نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکتری شهرسازی، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده علوم و فنون دریایی، واحد تهران شمال، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده علوم و فنون دریایی، واحد تهران شمال، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشیار، دانشکده عمران، معماری و هنر، واحد علوم تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

امروزه توسعه شهری دانش‌بنیان به‌عنوان ابزاری استراتژیک جهت دستیابی به شهردانش‌بنیان و افزایش رقابت‌پذیری شهری درنظر گرفته می‌شود. ادبیات نظری موجود نشان می‌دهد که مفهوم نواحی‌نوآوری به عنوان نیروی محرک اصلی توسعه شهری دانش‌بنیان که منجر به رقابت‌پذیری در سطوح متعدد می‌گردد، معرفی شده است. اما شاکله‌های اصلی (عوامل و جریان‌های این مفهوم) مورد شناسایی قرار نگرفته است. بنابراین هدف اصلی پژوهش فوق، پوشش این بخش از شکاف نظری در ادبیات جهانی در مکانی‌سازی توسعه شهری دانش‌بنیان رقابت‌پذیر (نواحی‌نوآور) در کلان‌شهر تهران است. پژوهش فوق ازنظر هدف کاربردی- توسعه‌ای، گردآوری اطلاعات از نوع مطالعات اسنادی در قالب تحلیل محتوا و مصاحبه‌های تخصصی با 20 نفر از خبرگان و به‌صورت دلفی است. 54 محرک مؤثر بر وضعیت آینده توسعه شهری دانش‌بنیان رقابت‌پذیر، کلان‌شهر تهران در قالب 13 مولفه و 6 بعد (نهادی- سازمانی، اقتصادی، کالبدی، اجتماعی- فرهنگی، فعالیتی- عملکردی و فن‌آوری- ارتباطات) احصاء شده و در ادامه با روش تحلیل اثرات متقابل ساختاری در نرم‌افزار MICMAC پردازش شده است. یافته‌های پژوهش حاکی از آن است که 13 محرک، مؤثرترین بر وضعیت آینده توسعه شهری دانش‌بنیان رقابت‌پذیر کلان‌شهر تهران شناخته‌شده است، که از میان آنها، تعداد شش محرک تاثیرگذار اصلی (فرهنگ تصمیم‌گیری بر پایه دانش، همیاری عاملان دانش و تصمیم‌گیران در اشتراک‌گذاری دانش، تعامل میان سازمانی، چارچوب قانونی حمایتی فعالیت‌های دانش‌بنیان، سرمایه‌گذاری دولت در فعالیت‌های دانش‌بنیان، همکاری استراتژیک و شبکه‌سازی میان سازمانی) در بعد نهادی-سازمانی و تعداد پنج محرک (کسب و کار دانش‌بنیان، زیرساخت مکان‌های دانش، شاخص رقابت‌پذیری شهری جهانی، سرمایه‌گذاری مستقیم خارجی، سرانه تولید ناخالص داخلی شهر، جایگاه بین‌المللی محیط کسب و کار و نوآوری شهر) در بعد اقتصادی و یک محرک شامل ضریب‌جینی منطقه‌شهری در بعد اجتماعی-فرهنگی قرار گرفته است که حکایت از نقش پررنگ دولت‌ها و سازمان‌ها و همچنین شیوه برنامه‌ریزی اقتصادی و اهمیت مطالبه‌گری نخبگان در دستیابی به آینده توسعه شهری دانش‌بنیان رقابت‌پذیر در کلان‌شهر تهران را دارد.

چکیده تصویری

خوانش جریان‌ها و عوامل موثر بر وضعیت آینده توسعه شهر دانش‌بنیان رقابت‌پذیر (نواحی نوآور) کلان‌شهر تهران

تازه های تحقیق

- دستاوردهای نظری این پژوهش اشاره به بحث مکانی‌سازی توسعه شهری دانش‌بنیان و تلفیق آن با مفهوم رقابت‌پذیری شهری که خود مفهومی جامع و دارای ابعاد متنوع است، اشاره دارد. 
- دستاورد عملی، تبیین شاخص‌های احصاء شده توسط مدل میک‌مک بر موضع مورد پژوهی یعنی کلان‌شهر تهران، اشاره دارد. کاربست این محرک‌ها به‌عنوان عوامل بسترساز بر وضعیت آینده توسعه شهری دانش‌بنیان رقابت‌پذیر تهران، بسیار اهمیت دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Reading the stimuli affecting the future status of urban development of competitive knowledge-based (Innovation districts) in Tehran metropolitan

نویسندگان [English]

  • Elnaz Behzadpour 1
  • Mohammadreza Farzad Behtash 2
  • Zahra Sadat Saeideh Zarabadi 3

1 Ph.D. in Urban Planning, Department of Urban Planning, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Planning, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Art , Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University,Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: Today, “knowledge” has become a vital necessity for increasing the competitiveness of countries and cities in the twenty-first century. Therefore, a knowledge-based economy, defined as an economy capable of generating, disseminating, and utilizing knowledge, has led to a shift from traditional patterns of urban development to knowledge-based development, ultimately resulting in a knowledge-based city. On the other hand, it is now established that a city relies more on its capacities for innovation than on material resources and central government support. Innovation, resulting from the dissemination of local knowledge through interactions among urban elements such as businesses, customers, suppliers, and universities, is what drives growth, economic development, sustainability, and urban competitiveness. However, unfortunately, the main pillars or areas of innovation, which are the connecting points between the concepts of knowledge-based urban development and urban competitiveness, have not been identified in the global literature. In this regard, Tehran, as a megacity, due to the emergence of a networked society and the phenomenon of a knowledge-based economy, has set a new perspective called “knowledge-based urban development” and a competitive city on the agenda of its planning and urban development. However, there is currently no written plan for moving towards a competitive knowledge-based city in Tehran, and there is a need for review and revision. In line with the aforementioned, the main issue of the research is the neglect and insufficient attention to the main driving force such as innovation as a value-creating capital for achieving competitive knowledge-based urban development in Tehran. Therefore, the main objective of this research is to address this gap in the global literature in locating competitive knowledge-based urban development (innovative regions) in the megacity of Tehran.
Methods: The aforementioned research has an applied development objective, gathering data through documentary studies and expert interviews in a Delphi format involving 20 experts. A total of 54 influential factors affecting the future state of competitive knowledge-based urban development in Tehran, within 13 components (diversity, urban scale and population density, spatial proximity, internal spatial connectivity, external spatial connectivity, knowledge dissemination to society, government support, ICT application, innovative society, economic competitiveness, organizational-institutional competitiveness, locational character, and human capital), and 6 dimensions (institutional-organizational, economic, physical, socio-cultural, activity-performance, and technology-communication) were identified and then prioritized based on expert opinions using questionnaire tools and the Delphi technique. Furthermore, the method of Structural Mutual Effects Analysis was applied using the MICMAC software for further processing.
Findings: The research findings indicate that 13 stimuli have been identified as the most influential factors on the future status of competitive knowledge-based urban development in Tehran. Among them, six main influential factors (decision-making culture based on knowledge, collaboration of knowledge actors and decision-makers in knowledge sharing, organizational interaction, supportive legal framework for knowledge-based activities, government investment in knowledge-based activities, strategic collaboration and organizational networking) fall under the institutional-organizational dimension, while five stimuli (knowledge-based businesses, the infrastructure of knowledge spaces, global urban competitiveness index, foreign direct investment, per capita gross domestic product of the city, international business environment, and urban innovation) belong to the economic dimension. Additionally, one stimulus related to the Gini coefficient of the urban region is categorized under the social-cultural dimension. This highlights the significant role of governments and organizations, as well as the economic planning approach and the importance of intellectual advocacy in achieving a competitive knowledge-based urban development future in Tehran.
Conclusion: The research findings confirm the theory based on governance and economy in the development of competitive knowledge-based cities in Tehran. Contrary to what Florida suggests, it’s not only the creative class and soft factors that determine the development of competitive knowledge-based cities in Tehran, but rather a combination of governance-based theories and soft and economic condition theories that lay the foundation for the development of competitive knowledge-based cities. Therefore, priority should be given to these key drivers in formulating the main strategy for the future development of competitive knowledge-based urbanism in Tehran through the establishment of overarching documents and the content of urban planning schemes. Furthermore, the following points are summarized in the form of recommendations: Encouraging the clustering and concentration of innovative businesses and individuals to promote innovative activities and economic competition. In terms of government support, the establishment of official institutions to guide knowledge-based urban development, facilitating government-industry-academia collaboration, and investment in cutting-edge technologies are recommended. Additionally, governments are advised to act as entrepreneurs and market creators by deeply understanding and supporting knowledge-based businesses. In the societal sector, integrating traditional and new technological infrastructures, changing citizens’ lifestyles in line with sustainable development approaches, and altering social behaviors have been emphasized. Regarding diversity, diverse and context-appropriate spatial policies, the establishment of cultural hubs and districts, and infrastructure development to promote diversity and encourage the presence of various innovative industries have been proposed. In terms of external connectivity, upgrading public transportation systems and creating physical links between public spaces to facilitate access to technology and innovation clusters are among the suggestions. Finally, the development of organizations and knowledge-based individuals and the aggregation of knowledge actors are also proposed as strategies to enhance local knowledge and information.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Knowledge-Based Urban Development (KBUD)
  • Knowledge-Based City
  • Urban Competitiveness
  • Innovation Districts

این مقاله برگرفته از رساله دکتری نویسنده نخست با عنوان «تبیین الگوی توسعه شهری دانش‌بنیان با رویکرد رقابت‌پذیری شهری (مورد پژوهی: کلان‌شهر تهران)» می‌باشد که به راهنمایی نویسنده دوم و مشاوره نویسنده سوم در دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران شمال انجام گرفته است.

This article is derived from the first author`s doctoral thesis entitled “Explanation of Knowledge Urban Base Development (KBUD)Pattern With a Competitiveness approach (Case Study: Tehran City)”, supervised by the second author and advised by the third, at Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch.

  1. Aghion, P., Howitt, R. (1998). Endogenous Growth Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge.
  2. Ali Akbarai, E., Akbari, M. (2017). Interpretive-Structural Modeling of the Factors that Affect the Viability of Tehran Metropolis, The Journal of Spatial Planning, Vol.21, No.1, pp. 1-31.
  3. Ali Akbarai, E., Akbari, M. (2019). Knowledge Based Urban Development; Development of Strategic Map of Tehran Metropolis, Geographical Urban Planning Research, Vol.7, No.1, pp. 151-170.
  4. Ali Akbarai, E., Khodadad kashi, F., Komasi, H. (2018). Evaluating the Economic Competitiveness of Metropolises in Iran, Journal of Regional Planning, Vol.29, No.8, pp. 13-26.
  5. Alrauof, A. (2018). the Inevitability of KBUD in the Middle East. Book. Qatar.
  6. Anastasia Purwanti, G. (2017). An Evaluation of City Branding to Reinforce The City Competitiveness (A Case Study of Surabaya). Journal of Management and Applied Science (IJMAS), Vol.3, No.5. pp. 119-124.
  7. Ansari, M., Sarvar, R. (2017). The role of new knowledge-based cities in enhancing national competitiveness Case study: The new city Andishe, journal of Enviromental Based Territorial Planning, Vol.9, No. 35, pp. 85- 122.
  8. Aquilani, B. Silvestri, C.  Ioppolo, G., Ruggieri, A. (2018). The challenging transition tobio-economies. J. Clean. Prod. Vol.172, pp. 4001–4009.
  9. Ayman Mohammed, M., Khaled Youssef, M. (2016). An approach for promoting urban and architectural potentials for supporting knowledge economy, case study: Brisbane, Urban Planning and Architecture Design for Sustainable Development, Vol.216, No.2, pp. 20-29.
  10. Becker, Gary S. (1994) Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  11. Behzadpour, E. Farzad Behtash, M.R., Zarabadi, Z.S.Z. (2021). Explaining the Conceptual Model of Knowledge-Based Urban Development Based on Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach Case Study: Tehran Metropolis, Journal Sustainable City, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 73-90.
  12. Behzadpour, E. Farzad Behtash, M.R., Zarabadi, Z.S.Z. (2021). Structural analysis of drivers affecting the future status of urban competitiveness (Case study: Tehran metropolis), Journal Studies of Human Settelment Planning.
  13. Beretta, I. (2018). The social effects of eco-innovations in Italian smart cities, Cities, Vol.72, PP. 115-121.
  14. Beretta, I. (2021). The social effects of eco-innovations in Italian smart cities. Cities, Vol.72, p. 115-121.
  15. Boschma, R. Balland, P.A., Kogler, D.F. (2015), Relatedness and Technological Change in Cities: The Rise and Fall of Technological Knowledge in US Metropolitan Areas from 1981 to 2010, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 24, No.1, pp. 223-250.
  16. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility, in Law, J. (Ed), Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Routledge, London, pp. 31-53.
  17. Carrillo, F. J. (2014). What knowledge-based stands for? A position paper. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Vol.5, No.4, PP.402-421.
  18. Chang, D.L. Sabatini-Marques, J., da Costa, E .(2018). Knowledge-based, smart and sustainable cities: a provocation for a conceptual framework, Journal of Open Innovation, Vol.4, No.5, PP.1-17. 
  19. Chesbrough, H. (2013). Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the NewInnovation Landscape. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge, Mass.
  20. Ciccone, A., Hall, R.E. (1996). Productivity and the Density of Economic Activity. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.
  21. Dönmez, C.Ç., A. Atalan. (2019). Developing Statistical Optimization Models for Urban Competitiveness Index: Under the Boundaries of Econophysics Approach. Complexity: p. 4053970. PP: 1-11.
  22. Dvouletý, O. and I. Blažková. (2020). Determinants of competitiveness of the Czech SMEs: findings from the global competitiveness project. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, Vol.31, No.3, pp. 361-378.
  23. Edvinson, L. (2006). Aspects on the city as a knowledge tool. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.10, No. 5, pp. 361-378.
  24. Elena, C. (2015) The making of Knowledge, cities in Romania, procedia Economics anad Finance, Vo.32, No.22, PP. 534-541.
  25. Elrouby.S. (2020). Potential economies.  Graduation Thesis, MSc Management in Built Environment, TU Delft.
  26. Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K. (2011). The knowledge-based development agenda: A perspective for 2010-2020. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, Vol.41, No.3, PP. 358–377.  
  27. Ergazakis, Konstantinos. & Metaxiotis, Kostas. & Psarras, John. (2006) Knowledge cities: The answer to the needs of knowledge-based development, knowledge cities, Vol.36, No.1, pp. 67 – 84.
  28. Errichiello, L., Marasco, A. (2014). Open Service Innovation in Smart Cities: A Framework for Exploring Innovation Networks in the Development of New City Services. Advanced Engineering Forum, Vol.11, pp. 115–124.
  29. Esmaeilpoorarabi, N. Yigitcanlar, T. Guaralda, M. Kamruzzaman, MD. (2018). Evaluating place quality in innovation districts: A Delphic hierarchy process approach, Land Use Policy, Elsevier, Vol.76, No.c, pp. 471-486.
  30. Fachinelli, A.C., F. Pauletto D’Arrigo, and K.J. Breunig.(2018). The value context in knowledge-based development: revealing the context factors in the development of Southern Brazils Vale dos Vinhedos region. Knowledge Management Research & Practice Vol.16, No.1, PP. 32-41.
  31. Faludi, A. (1986). Towards a theory of strategic planning. Journal of Housing and Environmental Research, Vol.1, No.1, pp.253-268.
  32. Florida, R. (2005). The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent, Harper Collins, London.
  33. Gessa, A., Sancha, P. (2020). Environmental Open Data in Urban Platforms: An Approach to the Big Data Life Cycle, Journal of Urban Technology, VoL.27, No.1.  PP.27-45.  
  34. Godet, A. J., Meunier, M. F., Roubelat, F. (2003). Structural analysis with the MICMAC method & actors’ strategy with MACTOR method, Futures Research Methodology.
  35. Heebels, B., Van Aalst, I. )2010(. Creative clusters in Berlin ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE QUALITY OF PLACE IN PRENZLAUER BERG AND KREUZBER, Geografiska Ann. Vol.92, No.4, pp.347–363.
  36. Hu, R. (2016), Sustainability and competitiveness in Australian cities,University of Canberr.
  37. (2000). The World Competitiveness Yearbook 2000, Lausanne: Switzerland: International Institute for Management Development.
  38. Inkinen, T. (2015). Reflections on the innovative city: examining three innovative locations in a knowledge bases framework. Journal of Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Springer, Vol.1, No.8, pp. 8-10.
  39. Kacar, S.M., Gezici, F. (2016). Knowledge-based urban development potential of Turkish provinces, International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Vol.7, No.2, pp.160-183.
  40. Knight, R. (1995) Knowledge-based development: policy and planning implications for cities, Urban Studies, Vol.32, No.2, pp. 29-52.
  41. Krama. M., (2015). "Fostering the Planning and Implantation of Innovation Habitats by the Knowledge Based Urban Development Approach" (Fostering the Planning of EI by the KBUD Approach). Applied Mechanics and Materials. Vol. 737, PP. 889-895.
  42. Kresl, P. K. and Singh (1995). Competitiveness and the Urban Economy: Twentyfour large US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, Vol.36, No.5/6, pp. 791-794.
  43. Kresl, P. K., Ni, P. (2006). Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2005-2006), Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.
  44. Krugman, P. (1993). On the Number and Location of Cities, European Economic, Review, No. 37, pp. 2-3.
  45. Lasrado, S. Sivo, C. Ford, T. O’Neal, and I. Garibay, (2016). Do Graduated University Incubator Firms Benefit from Their Relationship with University Incubators. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol.41, No.2, pp. 205–219.
  46. Li, X. (2020), Cultural creative economy and urban competitiveness: How one matters to the other. Journal of Urban Affairs, Vol.42, No.8, pp. 1164-1179
  47. Ning, L. Wang, F., Li, J. (2016).Urban innovation, regional externalities of foreign direct investment and industrial agglomeration: Evidence from Chinese cities, Research policy : policy, management and economic studies of science, technology and innovation. Elsevier, Vol.45, No.4, pp. 830-843
  48. OECD. (2000). The competitiveness of European industry: 1999 Report. Working Document of The Services of The EuropeanCommission: COM (1999) 465. OECD, Paris.
  49. Oliveira, L.S.d.& Soares Echeveste, M.E. (2017).  Analysis of determinants for Open Innovation implementation in Regional Innovation Systems. RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação, Vol.14, No.2, p.p. 119-129.
  50. Ovalle, del Rosario González. & Márquez, M., J.A. Alvarado. & Salomón, and S.D. Martínez. (2004) A compilation of resources on knowledge cities and knowledge based development, Journal of Knowledge Managementp. , Vol.8, No.5, pp. 107-127.
  51. Pancholi, S. & Yigitcanlar, T. & Guaralda, Mirko. (2015). Public space design of knowledge and innovation spaces: Learnings from Kelvin Grove Urban Village, Brisbane, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol.1, No.13, PP. 1-17.
  52. Pancholi, S. Guaralda, M., Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Context, contribution and characteristics of public spaces for place making in contemporary knowledge and innovation spaces, Observations from Brisbane, Australia, The Journal of Public Space, Vol.2, No.4, pp. 91-102. doi: https://doi.org/10.5204/jps.v2i4.143.
  53. Pancholi, S. Yigitcanlar, T., Guaralda, M. (2017b). Place making for innovation and knowledge-intensive activities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change.
  54. Pengfei, N. Kamiya, M., Ding, R. (2017). Cities Network Along the Silk Road The Global Urban Competitiveness Report: books, published by Springer Nature, PP: 1-3-2.
  55. Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces, In M. E. Porter, on competition, updated and expanded edition, United State of America: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Boston. Vol. 11, pp. 37-73.
  56. Rittgasszer, I. (2013). Knowledge-Based Urban Development, as a New Development Paradigm, pp. 36–46.
  57. RIVAS, M. (2015). Innovative Place Brand Management, Re-Learning City Branding. URBACT-CityLogo final report. pp. 18-72.
  58. Romer, P. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.94, No.1, pp.1002-1037.
  59. Sáez, L. and I. Periáñez. (2015). Benchmarking urban competitiveness in Europe to attract investment. Cities. Vol.48, pp. 76-85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.06.002
  60. Salisbury, R. (1969). An exchange theory of interest groups, Midwest Journal Political Science, Vol.13, No.1, pp. 1-32.
  61. Sarimin, M. Yigitcanlar, T.Parker, R  .(2010). Towards a unified method for the knowledge based urban development framework. in the: 3rd Knowledge Cities World, From Theory to Practice. World Capital Institute, City of Melbourne and Office of Knowledge Capital, Australia, pp. 324-339.
  62. Sarimin, M.,  Yigitcanlar, T. (2012). Towards a comprehensive and integrated knowledge-based urban development model: Status quo and directions. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Vol.3, No.2, pp.175-192.
  63. Sharifi, A. (2020). A typology of smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol.53, pp.1-16.
  64. Shearmur, R. (2012). Are cities the font of innovation? A critical review of the literature on cities and innovation. Cities Vol.29, pp. S9–S18. DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2012.06.008.
  65. Shen, J. (2004). Urban competitiveness and urban governance in the globalizing world. Asian Geographer, Vol.23, pp. 19-36.
  66. Singhal, S. McGreal, S., Berry, J. (2015), An evaluation model for city competitiveness: Application to U.K cities. University of U.K.
  67. Sinkiene, J. (2009). Competitiveness Factors of Cities in Lithuania. Public policy and administration, Vol.2, PP. 47-53.
  68. Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory, International Journal Social Science, Vol.50, No.1, PP.17-28.
  69. Tabibi, S., Rafieian, M., Majedi, H., Ziari, Y. (2020). The role of knowledge-based and innovative cities in urban and regional development. Urban Planning Knowledge, Vol. 4, No.1, pp. 19-32. United - Nations (UN). (1987). Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  70. Turok, I. (2004). “Urban Regeneration: what can be done and what should be avoided?”. Paper presented to International Urban Regeneration Implementations Symposium, Lütfi Kırdar Exhibition Centre, Istanbul.
  71. Ülker, B. Kanoğlu, A., & Özçevik, Ö. (2021). SIMURG_CITIES: Meta-Analysis for KPI's of Layer-Based Approach in Sustainability Assessment. Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs, Vol.5, No.1, P.P: 59-76.
  72. UnHabitat. (2015). Enhansing the competitiveness of cities. Unpacking and improving the drivers of city competitiveness, URBAN ECONOMY BRANCH,  https://unhabitat.org.
  73. United Nations. (2018): The World’s Cities in 2018, available at:the_worlds_cities_in_2018_data_booklet ‹ pdf ‹ assets ‹ www.un.org.
  74. Villamejor-Mendoza, F. (2020): Competitive cities: implications for better public service, Policy Design and Practice, PP: 445-461.
  75. Wataya, E.,, Shaw, R.(2019). Measuring the value and the role of soft assets in smart city development, Cities, Vol.94 , pp. 106-115.
  76. White, J.T. (2020). Designing the Global City: Design Excellence, Competitions and the Remaking of Central Sydney. Planning Theory & Practice, Vol.21, No.5, pp. 812-815.
  77. Wong, C.Y.  Ng, B.K. Ariff, S., Hasbullah, A. (2018): Knowledge Structures of City Innovation Systems: Singapore and Hong Kong. Journal of Urban Technology, Vol. 25, No.1, PP. 47-73.
  78. World economic forum. (2014). The competitiveness of cities; Annual report.
  79. World economic forum. (2019). The global competitiveness report.
  80. World Urbanization Prospectus. (2019). United Nations,Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
  81. Xiaoling, Z., Huan, L. (2018). Urban resilience and urban sustainability: What we know and what do not know? Cities, Vol.72, (part A), pp. 141-148.
  82. Yigitcanlar, T.  Lonnqvist, A. (2013). Benchmarking Knowledge-Based Urban Development Performance: Results from the International Comparison of Helsinki. Cities (London, England), Vol. 31, No. 1, PP. 357–369. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.11.005.
  83. Yigitcanlar, T. (2010a). Making space end place for the knowledge economy: Knowledge-based development of Australian cities, European Planning Studies, Vol.18, No.11, pp. 1769–1786.
  84. Yigitcanlar, T. A. Lönnqvist., H. Salonius. (2015). Analysis of a city-region from the knowledge perspective: Tampere, finland. Vol.44, pp. 445-466.
  85. 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, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 115-146.
  86. Yigitcanlar, T. Velibeyoglu, K., Baum, S., (Eds.). (2008d). Knowledge-based development: planning and applications in the information era, Hershey, PA: IGI Globalurban.
  87. Yigitcanlar, T., & Dizdaroglu, D. (2015). Ecological approaches in planning for sustainable cities: A review of the literature. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, Vol.1, No.2, pp. 71–94.
  88. Yigitcanlar, T., Dur, F. )2013(. Making space and place for knowledge communities. Australas. J. Reg. Stud. 19, 36–63.
  89. Yigitcanlar, T., Inkinen, T. (2019). Geographies of disruption. Place making of innovation in the age of knowledge economy, springer, book, 225-227.
  90. Yigitcanlar, T., Lönnqvist, A., Salonius, H. (2014). Analysis of a city-region from the knowledge perspective: Tampere, Finland, Vol.44, No3, pp. 445-466
  91. Yigitcanlar, T., Understanding. (2018). ‘Smart cities’: Intertwining development drivers with desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework, Cities, Vol.81, pp. 145- 160.
  92. Yigitcanlar, Tan. & Bulu, Melih. (2015) Dubaization of Istanbul: Insights from the knowledge-based urban development journey of an emerging local economy, Environment and Planning, Vol.47, No.1, pp. 89–107.
  93. Yigitcanlar, Tan. & Edvardsson, Ingi Runar. & Johannesson, Hjalti. & Kamruzzaman, MD. & Ioppolo, Giuseppe. & Pancholi, Surabhi. (2017). Knowledge-based development dynamics in less favoured regions: Insights from Australian and Icelandic university towns, European Planning Studies, Vol.25, No. 12, pp. 2272–2292.
  94. Yigitcanlar, Tan. & Lonnqvist, Antti. (2013) Benchmarking Knowledge-Based Urban Development Performance: Results from the International Comparison of Helsinki, Cities (London, England), Vol.31, No.1, PP. 357–369.
  95. Yigitcanlar, Tan. & Sarimin, Muna. (2015) Multimedia super corridor, Malaysia: Knowledge-based urban development lessons from an emerging economy, VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, Vol.45, No.1, pp. 126–147.
  96. Yigitcanlar, Tan. (2011) Knowledge-based urban development processes of an emerging knowledge city, Brisbane, Australia, A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 53- 67.
  97. Zitek, V. Klímová, v. (2017). Identification of Knowledge Bases: The Case of the Czech Republic. Engineering Economics. 27.