پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,230 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,759 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 115,134,052 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,898,494 |
تحلیل ذینفعان توسعه شهری دانش بنیان (مورد پژوهی: شهر اصفهان) | ||
| پژوهشهای جغرافیای انسانی | ||
| مقاله 19، دوره 53، شماره 1، فروردین 1400، صفحه 323-341 اصل مقاله (1.12 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jhgr.2020.280961.1007921 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| مصطفی دهقانی1؛ غلامرضا حقیقت نایینی* 2؛ اسفندیار زبردست3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، دانشکدة معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دانشیار شهرسازی، دانشکدة معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| 3استاد شهرسازی، دانشکدة شهرسازی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| تحقق توسعة شهری دانشبنیان (KBUD) بهعنوان رهیافت توسعهای مبتنی بر استفاده از ابزارهای نوآورانه برای جذب دانشگران و توسعة فعالیتهای دانشبنیان مستلزم توجه به ابعاد نهادی توسعه بهویژهتحلیل ذینفعان کلیدی و بهکارگیری ابزارهای ظرفیتسازی و شبکهسازی از طریق گسترش تعامل ذینفعان محلی و تقویت اعتماد و همکاری و انسجام شبکة روابط بین آنها برای ایجاد تغییرات نهادی است. در این راستا، هدف این پژوهش، شناسایی و تحلیل ذینفعان کلیدی برای گسترش تعامل ذینفعان محلی و تقویت اعتماد و همکاری شبکة روابط بین آنها برای ایجاد تغییرات نهادی پاسخگوی KBUD اصفهان است. راهبرد کلی پژوهش، مطالعة موردی و با جهتگیری پارادایمی پراگماتیستی است و از نظر هدف کلی کاربردی و از نظر هدف عملیاتی توصیفی- اکتشافی است. از سویی، رویکرد روششناختی پژوهش از نظر ماهیت دادهها ترکیبی و با استفاده از ابزارهایی کمّی (آمار پارامتریک) و کیفی همچون مصاحبة نیمهساختاریافته است. همچنین، با استفاده از ماتریس قدرت- منفعت، درکی از میزان و نوع قدرت و منفعت ذینفعان و چگونگی اعمال قدرت آنها با توجه به نوع منافعشان ارائه شده است. نتایج مطالعات نشان میدهد که تحقق KBUD اصفهان منوط به پیگیری منافع مشترک و اجرای اقدامات مشترک بین ذینفعان مختلف است. بدین ترتیب، دستهبندی ارائهشده برای تحلیل ذینفعان کلیدی KBUD اصفهان، به دلیل فراهمکردن امکان مقایسه نوع قدرت و منافع ذینفعان و امکان تعریف راهبردهای مشترک و اقدامات همافزایانة ذینفعان بر اساس منافع مشترکشان، ابزار مناسبی برای ظرفیتسازی، شبکهسازی، و ارتقای مشارکت و تعامل بین آنها در فرایند سیاستگذاری KBUD اصفهان بهدست میدهد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| اصفهان؛ تحلیل ذینفعان؛ توسعة شهری دانشبنیان؛ شهر دانش؛ مدل ماتریس قدرت- منفعت | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Knowledge-Based Urban Development Stakeholder Analysis (Case Study: Isfahan City) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mostafa Dehghani1؛ Gholamreza Haghighat Naeini2؛ Esfandiar Zebardast3 | ||
| 1PhD Candidate in urban planning, Faculty of Architecture and urban planning, Art University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture and urban planning, Art University of Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3Professor of Urban Planning, Faculty of Urban Planning, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction Nowadays, cities are the focus of development. It is mostly in cities that knowledge is produced and published. Therefore, they play a fundamental role in knowledge-based development and by evolving the development concept as well as knowledge-based value, which is the driving force of urban development, and changing the spatial structure of cities, the Knowledge City (KC) and Knowledge-Based Urban Development (KBUD) have been proposed as an attitude for competitiveness and sustainable development of urban economics and their compatibility to the strategies of knowledge economy through creation of opportunities for the production and exchange of knowledge and innovation among citizens. Because KBUD activities are related to the stakeholders in the field of learning and innovation, the use of capacity building and networking tools based on the institutional framework and through the expansion of local stakeholder engagement can underlie and become 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 few reports on the success or failure of KBUD policies and their challenges in the cities of developing countries. Recent studies have shown that the most important requirement for the realization of KBUD is institutional development. In order to create interaction as well as integrated compatibility between urban resources and stakeholders, the need for good governance and strong political leadership is a pioneer in science and technology that addresses the weakness of institutional arrangements and the inadequacy of the governing tools. The most important aspect of knowledge-based urban development is its institutional one, since it regulaes the relation among economic, social, and environmental aspects of the city, performed based on political will, strategic view, strong relationships, and KBUD stakeholders' confidence. Recent empirical studies on the requirements for the realization of KBUD show that the most important one that ensures a knowledge city’s success, is institutional development. The results of the above-mentioned empirical studies on the feasibility and realization of KBUD show that all of these studies consider the most important challenges, facing the realization of knowledge cities, are governance weaknesses, inefficient institutional frameworks, low institutional capacities, poor KBUD stakeholder cooperation, and low trust among them. Hence, building capacity, strengthening the trust, cooperation, and relation network cohesion of the main knowledge-based urban development stakeholders are considered a suitable tool for paradigmatic changes towards the knowledge-based urban development. In this regard, it is inevitable to identify and analyze key stakeholders as an effective primary step for this important issue. Methodology The present research was carried out under a case study framework. It involved four steps, having a general functional goal and an operational-descriptive-exploratory purpose. For so doing it employed a combined method as well as quantitative and qualitative approaches. In the first step, using a snowball sampling method and referring to the experts in the field of knowledge-based urban development of Isfahan, a preliminary list with 83 potential stakeholders was prepared which was in accordance with the requirements of knowledge-based urban development and got regulated by 23 experts theoretically. In the second step, using the power-interest matrix model and completing the closed questionnaire by the experts and statistical analyses, fourteen key stakeholders whose average power and interest rates were more than 3, were identified. In the third step, again by completing a closed questionnaire by the experts and statistical analysis, the type of power and interests of the main stakeholders of knowledge-based urban development were determined. Finally, in the fourth step, using the semi-structured interview method, the way of applying the key stakeholders’ power in knowledge-based urban development got analyzed based on their type of interest and the use of open source coding and axial coding. Results and Discussion It is of high account to make capacity and implement networking tools. This can be done by expanding the interaction of local stakeholders, which creates institutional changes and in turn realizes knowledge-based urban development of Isfahan. Also, as the results of empirical studies on feasibility and realization of knowledge-based urban development of Isfahan shows, the most important challenges that face realization of knowledge cities are weakness of governance and inefficient institutional frameworks, low institutional capacity, poor cooperation of stakeholders in knowledge-based urban development of Isfahan, and low trust between them. Making capacity, building trust and cooperation, and network cohesion of main stakeholders of knowledge-based urban development is an appropriate tool for a paradigm shift towards knowledge-based urban development. In this regard, identification and analysis of key stakeholders as an effective primary step for this important issue is inevitable. Therefore, through a systematic review of texts related to the requirements and factors of Isfahan’s knowledge-based urban development success, the present study worked on the concept of stakeholder and stakeholder analysis as well as the processes and models to identify and analyze the stakeholders. What is more, it used power-interest matrix model of key stakeholders to identify and analyze the knowledge-based urban development of Isfahan, evaluating the extent and type of power and interest and the way of applying their power according to their type of interest. Conclusion The results of this research showed that without any broad participation and engagement of all key stakeholders, it is very difficult to achieve knowledge-based urban development of Isfahan. Thus, the framework, developed for analysis of key stakeholders in the knowledge-based development of Isfahan, provides a good understanding about the types of power and how to apply it based on the types of interests that each key stakeholder has. Through building capacity and networking, it is possible to make policies on how to promote participation and interaction between them in the process of achieving knowledge-based urban development in Isfahan. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Knowledge-based urban development, stakeholder analysis, power-interest matrix model, Isfahan | ||
| مراجع | ||
10. Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K., & Psarras, J., 2004, Towards knowledge cities: conceptual analysis and success stories. Journal of knowledge management. 11. Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K., & Psarras, J., 2006, Knowledge cities: the answer to the needs of knowledge‐based development. Vine. 12. Farhangi, Marjaneh, 2013, Explain the spatial principles and characteristics of knowledge-based urban development, Case Study: Isfahan city, Faculty of Fine Arts under the guidance of Esfandiar Zardasht, University of Tehran, Tehran. (In Persian) 13. Friedman, Andrew L. and Miles, Samantha, 2006, Stakeholders: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press. 14. Hermans, Leon M. and Thissen, Wil. A., 2009, Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 196, No. 2, PP. 808-818. 15. Hermans, Leon; Kwakkel, Jan; Thissen, Wil.; Koppenjan, J. and Bots, P., 2010, Policy analysis of multi-actor systems, The Hague: Lemma. 16. Horisch, Jacob; Freeman, Edward and Schaltegger, Stefan, 2014, Applying Stakeholder Theory in Sustainability Management: Links, Similarities, Dissimilarities, and a Conceptual Framework, Organization & Environment, 1-19. 17. Jacobson, Alma, 2012, A Cohesive Downtown from a Knowledge City Perspective - A Study in Urban Planning, Final phd Thesis Essay, the School of Engineering in Jönköping in the subject area of Building Projects with Architectural Technology. 18. Jepsen, Anna. L. and Eskerod, Pernille, 2009, Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world, International Journal of Project Management, No. 27, PP. 335-343. 19. Kazemian, Gholamreza and Jalili, Mostafa, 2015, Analysis of key stakeholders in the policy making process Tehran comprehensive plan, Journal of architecture and urban planning, Vol. 8, No., 15, PP. 139-158. (In Persian) 20. Lienert, Judit; Schnetzer, Florian and Ingold, Karin, 2013, Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes, Journal of Environmental Management, No. 125, PP. 134-148. 21. McCartney, R., Yigitcanlar, T., & Keast, R. L., 2010, The role of organisational capacity in the knowledge-based transformation of Brisbane, Australia. In Third Knowledge Cities World Summit: From Theory to Practice. World Capital Institute. 854- 863. 22. Mahmoudpour, Asrin, 2015, Conceptual framework for knowledge-based urban development planning in Tehran, phd thesis in urban and regional planning, Faculty of architecture and urban planning under the guidance of Zohreh Abdi Daneshpoor, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran. (In Persian) 23. Martinez, Samuel D., 2006, A Comparative Framework for Knowledge Cities, in Carrillo, F. J.(ed). Knowledge Cities: Approaches, Experiences, and Perspectives. Amsterdam, Boston, Heidelberg, London, New York, Oxford, Pans, San Diego, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo: Elsevier, 17-30. 24. Michaud, Pascale, 2003, Montreal: Knowledge City, Montreal Knowledge City Advisory Committee. 25. Miles, Ian and Keenan, Michael, 2003, Organising a Technology Foresight Exercise, Technology Foresight for Organizers, Ankara, Turkey. 26. Mori, Neema, 2010, Roles of Stakeholders in Strategic Decision-Making of Microfinance Organizations, International Business & Economics Research Journal, Vol. 9, No. 7, PP. 51-64. 27. Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Tomaney, J., 2016 Local and regional development. Routledge. 28. Prell, C., Hubacek, K., Reed, M., Quinn, C., Jin, N., Holden, J., ... & Sendzimir, J., 2007, If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail: traditional versus participatory model building. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(3), 263-282. 29. Pacheco, Carla and Garcia, Ivan, 2008, Stakeholder Identification Methods in Software Requirements: Empirical Findings Derived from a Systematic Review, The third International Conference on Software Engineering Advance, 472-477. 30. Reed, Mark S.; Graves, Anil; Dandy, Norman; Posthumus, Helena; Hubacek, Klaus; Morris, J. and Stringer, L. C., 2009, Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management, Journal of environmental management, Vol. 90, No. 5, PP. 1933-1949. 31. Reynolds, Scott, 2006, Stakeholder Theory and Managerial DecisionMaking: Constraints and Implications of Balancing Stakeholder Interests, Journal of Business Ethics, No. 64, PP. 285-301. 32. Roose, Antti and Lepik, Kttri-Liis, 2015, Assessment of knowledge-based urban development in the cross-border twin-city: a Tallinn-Helsinki case study, Int. J. Knowledge-Based Development, Vol. 6, No. 4, PP. 299-313. 33. Rowe, Gene and Frewer, Lynn J., 2005, A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms, Science Technology Human Values, No. 30, PP. 251-290. 34. Senior, F. and Fleming, J., 2006, Organizational change, Third education. FT prentice Hall. 3rded, NewYork, 196-232. 35. Sorensen, Andre, 2016, Periurbanization as the institutionalization of place: The case of Japan, Cities, No. 53, PP. 134-140. 36. Wang, Xuefeng, 2009, Knowledge-based urban development in China, Final phd Thesis Essay, Newcastle University, the School of Geography, Politics, and Sociology. 37. Yigitcanlar, T., O’Connor, K., & Westerman, C., 2008, The making of knowledge cities: Melbourne’s knowledge-based urban development experience. Cities, 25(2), 63-72. 38. Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K., & Baum, S. (Eds.), 2008, Knowledge-based urban development: Planning and applications in the information era: Planning and applications in the information era. IGI Global. 39. Yigitcanlar, Tan and Bulu, Melih, 2015, Dubaization of Istanbul: insights from the knowledge based urban development journey of an emerging local economy, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 47, No. 1, PP. 89-107. 40. Yigitcanlar, Tan, 2011, Position paper: Redefining knowledge-based urban development, International Journal of Knowledge Based Development, Vol. 2, No. 4, PP. 340-356. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,347 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 801 |
||