Pardo T., Nam T. (eds) Smarter as the New Urban Agenda. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 11, pp 333-347. Springer, Cham. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17620-8_18.
12- Bibri, S.E. The IoT for smart sustainable cities of the future: An analytical framework for sensor-based big data applications for environmental sustainability. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 38, 230–253.
13- Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Mapping Dimensions of Governance in Smart Cities: Practitioners versus Prior Research. In Proceedings of the 17th International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Research, 312-324. Shanghai: China, ACM. Doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2912160.2912176
14- Bolívar, M. P. R., & Meijer, A. J. (2015). Smart Governance Using a Literature Review and Empirical Analysis to Build a Research Model. Social Science Computer Review, 0894439315611088
15- Bonsón, E., Royo, S., & Ratkai, M. (2015). Citizens' engagement on local governments' Facebook sites. An empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 52-62. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.11.001. [14]
16- Boyd, O. P. (2008). Differences in eDemocracy parties' eParticipation systems. Information Polity, 13(3,4), 167-188.
17- Castelnovo, W.; Misuraca, G.; Savoldelli, A. Smart cities governance: The need for a holistic approach to assessing urban participatory policy making. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2015, 34, 724–739.
18- E_endi, D.; Syukri, F.; Subiyanto, A.F.; Utdityasan, R.N. Smart city Nusantara development through theapplication of Penta Helix model (A practical study to develop smart city based on local wisdom). InProceedings of the 2016 International Conference on ICT For Smart Society (ICISS), Surabaya, Indonesia, 20–21 July 2016; pp. 80–85.
19- Janowski, T., Pardo, T. A., & Davies, J. (2012). Government information networks-mapping electronic governance cases through public administration concepts. Government Information Quarterly, 29 (supplement 1), S1-S10. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.11.003. [40]
20- Janssen, M., & Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance—Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30 (supplement 1), S1-S8. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003. [41]
21- Khan, G.F. (2015). The Government 2.0 utilization model and implementation scenarios. Information Development, 31(2), pp.135-149. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666913502061.
22- Khan, Z., Anjum, A., Soomro, K., & Tahir, M. A. (2015). Towards cloud based big data analytics for smart future cities. Journal of Cloud Computing, 4(2), 1-11. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13677-015-0026-8.
23- Khan, Z., Ludlow, D., Loibl, W., & Soomro, K. (2014). ICT enabled participatory urban planning and policy development: The UrbanAPI project. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 8(2), 205-229.]
24- Macke, J.; Casagrande, R.M.; Sarate, J.A.R.; Silva, K.A. Smart city and quality of life: Citizens’ perception in a Brazilian case study. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 717–726.
25- Martin, C.; Evans, J.; Karvonen, A.; Paskaleva, K.; Yang, D.; Linjordet, T. Smart-sustainability: A new urbanfix? Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 640–648.
26- Meijer, A. J., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392-408. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308. [64]
27- Meijer, A. J., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Smart City Research Contextual Conditions, Governance Models, and Public Value Assessment. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 647-656. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315618890.
28- Scholl, H. J. (2012). Five trends that matter: Challenges to 21st century electronic government. Information Polity, 17(3,4), 317-327. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2012-0280
29- Scholl, H. J., & AlAwadhi, S. (2016a). Creating Smart Governance: The key to radical ICT overhaul at the City of Munich. Information Polity, 21(1), 21-42. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150369. [86]
The Journal of Spatial Planning and Geomatics
Volume 26, Issue 1
May 2022
Pages 119-139