نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 کارشناس ارشد گروه پژوهش و توسعه شهرداری کرج، کرج، ایران
2 دانشیار مدیریت دولتی دانشگاه پیام نور تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Context and Purpose:
The objective of this research is to conduct a comparative analysis of crisis management and urban resilience in megacities through the lens of good governance. Employing the "Good Governance" framework and examining three key axes—actors, legal transformations, and dominant narratives—the study seeks to identify the characteristics of governance under emergency conditions and measure the extent to which the indicators of good governance are manifested in the current structure of crisis management and urban resilience.
Methodology
This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach and utilizes a comparative method to study crisis management and urban resilience within the context of good governance. The required data are collected through documentary analysis and evaluated based on indicators of good governance, with the ultimate aim of achieving the study’s primary objective: to propose practical solutions for improving crisis management and urban resilience.
Findings
The findings of the study indicate that centralized and hierarchical structures (e.g., Turkey and Romania) lead to coordination failures and delayed responses, while participatory models (e.g., Indonesia) and digital-driven approaches (e.g., Singapore) foster higher resilience. The comparison between Tehran and Mashhad also reveals shared shortcomings in inter-organizational coordination and social trust, though Mashhad exhibits stronger critical infrastructure. The key finding underscores that effective crisis resilience requires the integration of smart decentralization, civic engagement, and technology-enabled governance.
Conclusion
This comparative study demonstrates that effective crisis governance relies on a hybrid model integrating smart decentralization, civic participation, and digital technology within a framework of transparency and equity. While centralized structures often face inefficiency and delays, decentralized and participatory models (e.g., Indonesia) and digital-driven governance (e.g., Singapore) exhibit higher resilience. The key finding emphasizes the necessity of transitioning from reactive management toward "proactive resilient governance," where sustainable institutional reform is fundamental to confronting future crises.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)