Institutional Capacity Analysis of Isfahan Knowledge-Based Urban Development

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. in Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Uran Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

3 Professor, School of Urban Studies, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Nowadays, as cities are the center of development in which knowledge is produced and disseminated, they play a fundamental role in knowledge-based development. Thus, knowledge-based value is the driving force of urban development and is changing the spatial structure of the cities. Knowledge-based urban development (KBUD) has been proposed as an approach for competitiveness and sustainable development of urban economics and their compatibility to the strategies of the knowledge economy through creating opportunities for the production and exchange of knowledge and innovation between citizens. Due to the fact that KBUD activities are related to the stakeholders in the field of learning and innovation, the use of the capacity building and networking tools based on the institutional framework and through the expansion of local stakeholder engagement can underlie and be the driving force of institutional changes for integrated urban development. According to the emergence of city knowledge studies and the lack of systematic development of its theoretical foundations, there has been little research conducted on the success or failure of KBUD policies and their challenges in the cities in developing countries. Recent studies have shown that the most important requirement for the realization of KBUD is institutional development. In order to create interaction and integrated compatibility between urban resources and stakeholders, the need for good governance and strong political leadership is the pioneer in science and technology that addresses the weakness of institutional arrangements and the inadequacy of the governing tools. The most substantial aspect of knowledge-based urban development is the institutional aspect, since it is the regulator of the relationship between the economic, social, and environmental aspects of the city, which is performed based on political will, strategic view, strong relationships, and KBUD stakeholders' confidence. Therefore, this study seeks to identify the factors affecting the institutional capacity of KBUD in Isfahan to provide a proper understanding of the institutional requirements of KBUD in Isfahan. This research has been conducted with an exploratory-operational goal and has used exploratory factor analysis and survey research methods. It is also a quantitative research due to the nature of the required data, and the main tool for data collection is questionnaire. The findings show that eight factors affecting the institutional capacity of KBUD in Isfahan with a total variance of 66.309% provide a good explanation of the topic, the most important factor being an encouraging and supportive environment for knowledge production and use. On the other hand, the institutional capacity status of KBUD in Isfahan, with an overall score of 34.16 is inadequate and in the absence of sufficient political will and deep strategic insight for the realization of KBUD in Isfahan, actors and managers, in particular, are less willing to cooperate because of their lack of trust in each other. Therefore, they cannot provide an encouraging and supportive environment for knowledge production and use, including hard infrastructure (urban spaces suitable for people to attend and chat) and soft infrastructure (providing incentives, job comfort and security).

Keywords

References

-       آلرک، پاملا، و رابرت، بیستل (1380). پژوهش پیمایشی: رهنمودها و استراتژی‌هایی برای انجام دادن پیمایش (مترجم: مهراندخت نظام شهیدی، اردشیر امیدی محنه، و محمود متحد). تهران: نشر آگه. 
-       زبردست، اسفندیار (1396). کاربرد روش تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی در برنامه‌ریزی شهری و منطقه‌ای؛ مورد پژوهی: سنجش وضعیت پایداری اجتماعی در کلان‌شهر تهران. نشریه هنرهای زیبا-معماری و شهرسازی، 22 (2)، 5-18.
-       زبردست، اسفندیار، خلیلی، احمد، و دهقانی، مصطفی (1392). کاربرد روش تحلیل عاملی در شناسایی بافت‌های فرسوده شهری. نشریه هنرهای زیبا-معماری و شهرسازی ، 18 (2)، 27-42.
-       فرهنگی، مرجان (1392). تبیین اصول و ویژگی‌های فضایی توسعه شهری دانش مبنا؛ مطالعه موردی شهر اصفهان. رساله برای دریافت درجه دکتری شهرسازی، دانشگاه تهران. 
-       محمود پور، ئسرین (1394). چارچوب انگاشتی برنامه‌ریزی شهری دانش‌پایه در شهر تهران. رساله برای دریافت درجه دکتری برنامه‌ریزی شهری و منطقه‌ای، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
-       نایبی، هوشنگ (1392). آمار پیشرفته کاربردی همراه با SPSS (چاپ دوم). تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
 
-             AFROSAI-E. (2015). Institutional Capacity Building Framework (ICBF); Guideline for the annual activity report questionnaire. Retrieved from Eurosai.org/handle404?exporturi=/export/sites/eurosai/.content/documents/2015-ICBF-Guideline1_00.pdf.
-             Alexander, E. (2011). An evolutionary theory of institutions-prescriptive implications: Institutional design lives, but prudential principles apply. Planning Theory, 10(2), 187-189.
-             Amin, A. (1999). An institutional perspective on regional economic development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2), 365-378.
-             Baqir, M. N., & Kathawala, Y. (2004). Ba for Knowledge Cities: A Futuristic Technology Model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8 (5), 83-95. 
-             Brown, D. R., & Harvey, D. (2006). An experiential approach to organization development (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
-             Brown, R. (2008). Local Institutional Development and Organizational Change for Advancing Sustainable Urban Water Futures. Environmental Management, 41(2), 221-233.
-             Carrillo, F. J. (2006). Knowledge Cities: Approaches, Experiences and Perspectives. London: Routledge.
-             Carrillo, J., Yigitcanlar, T., Garcia, B., & Lonnqvist, A. (2014). Knowledge and the city: concepts, applications and trends of knowledge-based urban development. Washington, DC: Routledge.
-             Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(1), 1-9.
-             Cuthill, M., & Fien, J. (2005). Capacity building: Facilitating citizen participation in local governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(4), 63–80.
-             Elena, C. (2015). The making of knowledge cities in Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 32, 534-541.
-             Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K., & Psarras, J. (2004). Towards Knowledge City: Conceptual Analysis and Success Stories. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8 (5), 5-15.
-             Evans, B., Marko, J., Sundback, S., & Theobald, K. (2005). Governing sustainable cities. London: Earthscan.
-             Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The Application of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Applied Psychology- a Critical Review and Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 291-314.
-             Gibbs, D. C., Jonas, A. E., Reimer, S., & Spooner, D. J. (2001). Governance, institutional capacity and partnerships in local economic development: theoretical issues and empirical evidence from the Humber Sub‐region. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26(1), 103-119.
-             Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
-             Grindle, M. S., & Hilderbrand, M. E. (1995). Building sustainable capacity in the public sector: what can be done. Public Administration and Development, 15, 441- 463.
-             Healey, P. (1998). Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning. Environment and Planning A, 30(10), 1531-1546.
-             Hughes-Hammer, C., Martsolf, D., & Zeller, R. (1998). Development and testing of the codependency assessment tool. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 12, 264-272.
-             Jacobson, A. (2012). A Cohesive Downtown from a Knowledge City Perspective -A Study in Urban Planning. Doctoral Dissertation in Civil Engineering, Jönköping University. 
-             Kacar, S.M., & Gezici, F. (2016). Knowledge-based urban development potential of Turkish provinces. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 6 (2), 160–183.
-             Kerlinger, F. (1986). Factor analysis. In F. Kerlinger (Ed.), Foundations in behavioral research (569-593). Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston (HRW).
-             Komninos, N. (2002). Intelligent Cities. London: Spon Press.
-             Laszlo, K. C., & Laszlo, A. (2007). Fostering a Sustainable Learning Society through Knowledge-Based Development. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 24 (5), 493-503.
-             Lusthaus, C., Anderson, E., & Murphy, E. (1995). Institutional assessment: A framework for strengthening organizational capacity for IDRC's research partners. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
-             Meene, S. J. (2020). Institutional Capacity Attributes of Sustainable Urban Water Management: the Case of Sydney Australia. International Conference on Urban Drainage 2008, Iwa Publishing.
-             Mohammed, A., & Youssef, K. (2016). An approach for promoting urban and architectural potentials for supporting knowledge economy, case study: Brisbane. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 216, 20 – 29.
-             OECD. (2006). OECD Territorial Reviews: Newcastle. Paris: OECD.
-             Pike, A., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Tomaney, 1. (2006). Local and Regional Development. Oxon: Routledge.
-             Robins, L. (2008). Making capacity building meaningful: A framework for strategic action. Environmental Management, 42(5), 833-846.
-             Roose, A., & Lepik, K-L. (2015). Assessment of knowledge-based urban development in the cross-border twin-city: a Tallinn-Helsinki case study. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 6 (4), 299–313. 
-             Scheepers, L. A. (2015). An Institutional Capacity Model for Municipalities in South Africa. Doctoral Dissertation in Public Management and Development Planning, Stellenbosch University.
-             Sedlaced, S., & Gaube, V. (2010). Regions on their way to sustainability: the role of institutions in fostering sustainable development at the regional level. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12 (1), 117–134.
-             Stein, H. (2008). Beyond the World Bank Agenda: An Institutional Approach to Development. London: The University of Chicago Press, Ltd.
-             Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics: Pearson new international edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.
-             Thomson, B. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
-             Wachira, E. (2009). Organizational capacity audit tool. Global e-Schools and Communities Initiative. 
-             Wang, X. (2009). Knowledge-based urban development in China. Doctoral Dissertation, Newcastle University.
-             Willems, S., & Baumert, K. (2003). Institutional Capacity and ClimateActions. Paris: OECD.
-             Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory Factor Analysis: A five Step Guide for Novices. Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care (JEPHC), 8 (13), 1-13.
-             Work Foundation (2005). Ideopolis: Knowledge Cities. London: The Work Foundation.
-             Yigitcanlar, T., & Bulu, M. (2015). Dubaization of Istanbul: insights from the knowledge based urban development journey of an emerging local economy. Environment and Planning A, 47(1), 89-107. 
-             Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K., & Baum, S. (2008). Knowledge-Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the Information Era. Hershey and New York: Information Science Reference.
Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning
Volume 13, Issue 31
July 2021
Pages 5-22

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics