تحلیل ذینفعان توسعه شهری دانش بنیان (مورد پژوهی: شهر اصفهان)

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، دانشکدة معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار شهرسازی، دانشکدة معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر تهران، تهران، ایران

3 استاد 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

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Knowledge-based urban development stakeholder analysis (case study: Isfahan city)

نویسندگان [English]

  • mostafa dehghani 1
  • Gholamreza haghighatnaeini 2
  • Esfandiar Zebardast 3
1 art nniversity
3 Professor, Faculty of Urban Planning, Fine Arts Campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract:

Introduction
Today, since cities are the focus of development and knowledge is produced and published in them, they play a fundamental role in knowledge-based development. Thus, with the evolution of the development concept, knowledge-based value, the driving force of urban development and changing the spatial structure of cities, the Knowledge City (KC), and the 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 the knowledge economy through creating opportunities for the production and exchange of knowledge and innovation among 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 a little report 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 and 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 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. Recent empirical studies on the requirements for the realization of KBUD show that the most important requirement for the achievement and success of the knowledge city 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 between them. Hence, capacity building and strengthening of trust and cooperation and relation network cohesion of the main knowledge-based urban development stakeholders are a suitable tool for paradigmatic changes towards the knowledge-based urban development. In this regard, identification and analysis of key stakeholders as an effective primary step for this important issue is inevitable.

Methodology
The present research is carried out in the case study framework and 4 steps with the general functional goal and operational-descriptive-exploratory purpose and by the combined method and use of quantitative and qualitative approaches. In the first step, using a snowball sampling method, by referring to experts in the field of knowledge-based urban development of Isfahan, a preliminary list containing 83 potential stakeholders was prepared in accordance with the requirements of knowledge-based urban development and was let to the theoretical saturation of list regulation with 23 experts. In the second step, using the power-interest matrix model and completing the closed questionnaire by the experts and statistical analyses, 14 key stakeholders whose average power and interest rates were more than 3, were identified. In the third step, by completing a closed questionnaire by the experts and statistical analysis, type of power and interests of the main stakeholders of knowledge-based urban development were identified. In the fourth step, using the semi-structured interview method, the way of applying the key stakeholders’ power in knowledge-based urban development has been analyzed based on their type of interest and the use of open source coding and axial coding.

Results and discussion
Considering the importance of implementing capacity building and networking tools by expanding the interaction of local stakeholders to create institutional changes for realizing the knowledge-based urban development of Isfahan and the results of empirical studies on the feasibility and realization of knowledge-based urban development of Isfahan, that considers the most important challenges confronting the realization of knowledge cities are the 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, thus, building capacity, strengthening trust and cooperation, and network cohesion of main stakeholders of knowledge-based urban development is an appropriate tool for a paradigm changing toward the 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, in the present study, through a systematic review of texts related to the requirements and factors of Isfahan’s knowledge-based urban development success, the concept of stakeholder and stakeholder analysis, processes and models for identifying and analyzing stakeholders and also using power-interest matrix model of key stakeholders, the knowledge-based urban development of Isfahan was identified and analyzed and the extent and type of power and interest and the way of applying their power according to their type of interest were evaluated and analyzed.

Conclusion
The results of the research show that without the 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 the 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 of the key stakeholders has on and the basis of which, through capacity building and networking it is possible to policy on how to promote participation and interaction between them in the process of achieving the knowledge-based urban development in Isfahan.

Keywords
"Knowledge-Based Urban Development", "Stakeholder Analysis", "Power-Interest Matrix Model", "Isfahan"

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • "Knowledge-Based Urban Development"
  • "Knowledge city"
  • "Stakeholder Analysis"
  • "Power-Interest Matrix Model"
  • "Isfahan"
فرهنگی، مرجانه، 1392، تبیین اصول و ویژگی‏های فضایی توسعة شهری دانش‏مبنا؛ مطالعة موردی شهر اصفهان، رسالة دکتری شهرسازی، دانشگاه تهران.
کاظمیان، غلامرضا و جلیلی، سید مصطفی، 1394، تحلیل قدرت ذی‏نفعان کلیدی در فرایند سیاست‏گذاری طرح جامع تهران، نامة معماری و شهرسازی، دوفصل‏نامة دانشگاه هنر، دورة 8، ش 15، صص 139-158.
محمودپور، ئه‏سرین، 1394، چارچوب انگاشتی برنامه‏ریزی شهری دانش‏پایه در شهر تهران، رسالة دکتری برنامه‏ریزی شهری و منطقه‏ای، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
Aaltonen, Kirsi, 2012, Stakeholder management in international projects, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management
Amin, A., 2004, An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development. Reading economic geography, 3, 48.
Carillo, Francisco J., 2006, Knowledge Cities: Approaches, Experiences and Perspectives. Amsterdam, Boston, HeIdelberg, London, New York, Oxford, Paris, SanFrancisco, San Diego, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo: Elsevier.
Carrillo, Francisco J.; Yigitcanlar, Tan; Garcia, Blanca and Lonnqvist, Antti, 2014, Knowledge and the city: concepts, applications and trends of knowledge-based urban development, Routledge, Washington, DC.
Chevalier, J.M. and Buckles, D.J., 2008, SAS2: a Guide to Collaborative Inquiry and Social Engagement. Sage Publications.
Elena, C., 2015, The making of knowledge cities in Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 32, 534-541.
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.