Appropriateness Analysis of the Cluster Approach in Knowledge-Based Urban Development of Isfahan

Khalili, Ahmad; Dehghani, Mostafa

doi:10.30475/isau.2020.250746.1531

Appropriateness Analysis of the Cluster Approach in Knowledge-Based Urban Development of Isfahan

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

Ahmad Khalili ¹

Mostafa Dehghani ²

¹ Assistant Professor, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

² Ph.D in Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.30475/isau.2020.250746.1531

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 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.

Keywords

Knowledge-Based Urban Development

Cluster Approach

Knowledge Places

Social Network Analysis

Isfahan

Bond, M., and N. Harrigan. (2011), Political Dimensions of Corporate Connections. Pp.198–209 in The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis, edited by John Scott and Peter J Carrington. SAGE Publications.

Borgatti, S. P., (2005), Centrality and network flow. Social Networks 27 (1), 55ـ71.

Brandes, U., Kruse, R., Spiliopoulou, M. (2009), Community Analysis in Dynamic Social Networks, Magdeburg University Press.

Carlaw, K., Oxley, L., Walker, P., Thoms, D. and Nuth, M. (2006), Beyond the Hype: Intellectual Property and the Knowledge Society, Journal of Economic Surveys, 20 (4), 633-658.

Carrillo, F. J. (2006), Knowledge Cities: Approaches, Experiences and Perspectives. Amsterdam, Boston, HeIdelberg, London, New York, Oxford, Paris, SanFrancisco, San Diego, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo: Elsevier.

Carrillo, J., Yigitcanlar, T., Garcia, B., Lonnqvist, A. (2014), Knowledge and the city: concepts, applications and trends of knowledge-based urban development, Routledge, Washington, DC.

Carvalho, L., & Winden, W. V. (2017), Planned knowledge locations in cities: Studying emergence and change. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 8(1), 47-67.‏

Casanueva, C., Castro, I., & Galán, J. L. (2013), Informational networks and innovation in mature industrial clusters. Journal of business research, 66(5), 603-613.‏

Castells, M. and Hall, P. (1994), Technopoles of the World: The Making of the 21st Century Industrial Complexes.London and New York: Routledge.

Christopherson, S., & Clark, J. (2007), Power in firm networks: What it means for regional innovation. Regional Studies, 41(9), 1223-1236.‏

Dadashpour, H. (2011), Theories and New Development Models of Cluster Areas, Journal of Political-Economic Information, 26 (285), 272-285.

Davies, J. (2012), Network Governance Theory: A Gramscian Critique, Environment and Planning A, 44(11), 2687 – 2704.

Dvir, R. and Pasher, E. (2004), Innovation Engines for Knowledge Cities: An Innovation Ecology Perspective.

Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, k. and Psarras, J. (2004), Towards Knowledge City: Conceptual Analysis and Success Stories, Journal of Knowledge Management, 8 (5), 5-15.

Farhangi, M. (2013), Explaining the Principles and Spatial Characteristics of Knowledge-Based Urban Development; Case study of Isfahan, PhD thesis in urban planning under the guidance of Esfandiar Zabrdast, University of Tehran.

Field, J. (2009), Social Capital, translated by Gholamreza Ghaffari and Hossein Ramezani, Kavir Publications, Second Edition, Tehran.

Friedman, A.L. and Miles, S. (2006), Stakeholders: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press.

Gnyawali, D. R., & Srivastava, M. K. (2013), Complementary effects of clusters and networks on firm innovation: A conceptual model. Journal of Technology Management, 30(1),1-20.‏

Hermans, L., Kwakkel, J., Thissen, W., Koppenjan, J., & Bots, P. (2010), Policy analysis of multi-actor systems. The Hague: Lemma.

Hoen, A. R. (2002), Identifying linkages with a cluster-based methodology. Economic Systems Research, 14(2), 131-146.‏

Jacobson, A. (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.

Jepsen A. L. Eskerod P. (2009), Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current guidelines in the real world, International Journal of Project Management, NO.27, 335–343.

Jessop, B. (2011), Metagovernance. In Mark Bevir, the SAGE Handbook of Governance. SAGE Publications Ltd, chapter 8, 106-123.

Knight, R. (2008), Knowledge-Based Development: The Challenge for Cities, in Yigitcanlar, T.(ed), Knowledge-Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the Information Era. Hershey and New York: Infonnation Science Reference.

Lai, Y. L., Hsu, M. S., Lin, F. J., Chen, Y. M., & Lin, Y. H. (2014), The effects of industry cluster knowledge management on innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 734-739.‏

Lopez-Saez, P., Navas-Lopez, J. E., Martín-de-Castro, G., & Cruz-Gonzalez, J. (2010), External knowledge acquisition processes in knowledge-intensive clusters. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(5), 690-707.‏

Luthe T, Wyss R, Schuckert M (2012), Network governance and regional resilience to climate change: empirical evidence from mountain tourism communities in the Swiss Gotthard region. Regional Environmental Change. 12 (4), 839–854.

Mahmoudpour, E. (2015), The Conceptual Framework of University-Based Urban Planning in Tehran, PhD Thesis in Urban and Regional Planning under the guidance of Zohreh Abdi Daneshpour, Shahid Beheshti University.

Massey, D. (1992), A place called home. New formations, 17(3), 3-15.‏

Miles, I. and Keenan M. (2003), Organising a Technology Foresight Exercise, Technology Foresight for Organizers, Ankara, Turkey.

Nikina, A., Piqué, J., Senz, L. (2019), Areas of Global Innovation; Concept and application, translated by Hashem Aghazadeh, University of Tehran Press, Tehran.

Olsson, a.r. (2009), Relational rewards and communicative planning: understanding actor motivation. Journal of Planning Theory, 8(3), 263–281.

Rahimi, H., Niksirat, M. (2012), Locating science and technology clusters by hierarchical analysis using spatial information system, Quarterly Journal of Parks and Growth Centers, 9 (33), 63-70.

Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., & Stringer, L. C. (2009), Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management.Journal of environmental management, 90 (5), 1933-1949.

Richardson, C. (2013), Knowledge-sharing through social interaction in a policy-driven industrial cluster. Journal of PublicPolicy.‏

Richardson, T. (2002): Freedom and Control in Planning: Using Discourse in the Pursuit of Reflexive Praxis. In: Planning Theory & Practice, 3 (3), 353-361.

Roose, A. and Lepik, K-L. (2015), Assessment of knowledge-based urban development in the cross-border twin-city: a Tallinn-Helsinki case study, Int. J. Knowledge-Based Development, 6 (4), 299–313.

Science Reference.

Srećković, M., & Windsperger, J. (2011), Organization of knowledge transfer in clusters: a knowledge-based view. In New Developments in the Theory of Networks (pp. 299-315). Physica, Heidelberg.‏

Srećković, M., & Windsperger, J. (2013), The impact of trust on the choice of knowledge transfer mechanisms in clusters. In Network Governance (73-85). Physica, Berlin, Heidelberg.‏

Stacke, A., Emil Hoffmann, V., & Araujo Costa, H. (2012), Knowledge transfer among clustered firms: a study of Brazil. Anatolia, 23(1), 90-106.‏

Storey, D. J., & Tether, B. S. (1998), New technology-based firms in the European Union: an introduction. Research policy, 26(9), 933-946.‏

Turina, M., Confessore, G., Barbante, I., Buzzi, O., & Turina, S. (2016), Hub agribusiness in the Center Italy: Simulation of the growth of a new “industrial cluster” through logistic functions. Agriculture and agricultural science procedia, 8, 353-371.‏

van den Berg, L., Pol, P. M. 1., Winden, W. and Woets, P. (2005), European Cities in theKnowledge Economy: The Caseof Amsterdam, Dortmund, Eindhoven, Helsinki, Manchester, Munich, Munster, Rutterdam and Zaragoza.Hants, England:Ashgate.

Wang, X. (2009), Knowledge-based urban development in China, Final phd Thesis Essay, Newcastle University, the School of Geography, Politics, and Sociology.

Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1995), Links between higher education institutions and high technology firms. Omega, 23(4), 345-360.‏

Wilson, L. O. U., & Spoehr, J. (2010), Labour relations and the transfer of knowledge in industrial clusters: Why do skilled workers share knowledge with colleagues in other firms?. Geographical Research, 48(1), 42-51.‏

Work Foundation. (2005), Ideopolis: Knowledge Cities. London: the work foundation.

Work Foundation. (2006), Creating and Ideopolis: Case Study of Manchester. London.

Yigitcanlar, T. (2011), Position paper: Redefining knowledge-based urban development. International Journal of KnowledgeBased Development, 2(4), 340–356.

Yigitcanlar, T., & Bulu, M. (2015), Dubaization of Istanbul: insights from the knowledgebased urban development journey of an emerging local economy, Environment and Planning A, 47(1), 89-107.

Yigitcanlar, T., & Inkinen, T. (2019), Benchmarking City Performance. In Geographies of Disruption (pp. 159-197). Springer, Cham.‏

Yigitcanlar, T., Guaralda, M., Taboada, M., & Pancholi, S. (2016), Place making for knowledge generation and innovation: Planning and branding Brisbane’s knowledge community precincts. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(1), 115-146.

Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Baum, S. (2008), Knowledge-Based Urban Development: Planning and Applications in the Information Era. Hershey and New York: Information Science Reference.

Zhang, Y. (2005), The Science Park Phenomenon: Development, Evaluation and Typology, International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Innovation Management 5 (112), 138-154.