Evaluation and Fitting of General Environmental Policy Making Model in Iran

Subject Areas : مدیریت ، برنامه ریزی و آموزش محیط زیست

Seyed Hossein Hosseini ¹ , Karam Allah Daneshfard ² , Gholamreza Memarzadeh Tehran ³ , Hooman Bahmanpour ^{4 *}

1 - Ph.D. Student, Department of Governmental Management, Faculty of Economy and Management, Research and Science Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
2 - Department of Governmental Management, Faculty of Economy and Management, Research and Science Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3 - Department of Governmental Management, Faculty of Economy and Management, Research and Science Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
4 - Department of Environment, Faculty of Engineering, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran. *(Corresponding Author)

Received: 2019-06-05 Accepted : 2019-11-13 Published : 2021-02-19

Keywords: fitting, structural equations, Environmental Policy, Policy Model,

Abstract :

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.

References:

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. Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, 2018. Sixth Economic, Social and Cultural Development Program of Iran, 132 p. (In Persian)


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. Geological Survey of Iran, 2018. Minerals Exploration, Iran Natural Resources Status Analysis Maps. (In Persian)


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. Bahmanpour, H., 2015. Environmental Training for Members of Islamic Town and Village Councils, Environmental Protection Organization Training Package, 212 p. (In Persian)


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. 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. Deeb, C., 2014. Top-Down Approach to Policy Decisions, Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/topdown-approach-policy-decisions-35494.html
   
   
   3. Colebatch, H., 2009. Governance as a conceptual development in the analysis of policy. Critical policy studies, 3(1), 58-67.
   
   
   4. Anderson, J.E., 2003. Public policymaking: An introduction, The Study of Public Policy (Chapter1, pp.1-34), Boston: Houghton.
   
   
   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.
   
   


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. 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. Shafritz, J., Christopher, P., 2008. Introducing Public Policy, Longman, New York.
   
   
   4. Scott, N., 2011. Environmental policy: A strategic review: Good fellow Publishers.
   
   
   5. Stevenson, N., Airey, D., Miller, G., 2018. Environmental Policy Making: The Policymakers’ Perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 732-750.
   
   
   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. Kline, R.B., 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. London; the Guilford Press.
   
   
   8. Byrne, B.M., 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts Applications, and Programming. London; Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.