تحلیل اهمیت – عملکرد شاخص‌های حکمروایی خوب در شهر میراث جهانی یزد

فصلنامه علمی و پژوهشی پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهری

مقاله 1، دوره 12، شماره 46، آذر 1400، صفحه 1-16   

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30495/jupm.2021.4128

نویسندگان

محبوبه نوری¹؛ محمدرضا رضایی^{* 2}؛ منصوره یاراحمدی³

¹دانشجو دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، ، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران

²دانشیار گروه جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه یزد، یزد، ایران

³کارشناس ارشد جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه مازندران، مازندران، ایران

تاریخ دریافت: 04 دی 1398،  تاریخ بازنگری: 22 فروردین 1399،  تاریخ پذیرش: 23 فروردین 1399 

چکیده

چکیده
در هر جامعه­ای هنگام جست و جو برای راه حل توسعه پایدار، همواره حکمروایی خوب به عنوان یک ابزار حیاتی برای پیشبرد توسعه پایدار مطرح می­گردد و به صورت یک عنصر حیاتی در استراتژی­های توسعه پایدار گنجانیده شده است. در همین راستا و به منظور ایجاد بستر مناسب توسعه گردشگری به ویژه در شهرهای مقصد گردشگری، حکمروایی خوب شهری و نزدیک شدن به شاخص­های آن ضرورتی اساسی است. هدف اصلی این پژوهش نیز بررسی میزان اهمیت و عملکرد هر یک از شاخص­های حکمروایی خوب در شهر میراث جهانی یزد است. تا از این طریق از یک سو به مهم­ترین و کم اهمیت­ترین شاخص­ها پی برد و از سوی دیگر میزان عملکرد هر یک از شاخص­ها تعیین شود تا کمبودها مورد توجه قرار گیرد و برنامه­ریزی­هایی جهت ارتقاء شرایط انجام شود. پژوهش حاضر، از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نظر روش در زمره پژوهش­های توصیفی -  پیمایشی است. به منظور گردآوری داده­ها از روش کتابخانه­ای و روش­های میدانی شامل مصاحبه و پرسشنامه استفاده شده است. جامعه آماری کارشناسانی است که تحصیلات دانشگاهی دکتری در رشته­های مرتبط با امور شهری دارند. جهت نمونه­گیری از بین کارشناسان از روش نمونه­گیری قضاوتی که یکی از شیوه­های نمونه­گیری هدفمند است استفاده شده است. برای تحلیل داده­ها نیز از روش IPA[1] بهره گرفته شده است. یافته­های پژوهش نشان می­دهد از بعد اهمیت، مشارکت با میانگین  00/7، پاسخگویی و عدالت با میانگین 60/6 با اهمیت­ترین و شاخص­های اجماع­سازی با میانگین 80/3، شفافیت و تمرکززدایی با میانگین 00/4 کم اهمیت­ترین شاخص­ها شناخته شده­است. از طرفی از نظر میزان عملکرد شاخص اثربخشی و کارایی با میانگین 60/6 بیشترین عملکرد و مشارکت با میانگین 80/3، پاسخگویی، مسئولیت­پذیری و امنیت با میانگین 20/4 کمترین عملکرد را به خود اختصاص داده است از طرفی با توجه به نتایج آزمون t همبسته و با عنایت به اینکه مقدار Sig (سطح معناداری) در همه شاخص­ها برابر با صفر و کمتر از 05/0 است لذا تفاوت میانگین­ها در همه شاخص­ها از سطح معناداری برخوردارند و از سویی نتیجه رابطه (P-I) نیز در اکثر شاخص­ها منفی شده است که این نشان دهنده فاصله همه شاخص­ها از وضعیت ایده­ال است. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

حکمروایی خوب؛ شهرهای گردشگرپذیر؛ اهمیت - عملکرد ( IPA)؛ شهر میراث جهانی یزد

عنوان مقاله [English]

Importance Analysis - Performance of Good Governance Indicators in Yazd World Heritage City

نویسندگان [English]

mahbobeh nori¹؛ mohammad reza rezaaei²؛ mansooreh yarahmadi³

¹PhD Student of Geography and Urban Planning, University of Yazd, Yazd, Iran

²Associate Professor of Geography and Urban planning, University of Yazd, Yazd, Iran

³Master of Geography and Urban Planning, University of Mazandaran, Iran

چکیده [English]

In any society, when searching for a sustainable development solution, appropriate governance has always been a vital tool for promoting sustainable development and has been incorporated as a vital element in sustainable development strategies. In this regard, and in order to create a suitable platform for the development of tourism, especially in tourist destination cities, appropriate urban governance and reaching its characteristics is essential. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the importance and performance of each of the indicators of appropriate governance in the city of Yazd, the World Heritage city. In this way, on the one hand, the most significant and insignificant indicators are determined, and on the other hand, the performance of each of the indicators is determined so that the deficiencies are taken into account and plans are made to improve the conditions. The present study is applied in terms of purpose and in terms of method is among the descriptive-survey studies. Library and field methods, including interviews and questionnaires, have been used to collect data. The statistical population is experts who have a PhD degree in urban affairs. For sampling among experts, the method of judgment sampling, which is one of the methods of purposive sampling, has been used. IPA method has been used to analyze the data. The research findings show that in terms of importance, participation with an average of 7.00, accountability and justice with an average of 6.60 are the most important, and consensus indicators with an average of 3.80, transparency and decentralization with an average of  4.00 are known as least important indicators. On the other hand, in terms of performance, the efficiency and effectiveness indicator with an average of 6.60 has the highest performance and participation with an average of 3.80, accountability, responsibility and security with an average of 4.20 has the lowest performance. On the other hand, according to the results of t-correlation test and considering that the value of Sig (significant level) in all indicators is zero and less than 0.05, so the difference in averages in all indicators is significant and on the other hand, the result of the relationship between (P-I) is negative in most indicators, which shows the distance of all indicators from the ideal situation.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

good governance, Tourist Cities, Importance - Performance (IPA), Yazd World Heritage City

مراجع

1.  
2. Beltran, S., &  Noferini, A., (2010). Committee of the Regions' White Paper on Multi-Level Governance; Some Comments, GPL.
3. Boley, B.B., McGehee, N.G., & Hammett, A.T., (2017). Importance performance analysis (IPA( of sustainable tourism initiatives: The resident perspective, Tourisn Managenent, NO. 58, pp. 66-77.
4. Caber, M., Albayrak,T., & Matzler,K., (2012). Classification of the destination attributes in the content of competitiveness (by revised importance-performance analysis), Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 43–56.
5. Ebrahimzadeh,  I., & Asadian, M. (2013). Analysis and Assessment of Good Urban Governance in Iran Case study: Kashmar City, Geography and urban-regional signature, Vol.3, No. 6, pp. 17-30.
6. Ebrahimzadeh, I.,  Kazemizad, Sh., & Eskandari Sani, M.  (2011). Strategic Planning for Tourism Development, Emphasizing on Religious Tourism (Case Study: Qom City), Human Geography Research, No. 76, pp. 115-141.
7. Eskildsen, K., & Kristensen, K., (2006). Enhancing IPA, Productivity and Performance Management, Vol.55, No. 1, pp. 23-41.
8. Farajirad, A., & Seyed Nassiri, S.J.(2010). Analytical Approaches in Sustainable Development of Urban Tourism, territory, Vol.7,No.25, pp. 29-40.
9.  Farzin,  M.R.,  Abdi, N., &  Bagheri, F., (2018). Importance –Performance Analysis Assessing supply and demand's perception of tourism development using (case study: village of Sulaghan), Geography and Development, Vol.16, No. 51, pp. 175-196.
10. Gani, A., & Duncan, R., (2007). Measuring good governance using time series data: Fiji Islands. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, Vol.12, No. 3, pp.367-385.
11. Ghafari, M., Ranjbarian, B., &  Fathi, S. (2015). Developing a model for explaining tourism destination brand equity (Case study: Isfahan City), Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 845-866.
12.  ghanbari, S.,  Dehghan, M.H & Miraki Anari, H. (2016). Factors Affecting the Development of Entrepreneurship in Rural Tourism Case Study: Villages in the Central Anar Township, Tourism Management Studies, Vol.10, No. 32, pp. 1-20.
13. Gjerde, M., & deSylva, S., (2018). Governance and recovery: comparing recent disaster recoveries in Sri Lanka and New Zealand. Procedia engineering, 212, 527-534.
14. Haus, K., & Michael, J., ( 2013). Urban Leadershipand Community Involvement: Ingredients for Good Governance? SAGE Publications، Urban Affairs Review 2011, 47: 256 Originally Published Online 1 December 2010.
15. Hosseini, A., Pourahmad, A., Oroji, H., & Alizadeh, M. (2013). The Priority of Measuring the Strategies for Development of Cultural Tourism in Alamut, Qazvin, Human Geography Research Quarterly, Vol.45, No. 3, pp. 1-17.
16. Hubner, A., Phong, L. T., & Chau, T.S., (2014). Good governance and tourism development in protected areas: The case of Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park, central Vietnam. Koedoe, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 1-10.
17. kazemy, M., esmaeilei, M.R., & beigi firozi, A. (2013).  Establishment and Selection of Strategy for Tourism Development in Lorestan Province Based on Swot Analysis and Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix, Geography and Development, Vol. 11, No, 32, pp. 47-60.
18. Kioe Sheng, Y., (2013). Good Urban Governancein Southeast Asia, SAGE Publications, Environment and Urbanization ASIA1(2) 131147© 2010 National Instituteof Urban Affairs (NIUA).
19. Kitcharoen, K., (2007). The importance-performance analysis of service quality in administrative department of private universities in Thailand. ABACJ. Vol.24, No. 3, pp. 20-46.
20. Lee, T., &Liu, R., (2011). Strategy formulation for the recreational areas of Central Taiwan: An application of SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threat), analysis Journal of Hospitality Management and Tourism, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 38-47.
21. Malekhoseini, A., (2017). Investigating the role of good urban governance in tourism management and planning in Semnan city,  New attitudes in human geography, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 1-23.
22.  Meshkini, A., &  Moazzen, S. (2015). Good Urban Governance Analysis in Cities Sustainability Case Study: Ajabshir City, Quarterly Journal of Environmental Based Territorial Planning, Vol. 8, No. 29, pp. 99-132.
23.  Mohammadi, J., &  Kamali Bagharahi, I. (2016).  Analysis the Good Urban Governance Indicators for Urban Development Strategy Case Study: the Old Texture Areas of Kerman City, Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement, Vol.6, No. 21, pp. 153-170.
24.  MohammadPourjaberi, M. (2014). Analyzing the role of tourism in citizens life quality with emphasis on subjective Indicators Case study: Fasham City (Shemiranat County), Urban Turism Quarterly, Vol. 1. No. 1, pp. 35-45.
25.  Nasrollahi, Z., & MoosabeikiDehabadi, F., (2015). Importance-Performance Analysis Sustainable Tourism Based on environmental, social and economic aspect, Urban Tourism Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 25-59.
26. Pilevari, N. (2016). A Model of Good Urban Governance Evaluation- District 10 of Tehran, Organizational Resources Management Researchs, Vol.5, No.4, pp. 27-48.
27. Poorahmad, A., Piri, E., Mohammadi, Y., Parsa, Sh., & Heydari, S. (2018). Good Urban Governance in Urban Neighborhoods (Case: Marivan City). Journal of Urban Economics and Management, Vol. 6, No. 24, pp. 81-98.
28. Rahnama, M., Mafi, E.,  & Asadi,R. (2010). Analyzing Good Urban Governance Location in Mashhad Using Swot, Journal of Geography and Regional Development, No. 40, pp. 41-82.
29. Ramesht, M.H., & Faeyzelahi, M. (2013). Prioritization and ranking of tourism centers in Ebrahimabad plain of Yazd, Journal of Spatial Planning, Vol.3, No. 2, pp. 1-18.
30. Rezvani, M.R.,  sabaghpour, M., &  shafia, S. (2017). The Role of the Key Players in the Governance of E-tourism in Iran, Tourism Management Studies, No. 40, pp. 41-82.
31.  Safaee pour, M.,  Hosseini, N.A & Gheysari, N. (2015). On the Relationship Between Citizens' Satisfaction of the Municipal's Performance and the Urban Environment's Sustainability Indexes, Case Study: Dezful, Journal of Urban Ecology Researches, Vol. 6, No. 11, pp. 25-40.
32.  Saraei, M.H., & Shamshiri, M. (2013). Tourism situation study in the city of Shiraz towards sustainable development using the SWOT Technique, Geography and Environmental planning, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 69-88.
33. Stewart, K., (2008). Designing good urban governance indicators: the importance of citizen participation and its evaluation in Greater Vancouver. Journal of Cities, Vol.23, No.3, pp. 196-204.
34.  Tabibi, M.R.,  Hosseini, A., &  Rezaei, T. (2016), Evaluating the Good Urban Governance Indexes in Tourist Destination Cities, Using IPA method (Case Study: Tonekabon), Urban Tourism Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 219-231.
35.  Taghvayee, A.A., & Taghdar, R. (2009). An analysis on urban well governing (an analysis approach), urban management, No, 23, pp. 45-58.
36. Taplin, R., (2012). Competitive importance–performance analysis of an Australian wildlife park ,Tourism Management, Vol.33, pp. 29-37.
37. UNTWO (2013). Governance for the Tourism Sector and Its Measurement, Issue Paper Series, Oct 2013.
38. Viken, A., Johnston, M., Nyseth, T., & Dawson, J., (2014) Responsible Tourism Governance: A Case Study of Svalbard and Nunavut. Tourism Destination Development: Turns and Tactics, pp. 245-61.
39. Virtudes, A., (2016). Good Governance Principles in Spatial Planning at Local Scale. Procedia engineering, 161, 1710-1714.
40.  yousefi, J., (2018). Importance-Performance Analysis of Religious Tourism Services (The Case of the City of Birjand(, Tourism Planning and Development, Vol. 7, No. 24, pp. 38-58.
41.  Zayyari, K. (2011). A Study on Peace and Security in Neighborhoods of Yazd, Human Geography Research Quarterly, No. 76, pp. 1-11.
42. , K. (2011). A Study on Peace and Security in Neighborhoods of Yazd, Human Geography Research Quarterly, No. 76, pp. 1-11.