Extended Abstract
Introduction
The administration of cities in Iran faces a fundamental challenge rooted in the multiplicity and diversity of administrative-spatial division levels within its metropolises. Various government organizations, departments, and sectors often operate based on their own specific, and often conflicting, spatial boundaries within a single urban area. This heterogeneity and lack of uniformity in spatial divisions lead to unnecessary complexity, a proliferation of administrative boundaries, and significant obstacles to achieving good urban governance. Such fragmentation results in scattered authority, reduced transparency, increased coordination costs, and ultimately, inefficient public service delivery and a decline in the quality of life for citizens.
The city of Ahvaz, as a major Iranian metropolis, exemplifies these challenges. Its specific geographical, social, and economic characteristics—including high migration rates, widespread informal settlements, and ethnic-cultural diversity—intensify the negative impacts of this administrative-spatial fragmentation. The misalignment between political boundaries, management zones, and service areas among different institutions (such as the Municipality, Governorate, Ministry departments, and independent organizations) leads to an unequal distribution of resources, a lack of coherence in urban planning, and diminished accountability of local institutions.
This research seeks to address this gap by conducting a case study of Ahvaz. The primary research question is: What impact do heterogeneous administrative-spatial divisions have on the quality of governance in Ahvaz metropolis? Furthermore, it explores how these dysfunctions affect the equitable distribution of services, coordination among governance institutions, and citizen participation. Ultimately, the study investigates whether reforming the structure of administrative divisions can lead to improved governance quality in Iranian metropolises.
Methodology
This research is qualitative, exploratory, and applied in its approach. It employs a mixed-methods design to comprehensively investigate the complex phenomenon under study.
Qualitative Phase: The primary objective of this phase was to identify the key components and indicators influencing the relationship between heterogeneous divisions and governance quality. The Delphi technique was utilized to gather and refine expert opinions. The sampling method for this phase was snowball sampling, a non-probability technique suitable for reaching knowledgeable experts in a specific field. The selection criteria for experts included theoretical mastery, practical experience, willingness to participate, and accessibility. The data collection process continued until theoretical saturation was achieved in the data coding process, ultimately leading to the participation of 15 experts. Through continuous comparative analysis of the interview data, four main categories (factors) emerged.
Quantitative Phase (Modeling): Following the qualitative analysis, the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) method was used to structure the relationships between the identified factors and determine their hierarchical levels. A semi-structured questionnaire based on a Likert scale, containing the factors extracted from the interviews, was distributed among the same panel of experts. The content validity of the questionnaire was confirmed using Lawshe's method, where the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) for all indicators was calculated to be 1. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using the test-retest method, with correlation coefficients above 0.7, confirming acceptable reliability.
The ISM process involved several steps: 1) Developing the Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) to show pairwise contextual relationships between factors; 2) Creating the initial reachability matrix; 3) Developing the final reachability matrix; and 4) Level partitioning to determine the hierarchy of factors. Finally, using MICMAC (Matrice d'Impacts Croisés-Multiplication Appliquée à un Classement) analysis, the factors were categorized based on their driving power and dependence, providing insights into their influence within the system.
Results and Discussion
The findings indicate that the heterogeneous administrative-spatial structure in Ahvaz is not merely a static structural problem but a dynamic, self-reinforcing systemic one. Negative feedback loops, such as institutional competition over resources and territory, perpetuate and even exacerbate the initial fragmentation. For instance, centralization in national policymating (a root cause) creates parallel institutions, leading to a multiplicity of decision-making centers. This increases coordination costs, fosters institutional rivalry, and results in an unfair distribution of urban amenities. The final manifestation of this chain reaction is a decline in service quality, public dissatisfaction, and a pervasive inefficiency in urban governance.
This fragmentation manifests in two key dimensions in Ahvaz: a) Spatial-Managerial Disintegration: The misalignment between formal boundaries (e.g., municipality zones) and real settlement patterns, especially in peri-urban areas, creates planning incoherence. b) Project Delays and Spatial Inequality: Overlapping responsibilities and non-coterminous administrative areas lead to delays in project implementation and reinforce spatial inequalities.
Therefore, the ISM and MICMAC models collectively demonstrate that tackling this issue requires a multi-pronged approach. Isolated interventions, such as merely changing a law or merging two departments, are likely to be ineffective because of the strong interlinkages and feedback within the system.
Conclusion
This study concludes that the heterogeneous administrative-spatial divisions in Ahvaz fundamentally weaken the quality of urban governance by creating dispersed power centers, reducing transparency, and inflating transactional costs. The problem is systemic and self-perpetuating. The research affirms that reforming this structure is a critical prerequisite for enhancing integrated urban management and unlocking significant local, national, and regional development opportunities for Ahvaz.
The primary implication of this research is that breaking this vicious cycle requires simultaneous and coordinated intervention at three distinct levels:

Legal Level: Reforming centralized laws and regulations that create and empower parallel institutions.
Institutional Level: Promoting organizational integration and redefining mandates to reduce overlap and foster collaboration among different entities operating in the urban space.
Social Level: Strengthening mechanisms for citizen participation and accountability to create bottom-up pressure for good governance and ensure that reforms are responsive to local needs.

The findings of this study are consistent with prior research on political-space management and administrative divisions in Iran, underscoring the generalized nature of this challenge across the country's metropolises. Future research could focus on developing detailed action plans for implementing the proposed multi-level interventions and measuring their impact over time.