Articles In Press
Back to the articles list |
Back to browse issues page
1- Faculty of Governance, University of Tehran
Abstract: (7 Views)
Objective: The Structural Dysfunction of traditional risk management systems in dealing with the complexities of large metropolises has highlighted the necessity of shifting towards modern governance paradigms. While previous research has diagnosed the existing situation and emphasized the need for integrated and participatory approaches, few studies have focused on designing a structural and operational model capable of implementing governance principles in the context of physical hazards in Tehran. The main objective of this study is to fill this gap by designing and presenting a “conceptual framework” for the governance of physical hazards based on a synergistic and multi-level approach.
Method: This study employed a qualitative approach using a “design research” strategy, which involved a two-stage process for model development. In the first stage, eleven key factors of a desirable governance system were extracted from the literature using the Thomas and Harden Meta-Synthesis method, based on a systematic review. In the second stage, these factors were used as input for the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) method to determine the internal relationships and hierarchical structure among them, based on expert opinion.
Findings: The findings from the meta-synthesis phase led to the identification of 11 key factors, including “Good Governance Principles,” “Network Structure,” “Safety Economy,” and “Culture Building & Social Responsibility.” The ISM analysis revealed that these factors form a multi-level hierarchical model. Factors such as “Good Governance Principles” and “Rule of Law” were identified as “fundamental drivers” at the lowest level, while factors like “Physical Resilience Standards” and “Command & Operations Structure” were positioned as “ultimate goals” at the highest level. The integration of these findings resulted in a final conceptual framework composed of a macro-level (policymaking), three main intervention levels (prevention, action, monitoring), and two cross-cutting enabling layers (safety economy and social responsibilities).
Conclusion: The proposed conceptual framework, grounded in a scientific and structured methodology, offers an innovative response to the challenges of fragmentation and Structural Dysfunction in the traditional risk management system. By precisely defining actors, levels, and relationships, this framework provides an operational roadmap for the transition towards integrated, proactive, and participatory governance. It can serve as a foundation for reforming policies and institutional structures in the domain of physical safety in Tehran.
Keywords: Urban Safety, Physical Resilience, Urban Governance, Structural Dysfunction, Meta-Synthesis, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)
Method: To achieve this objective, this study adopted a qualitative, “design research” approach, employing a sophisticated two-stage methodology to ensure rigor and validity. The first stage involved a systematic review of the literature to identify the most relevant academic and policy documents. The selected sources then underwent a Meta-Synthesis, specifically using the thematic synthesis methodology developed by Thomas and Harden (2008). This process involved line-by-line coding of texts, development of descriptive themes, and finally, generation of analytical themes. This rigorous synthesis yielded 11 core factors essential for an effective governance model. The second stage utilized Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), a well-established method for analyzing the complex interrelationships among a set of variables. The 11 factors identified in the first stage were used as input for the ISM process. Through a structured consultation with a panel of experts in crisis management and urban planning, a Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) was developed. This matrix was then used to mathematically derive the driving power and dependence power of each factor, leading to their hierarchical structuring into a multi-level model.
Findings: The meta-synthesis phase successfully identified 11 key factors for a robust governance system, including: (1) Good Governance Principles, (2) Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Imperatives, (3) Social Resilience, (4) Networked & Polycentric Structure, (5) Command & Operations Structure, (6) Monitoring & Rule of Law, (7) Safety Economy, (8) Culture Building & Social Responsibility, (9) Physical Resilience Standards, (10) Innovation & Technology, and (11) Integrated & Participatory Management. The subsequent ISM analysis organized these factors into a clear hierarchical model. The results positioned “Good Governance Principles” and “Rule of Law” as the foundational drivers of the system (highest driving power, lowest dependence), located at the bottom of the hierarchy. Conversely, factors like “Physical Resilience Standards” and “Command & Operations Structure” emerged as the ultimate goals or outcomes (lowest driving power, highest dependence), situated at the top of the hierarchy. Factors such as “Safety Economy” and “Networked Structure” were identified as critical “linkage” variables with high driving power and high dependence, acting as crucial enablers within the system. The final step was to integrate these analytical findings into a practical, user-friendly conceptual framework. This framework consists of a macro-level for policymaking, three core intervention levels (Prevention & Risk Reduction; Action & Hazard Removal; Monitoring & Control), and two cross-cutting enabling layers (The Economy of Safety; Social Responsibilities).
Conclusion: This research makes a significant contribution by proposing a scientifically grounded and structurally sound conceptual framework for the governance of physical hazards. Unlike previous studies that either diagnosed problems or discussed governance abstractly, this paper presents a tangible and operational blueprint. The proposed framework directly addresses the systemic failures of fragmentation, weak enforcement, and lack of participation by defining clear roles for a wide array of actors and establishing integrated, multi-level processes. By demonstrating how a rigorous analytical model (ISM) can inform and validate a practical policy framework, this study provides a valuable roadmap for policymakers, urban managers, and practitioners seeking to transition from an outdated management paradigm to a more effective, proactive, and resilient governance system for creating a safer Tehran.
Method: This study employed a qualitative approach using a “design research” strategy, which involved a two-stage process for model development. In the first stage, eleven key factors of a desirable governance system were extracted from the literature using the Thomas and Harden Meta-Synthesis method, based on a systematic review. In the second stage, these factors were used as input for the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) method to determine the internal relationships and hierarchical structure among them, based on expert opinion.
Findings: The findings from the meta-synthesis phase led to the identification of 11 key factors, including “Good Governance Principles,” “Network Structure,” “Safety Economy,” and “Culture Building & Social Responsibility.” The ISM analysis revealed that these factors form a multi-level hierarchical model. Factors such as “Good Governance Principles” and “Rule of Law” were identified as “fundamental drivers” at the lowest level, while factors like “Physical Resilience Standards” and “Command & Operations Structure” were positioned as “ultimate goals” at the highest level. The integration of these findings resulted in a final conceptual framework composed of a macro-level (policymaking), three main intervention levels (prevention, action, monitoring), and two cross-cutting enabling layers (safety economy and social responsibilities).
Conclusion: The proposed conceptual framework, grounded in a scientific and structured methodology, offers an innovative response to the challenges of fragmentation and Structural Dysfunction in the traditional risk management system. By precisely defining actors, levels, and relationships, this framework provides an operational roadmap for the transition towards integrated, proactive, and participatory governance. It can serve as a foundation for reforming policies and institutional structures in the domain of physical safety in Tehran.
Keywords: Urban Safety, Physical Resilience, Urban Governance, Structural Dysfunction, Meta-Synthesis, Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)
Extended Abstract
Objective: The increasing frequency and complexity of urban disasters, exemplified by incidents such as the Plasco Building collapse in Tehran, have exposed the profound inefficiencies of traditional, top-down risk management systems. These systems often suffer from institutional fragmentation, lack of coordination, weak enforcement mechanisms, and a reactive rather than proactive posture. Recognizing these shortcomings, the global discourse, particularly through frameworks like the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, has shifted emphasis from “disaster management” to “disaster risk governance.” This paradigm shift necessitates the development of integrated, participatory, and multi-stakeholder systems. However, despite a general consensus on the need for governance, a significant research gap exists in the form of a concrete, operational, and context-specific framework for implementing such a paradigm. This is particularly true for managing physical hazards in a complex metropolis like Tehran. Therefore, the primary objective of this research is to bridge this gap by designing and proposing a comprehensive “conceptual framework” for the governance of physical hazards, tailored to the unique institutional and social context of Tehran. The study aims to move beyond diagnosing the problem to architecting a viable, synergistic, and multi-level solution.Method: To achieve this objective, this study adopted a qualitative, “design research” approach, employing a sophisticated two-stage methodology to ensure rigor and validity. The first stage involved a systematic review of the literature to identify the most relevant academic and policy documents. The selected sources then underwent a Meta-Synthesis, specifically using the thematic synthesis methodology developed by Thomas and Harden (2008). This process involved line-by-line coding of texts, development of descriptive themes, and finally, generation of analytical themes. This rigorous synthesis yielded 11 core factors essential for an effective governance model. The second stage utilized Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM), a well-established method for analyzing the complex interrelationships among a set of variables. The 11 factors identified in the first stage were used as input for the ISM process. Through a structured consultation with a panel of experts in crisis management and urban planning, a Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) was developed. This matrix was then used to mathematically derive the driving power and dependence power of each factor, leading to their hierarchical structuring into a multi-level model.
Findings: The meta-synthesis phase successfully identified 11 key factors for a robust governance system, including: (1) Good Governance Principles, (2) Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Imperatives, (3) Social Resilience, (4) Networked & Polycentric Structure, (5) Command & Operations Structure, (6) Monitoring & Rule of Law, (7) Safety Economy, (8) Culture Building & Social Responsibility, (9) Physical Resilience Standards, (10) Innovation & Technology, and (11) Integrated & Participatory Management. The subsequent ISM analysis organized these factors into a clear hierarchical model. The results positioned “Good Governance Principles” and “Rule of Law” as the foundational drivers of the system (highest driving power, lowest dependence), located at the bottom of the hierarchy. Conversely, factors like “Physical Resilience Standards” and “Command & Operations Structure” emerged as the ultimate goals or outcomes (lowest driving power, highest dependence), situated at the top of the hierarchy. Factors such as “Safety Economy” and “Networked Structure” were identified as critical “linkage” variables with high driving power and high dependence, acting as crucial enablers within the system. The final step was to integrate these analytical findings into a practical, user-friendly conceptual framework. This framework consists of a macro-level for policymaking, three core intervention levels (Prevention & Risk Reduction; Action & Hazard Removal; Monitoring & Control), and two cross-cutting enabling layers (The Economy of Safety; Social Responsibilities).
Conclusion: This research makes a significant contribution by proposing a scientifically grounded and structurally sound conceptual framework for the governance of physical hazards. Unlike previous studies that either diagnosed problems or discussed governance abstractly, this paper presents a tangible and operational blueprint. The proposed framework directly addresses the systemic failures of fragmentation, weak enforcement, and lack of participation by defining clear roles for a wide array of actors and establishing integrated, multi-level processes. By demonstrating how a rigorous analytical model (ISM) can inform and validate a practical policy framework, this study provides a valuable roadmap for policymakers, urban managers, and practitioners seeking to transition from an outdated management paradigm to a more effective, proactive, and resilient governance system for creating a safer Tehran.
Keywords: Urban Safety, Physical Resilience, Urban Governance, Structural Dysfunction, Mixed Method Approach
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |