Public Administration Perspective

Giving the Evaluation Model of Public Policies in Iran's Tourism Industry

Document Type : Based on PhD Thesis

Authors

1 PhD student in public administration(decision-making and public policy making), Faculty of Management and Economics, Science and Research Unit, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Science and Research Unit, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Public Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Science and Research Unit, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

10.52547/jpap.2023.230748.1277

Abstract

Purpose: The main objective of this research is to design and present a comprehensive model for evaluating public policies in the tourism industry in Iran, aiming to fill part of the knowledge gap in this area.
Design/ methodology/ approach: From the audience's point of view, this research is foundational, and in terms of attitude, it is mixed (qualitative and quantitative), employing non-interventional measures. The qualitative stage involved reviewing relevant literature and conducting semi-structured interviews with experts and specialists in the tourism field. The Delphi method was used in three stages to derive basic and key concepts until categories reached theoretical consensus and an appropriate framework was established. In the quantitative stage, the derived framework was tested, and the proposed model for evaluating policy-making in Iran's tourism industry was compiled and presented through data processing and analysis based on questionnaire results. The statistical population includes tourism experts and specialists, with 21 individuals chosen as the sample. According to the findings, the main elements of the model were identified in five dimensions (problem recognition, compilation, legitimation, implementation, and final evaluation) encompassing 44 concepts related to 14 categories, leading to the design of the comprehensive model.
Research Findings: The results indicated that the most important measures for evaluating each of the five dimensions of public tourism policies in Iran are as follows: addressing the main issue of tourism (average score of 2.33), rationality of tourism policies (average score of 2.17), public acceptance of tourism policies (average score of 1.60), practical obligation of tourism policy implementers (average score of 2.26), and consistency in evaluating tourism policies (average score of 2.12). The most significant stages influencing the evaluation of public tourism policies in Iran are legitimizing tourism policies (average score of 3.50) and implementing tourism policies (average score of 3.36). Results from examining the research conceptual framework using AMOS software and goodness-of-fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis model for evaluating public policies in Iran's tourism were deemed acceptable based on GFI, AGFI, CFI, CMIN/df, and RMSEA statistical tests.
Limitations & Consequences One limitation of this research is the broad scope of tourism, which includes various types such as cultural, educational, recreational, commercial, therapeutic, social, athletic, religious, and political. Each type, besides its general and common indices, requires specific measures for policy evaluation, which exceeds the objectives of this research and presents limitations. Addressing these specific measures requires further independent research, which is recommended for future studies.
Practical Consequences: The findings of this research, in addition to expanding the theoretical domain, may enhance the applied knowledge of tourism development and improve the performance of tourism regions. They also provide a basis for high-level managers to prioritize the importance of evaluating public policy-making in Iran's tourism sector. Based on the results, the primary priority in evaluating public policies in Iran's tourism industry is the "policy legitimizing stage." Therefore, one practical implication of this research is that policymakers should consider the necessary frameworks for legalizing and legitimizing tourism public policies in regulating and approving upstream documents. Using the model presented in this research, the existing process of public policies in Iran's tourism industry can be evaluated. Furthermore, continuing this research could model and test desirable conditions for tourism industry policy-making in Iran. Given that the evaluation of the policy implementation stage is the second priority in the process of evaluating public policies in Iran's tourism industry, providing an effective mechanism for the precise implementation of Iran's tourism industry policies is another practical implication of this research.
Innovation or value of the Article: Since there is no specific, appropriate model that conforms to Iran's existing realities in evaluating tourism policies, presenting this model and filling part of the investigational gap indicates the value of this article. Generalizing tourism policy evaluation to all stages of the policy-making process, rather than focusing solely on final evaluation, demonstrates another aspect of the article's innovation and value. The mixed-method approach and the use of various instruments in designing and presenting a model for evaluating tourism policy contribute to the precision and comprehensiveness of policy evaluation, showcasing another innovative aspect of this research.
Paper Type: Original Paper
 

Keywords

  1. Alkin, M. C. & Christie, C. A. (2012). "An Evaluation Theory Tree Evaluation roots، A Wider Perspective of Theorists' Views and Influences" Thousand Oaks: SAGE pp. 11-58.
  2. D.L; Allen. M.D; Smith. G; & Swanson. G.R (2008). "Tourism Policy and Planning: Yesterday. Today and Tomorrow".p:7
  3. J. (2002). "Tourism and politics in the Korean Peninsula". Tourism Studies. Vol. 13 no2. Pp 16 -27
  4. C.R. & Ritchie. J.R. (2006). "Tourism: Principles. Practices. Philosophies" John Wiley, P414.
  5. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). "Fourth Generation Evaluation " (1th ed.) . New Delhi: SAGE Publications pp:22-37.
  6. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). "Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry", ECTJ, 30(4), 233-252.
  7. C.M. (1995). "Tourism and Public Policy". Cengage Learning EMEA, 1995:8.
  8. Heydari Chianeh, Reza.tab, r; Azgami, sk. Soltani, n and Motamedi Mehr,a. (2013), an analysis of tourism policy making in Iran, Journal of Tourism Planning and Development, No. 5, pp. 31-11. (in persian).
  9. M. & Ramesh. M. (2003). "Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems". Oxford university Press,16-27.
  10. Mark, M., Henry, G. & Julnes, G. (2000) . "Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Policies and Programs", (1th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  11. Masoumi, m, (2006), "The Nature of Tourism", Tehran: Peyk Kosar Publications.p:27 (in persian).
  12. Masoumi, m, (2009), "history of tourism development planning in Iran", Tehran: Samira Publications., 1385: 19(in persian).
  13. Newman, w, (2017), "social research methods, quantitative and qualitative approaches", translated by Faqihi, a, Tehran, Termeh Publications, 4th edition, 2nd volume. (in persian).
  14. Popli Yazdi,m and Soqaei,m, (2015), "Tourism (Nature and Concepts) ", Tehran: Samet Publications, 1385: 77(in persian).
  15. Pourezzat, a, (2022), "Public Administration", Volume 13, Number 1:1-2, Faculty of Management, University of Tehranp:1-2. (in persian).
  16. Richins, H. (2000). "Influences on tourism development decision making: Coastal local government areas in Eastern Australia". Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(3), 207-231
  17. Rossi, P., Lipsey, M., Freeman, H. (2003) . "Evaluation: A Systematic Approach" (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
  18. Rostami, h; Pourahmad, a; Hadilo, h, (2013), "Tourism and Globalization", first edition, Tehran: Jihad University Press. 37(in persian).
  19. Sabatier, P. A. and Mazmanian, D. (1980). "A Framework for Analysis", Policy Study Journal, 8: 538-660.
  20. Scott, N. (2011). "Tourism policy: A strategic review". The School of Tourism, the University of Queensland, Goodfellow Publishers, Australia.P23.
  21. Shadish WR Jr, Cook TD et al (1991). "Foundations of program evaluation: theories of practice". Sage Publications, Inc, Newbury Park.
  22. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). "Evaluation models" , New Directions for Evaluation, no 89.
  23. The University of Texas at Austin (2015). The Texas Politics Project. Retrieved from http://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/.
  24. Vaezi, r, Sharifzadeh, f, Mohammad, m, Identification and prioritization of public policy evaluation models, Iranian Management Sciences Quarterly, 10th year, number 40, winter (2014), pp. 1-22. (in persian).
  25. Ziaei, m; Tarab Ahmadi, m, (2012), understanding the tourism industry with a systemic approach, Tehran: Social Sciences Publishing, 1392: 230(in persian).
Public Administration Perspective
Volume 15, Issue 1 - Serial Number 57
April 2024
Pages 62-86