Abstract

Background and purpose
Integrated urban governance is a new approach to urban management. One of the most critical challenges of urban management is centralization in the decision-making system, following outdated traditional methods, functional complexity of decision-makers, neglecting new management approaches, and mastery of the top-down view. The present study aims to explain the challenges, obstacles, and problems affecting the integrated governance of Urmia City so that a better understanding of the conditions for urban policymakers emerges and a practical step is taken to solve the deficiencies and short comings of the structural and executive body. The summary of the background and innovation of the present research is as follows. First, the geographical scale of most of the study is at the macro-national level, or they have paid more attention to the big cities. Second, these researchers have mentioned challenges in pathology that result from background conditions and other structural factors that have not been carefully evaluated and investigated. Thirdly, the background of urban policy and integrated approach has been neglected in analyzing obstacles to realizing good urban governance.
Methodology
The present applied study employed a descriptive-analytical research method. The data were collected via library and survey research using an interactive-expert approach and analyzed via quantitative-qualitative (mixed methods) research. The study area covers Urmia City. About fifty-five urban planning experts, specialists, and faculty members were selected via a snowball sampling technique. The Delphi technique was employed to collect data analyzed in descriptive and inferential statistics and SPSS and Smart PLS software. Forty-nine components to be entered into the software are based on structural-institutional obstacles, obstacles to citizens’ lack of access to political leaders (communication action and access), obstacles to moving collective goals with personal goals of politicians (personal obstacles), obstacles to the controversial nature of institutions and organizations with interest in the government (conflict of interests).
Findings and discussion
At the 95% confidence level, effective structures in the realization of integrated governance in Urmia city were prioritized: communication and access obstacles at 88%, personal obstacles at 87%, conflict of interest's obstacles at 78%, and structural-institutional obstacles at 69%. The standardized residuals’ root mean square (RMS) value for the obstacles to the realization of justice is 0.057, and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) value is 0.905. The obtained values for the investigated variables are within the acceptable range: “structural-institutional obstacles” with 0.487, “communication and access obstacles” with 0.774, “individual obstacles” with 760, and “conflict of interests” with 0.616. T-values of all variables indicated a value greater than 1.96, indicating the significance of all covert variables. Obstacles of communication action and access in not realizing integrated governance of Urmia City with a beta of 25.34 and individual obstacles in not realizing an integrated governance with a t-value of 21.95, obstacles to conflict of interests with a t-value of 18.31, and structural-institutional obstacles with a beta of 7.64 had effects on not realizing integrated urban governance of Urmia City. The overall model has a desirable GOF.
Conclusion
The performance of the items demonstrates that the highest factor loadings for the structural-institutional obstacles are related to the lack of strategic vision agreed by all those with interests in the city regarding the good urban governance, lack of a realistic and futuristic view of the city and the weakness in urban expertise; for communication action and access, the items such as concentration of top-to-bottom power in the city management, the indifference of officials towards problems, and lack of attention to the citizens’ duties and rights; for personal obstacles, the items such as no presentation of transparent performance by officials, weak participation and movement towards autocracy in decisions, and application of relation-oriented instead of rule-oriented measures; and for conflict of interests, items such as the existence of various types of divisions in urban management, the existence of multiple urban planning commissions with improper functioning, the existence of unofficial stakeholders and those related to political factions in the city management--the absence of integrated management.