• صفحه اصلی
  • ارزیابی و برازش مدل خط‌مشی‌گذاری عمومی محیط زیست در کشور

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : JEST-1908-4798 (R1) بازدید : 62 صفحه: 1 - 15

10.22034/jest.2021.46831.4798

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

ارزیابی و برازش مدل خط‌مشی‌گذاری عمومی محیط زیست در کشور

محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت ، برنامه ریزی و آموزش محیط زیست

سید حسین حسینی 1 (دانشجوی دکتری تخصصی، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد،‌ واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.)
کرم الله دانش‌فرد 2 (گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد،‌ واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.)
غلامرضا معمارزاده طهران 3 (گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد،‌ واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران)
هومن بهمن پور 4 (گروه محیط زیست، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، واحد شاهرود، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شاهرود، ایران. *(مسوول مکاتبات))

تاریخ دریافت : 1398/03/15 تاریخ پذیرش : 1398/08/22 تاریخ انتشار : 1399/12/01

کلید واژه: مدل خط‌مشی‌گذاری, برازش, خط‌مشی‌ محیط زیستی, معادلات ساختاری,

چکیده مقاله :

زمینه و هدف: با توجه به اهمیت مقوله محیط زیست در خط‌مشی‌های عمومی کشور و با در نظر گرفتن مشکلات متعدد در حوزه محیط زیست، هدف از این پژوهش ارزیابی و برازش مدل پیشنهادی برای تدوین خط‌مشی‌‌های عمومی محیط زیست در کشور می‌باشد. روش بررسی: این پژوهش از نوع توصیفی و تحلیلی بوده که در بازه زمانی 98-1397 انجام شده است و با استفاده از طراحی مدل مفهومی اولیه و تعیین ابعاد سه‌گانه اصلی (ساختاری، محتوایی و زمینه‌ای) و نیز سی مولفه فرعی اقدام به تعیین روایی و پایایی مدل و برازش آن گردید.مدل اولیه تحقیق با استفاده از روش معادلات ساختاری (SEM) و با کمک نرم‌افزار Smart PLS 2 مورد بررسی و آزمون قرار گرفت. در ادامه، برازش مدل در سه سطح صورت گرفت: برازش مدل اندازه‌گیری، برازش مدل ساختاری و برازش کلی مدل (GOF). یافته‌ها: مقادیر t برای تمام سؤالات بزرگ‌تر از 96/1 بوده و معنی‌دار بودن روابط تعیین گردید. از سوی دیگر، روایی همگرا (AVE) مدل و روایی واگرا به ترتیب با (91/0 و 8368/0) تایید گردیدند. همچنین؛ مقدار R2 (91/0) نشان از تأیید مدل با استفاده از معیار مذکور می‌باشد و قدرت بالای پیش‌بینی متغیرهای درون‌زا را تایید می‌کند. بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: بُعد ساختاری (ضریب مسیر= 5227/0) بیش‌ترین اثر را بر شبکه خط‌مشی‌گذاری عمومی محیط زیست کشور دارد و پس از آن بعد زمینه‌ای/محیطی (با ضریب مسیر= 4597/0) و سپس بُعد محتوایی/رفتاری (ضریب مسیر= 0397/0) در جایگاه سوم قرار دارد. همچنین مقدار معیار GOF معادل 5235/0 حاصل گردید که نشان از برازش قوی مدل کلی پژوهش دارد.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background and Objective: Considering the importance of environmental issues in public policies of the country and considering the numerous problems in the field of environment, the purpose of this study was to evaluate and fit the proposed model for formulation of public environmental policies in the country. Method: This research is a descriptive and analytical study which was carried out to determine the validity and reliability of the model by designing the basic conceptual model and determining three basic dimensions (structural, content and context) and thirty sub-components. The initial model of the research was investigated and tested using SEM using Smart PLS 2 software. The model was then fitted at three levels: the fitting of the measurement model, the fitting of the structural model, and the general fitting of the model (GOF). Findings: The t-values ​​for all questions were greater than 1.96 and the significance of the relationships was determined. On the other hand, convergent validity (AVE) model and divergent validity were confirmed with (0.91 and 0.8368, respectively). Also, a value of R2 (0.91) indicates the validation of the model using the above criterion and demonstrates the high power of predicting endogenous variables. Discussion and Conclusion: "Structural dimension" (path coefficient= 0.5227) has the highest effect on the public environmental policy network of the country and then "Contextual/Environmental dimension" (with path coefficient= 0.4597) and then "dimension" Content/Behavior (path coefficient= 0.0397) is in third place. Also, the GOF criterion was found to be equal to 0.55235, indicating a strong fit to the overall model.

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. EPI., 2018. Environmental Performance Index, Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Yale University, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University, In collaboration with the World Economic Forum, With support from The McCall MacBain Foundation and Mark T. DeAngelis. epi.yale.edu
    2.
  2. Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, 2018. Sixth Economic, Social and Cultural Development Program of Iran, 132 p. (In Persian)
    3.
  3. Momivand, B., Aminisabegh, Z., Sadeh, E., Khala,j M.R., 2018. Designing a Model for Implementing Environmental Policy in Iran, Social Science and Research Journal of Islamic Azad University, Shoushtar Branch, Volume 12, Number 1, 40, 31-58 pp. (In Persian)
    4.
  4. Geological Survey of Iran, 2018. Minerals Exploration, Iran Natural Resources Status Analysis Maps. (In Persian)
    5.
  5. Yousefi, A., 2015. Environmental Education Content for Imams and Clergymen, Office of Education and Public Participation of the Environmental Protection Agency. (In Persian)
    6.
  6. Bahmanpour, H., 2015. Environmental Training for Members of Islamic Town and Village Councils, Environmental Protection Organization Training Package, 212 p. (In Persian)
    7.
  7. Matoofi, A., Duncan, M., 2017. Prioritizing Factors Affecting the Development of National Environmental Policies Using ANP Method, Majlis and Strategy, Volume 24, Number 90, 156-156 pp. (Persian)
    8.
  8. DOE, 2018. Statistical Yearbook of Environment, Organization Portal, Department of Environment, Deputy of Education and Research. Available at www.doi.ir. (In Persian)

    1. Dogaru, T., 2011. Public policy from rational choice perspective. Doctoral thesis, National School of Political Student and Public administration, Faculty of public administration.
      2.
    2. Deeb, C., 2014. Top-Down Approach to Policy Decisions, Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/topdown-approach-policy-decisions-35494.html
      3.
    3. Colebatch, H., 2009. Governance as a conceptual development in the analysis of policy. Critical policy studies, 3(1), 58-67.
      4.
    4. Anderson, J.E., 2003. Public policymaking: An introduction, The Study of Public Policy (Chapter1, pp.1-34), Boston: Houghton.
      5.
    5. Korir, J., Maru, L., Kipruto, N., Koske,i D., 2017. Effects of Network Structure on Performance of Minor Event Management Ventures in Kenya, European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 1(6), 34-45.
      6.

  9. Aslipoor, H., Zahedi, Sh., Sharifzadeh, F., Ghorbanizadeh, W., 2014. Explaining the Native Pattern of Formulation of National Environmental Policies Using Data Theory of Foundation, Strategic Management Thought, Volume 8, Number 1, Spring and Summer 2014, pp. 66-41. (In Persian)

    1. Baker, S., Eckerberg, K., 2013. A policy analysis perspective on ecological restoration, Ecology and Society, 18 (2): 17-30.
      2.
    2. McGregor, S.L., 2004. Modeling the evolution of a policy network using network analysis. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 32(4), 382-407.
      3.
    3. Shafritz, J., Christopher, P., 2008. Introducing Public Policy, Longman, New York.
      4.
    4. Scott, N., 2011. Environmental policy: A strategic review: Good fellow Publishers.
      5.
    5. Stevenson, N., Airey, D., Miller, G., 2018. Environmental Policy Making: The Policymakers’ Perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 732-750.
      6.
    6. Fornell, C., Larcker, D., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3), 39-50.
      7.
    7. Kline, R.B., 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. London; the Guilford Press.
      8.
    8. Byrne, B.M., 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts Applications, and Programming. London; Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
      9.


 

 

 

 

 

_||_

  1. EPI., 2018. Environmental Performance Index, Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Yale University, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Columbia University, In collaboration with the World Economic Forum, With support from The McCall MacBain Foundation and Mark T. DeAngelis. epi.yale.edu
    2.
  2. Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, 2018. Sixth Economic, Social and Cultural Development Program of Iran, 132 p. (In Persian)
    3.
  3. Momivand, B., Aminisabegh, Z., Sadeh, E., Khala,j M.R., 2018. Designing a Model for Implementing Environmental Policy in Iran, Social Science and Research Journal of Islamic Azad University, Shoushtar Branch, Volume 12, Number 1, 40, 31-58 pp. (In Persian)
    4.
  4. Geological Survey of Iran, 2018. Minerals Exploration, Iran Natural Resources Status Analysis Maps. (In Persian)
    5.
  5. Yousefi, A., 2015. Environmental Education Content for Imams and Clergymen, Office of Education and Public Participation of the Environmental Protection Agency. (In Persian)
    6.
  6. Bahmanpour, H., 2015. Environmental Training for Members of Islamic Town and Village Councils, Environmental Protection Organization Training Package, 212 p. (In Persian)
    7.
  7. Matoofi, A., Duncan, M., 2017. Prioritizing Factors Affecting the Development of National Environmental Policies Using ANP Method, Majlis and Strategy, Volume 24, Number 90, 156-156 pp. (Persian)
    8.
  8. DOE, 2018. Statistical Yearbook of Environment, Organization Portal, Department of Environment, Deputy of Education and Research. Available at www.doi.ir. (In Persian)

    1. Dogaru, T., 2011. Public policy from rational choice perspective. Doctoral thesis, National School of Political Student and Public administration, Faculty of public administration.
      2.
    2. Deeb, C., 2014. Top-Down Approach to Policy Decisions, Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/topdown-approach-policy-decisions-35494.html
      3.
    3. Colebatch, H., 2009. Governance as a conceptual development in the analysis of policy. Critical policy studies, 3(1), 58-67.
      4.
    4. Anderson, J.E., 2003. Public policymaking: An introduction, The Study of Public Policy (Chapter1, pp.1-34), Boston: Houghton.
      5.
    5. Korir, J., Maru, L., Kipruto, N., Koske,i D., 2017. Effects of Network Structure on Performance of Minor Event Management Ventures in Kenya, European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 1(6), 34-45.
      6.

  9. Aslipoor, H., Zahedi, Sh., Sharifzadeh, F., Ghorbanizadeh, W., 2014. Explaining the Native Pattern of Formulation of National Environmental Policies Using Data Theory of Foundation, Strategic Management Thought, Volume 8, Number 1, Spring and Summer 2014, pp. 66-41. (In Persian)

    1. Baker, S., Eckerberg, K., 2013. A policy analysis perspective on ecological restoration, Ecology and Society, 18 (2): 17-30.
      2.
    2. McGregor, S.L., 2004. Modeling the evolution of a policy network using network analysis. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 32(4), 382-407.
      3.
    3. Shafritz, J., Christopher, P., 2008. Introducing Public Policy, Longman, New York.
      4.
    4. Scott, N., 2011. Environmental policy: A strategic review: Good fellow Publishers.
      5.
    5. Stevenson, N., Airey, D., Miller, G., 2018. Environmental Policy Making: The Policymakers’ Perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 732-750.
      6.
    6. Fornell, C., Larcker, D., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3), 39-50.
      7.
    7. Kline, R.B., 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. London; the Guilford Press.
      8.
    8. Byrne, B.M., 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts Applications, and Programming. London; Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
      9.


 

 

 

 

 

مقالات مرتبط

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]