Ahmad Khalili; Mostafa Dehghani
Abstract
Extended Abstract Background and Objectives: Knowledge-Based Urban Development (KUBD) can be considered a new form, approach, or paradigm of sustainable urban development in the knowledge ...
Read More
Extended Abstract Background and Objectives: Knowledge-Based Urban Development (KUBD) can be considered a new form, approach, or paradigm of sustainable urban development in the knowledge age. Knowledge-based clusters (e.g., knowledge locations and technopoles) assume that the proximity of knowledge-based and innovative activities reinforces the value chain, establishes knowledge worker-innovator interaction, facilitates knowledge and experience sharing, and leads to a synergistic ability for the development of self and the city. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to test the use of the cluster approach in KBUD in Isfahan before adopting measures based on the cluster approach by analyzing the communication, trust, and participation networks of the key stakeholders of KUBD in Isfahan that provide the basis for knowledge transfer. Method: This study was carried out in two steps by adopting a quantitative approach with the purpose of descriptive-exploratory operations in a case study framework. In the first step, the key stakeholders are identified through theoretical and non-probability sampling (i.e., snowball), and referring to KBUD experts in Isfahan, using the fuzzy screening method and power-interest matrix model. In this step, 14 key stakeholders were identified. The second step involves analyzing the structure of stakeholder relationships network using the "social network analysis (SNA)" method. The purpose of this study is to examine correlations rather than to analyze the internal patterns of three separate networks, namely communication, trust, and participation. Therefore, the Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) index was used. The sample population in this step consisted of 157 members of the main KBUD stakeholders. Network data were collected through a questionnaire and analyzed using UCINET6. Findings: The results of the linear regression relationship between the three networks of communication, trust, and participation of Isfahan KUBD stakeholders based on the QAP index indicate a significant positive correlation between communication, trust, and participation networks. The trust-participation link has a high correlation coefficient (0.74), indicating that trust is where knowledge-based interactions start and lays the groundwork for stakeholder participation. Nevertheless, the trust-relationship link and the relationship-partnership link have a fairly low correlation coefficient (<0.5). That is, simply increasing the relationship between stakeholders does significantly increase participation or mutual trust. Consequently, despite the high correlation between trust and participation networks, simply increasing the relationship between stakeholders does not significantly increase participation or mutual trust. Hence, it defies the theory of clustering businesses and knowledge-based centers toward realizing KBUD. This is because the mere buildup of such activities and their working relationships does not build mutual trust. It also does not result in their widespread involvement in producing, sharing, and applying knowledge toward urban development. Conclusions: It is vital to promote stakeholder trust and participation in moving towards KBUD. The findings of this study are consistent with those of Story and Teters (1998) on questioning the role of clusters in technology transfer, Wested and Story (1995) on considering the importance of the actual links between universities and companies situated in science parks as exaggerated, and Messi et al. (1992) on the unavailability of significant evidence confirming the effects of geographical proximity of universities and science parks on promoting technology transfer and synergistic production support. Accordingly, a consensus can be reached with critics of the cluster theory at founding KBUD that knowledge cities should act as places for intellectual development, environmental sensitivity, social inclusion and cohesion, and participatory and transparent governance. This consensus can also be on the fact that knowledge and innovation clusters can succeed by providing a range of high-quality, attractive, and diverse places to live and work. Hence, knowledge-based production does not necessarily require constructing special technological places, e.g., science parks, but it can also occur in public urban spaces and informal places. Indeed, the knowledge required for urban development should not be regarded as technologically limited to which a specific urban space is allocated. Instead, the stage must be set to produce, share, and apply local tacit knowledge all over the city. Citizens' local tacit knowledge can be exploited to facilitate their participation in the development process.
