Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 39, Issue 1 (2024)
GeoRes 2024, 39(1): 69-78 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2024/02/7 | Accepted: 2024/03/9 | Published: 2024/03/18
Received: 2024/02/7 | Accepted: 2024/03/9 | Published: 2024/03/18
How to cite this article
Sheikhi A, Hataminejad H, Zanganeh Shahraki S, Pour Ahmad A, Mirzaei H. Explaining the Situation of Tehran Metropolis Based on Urban Innovation System. GeoRes 2024; 39 (1) :69-78
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1581-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1581-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Human Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2- Economic Planning and Development, Faculty of Economics, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
2- Economic Planning and Development, Faculty of Economics, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract (969 Views)
Aims: Presently, to establish a conducive residential environment, enhance the commercial landscape, effectively manage resources, maintain cultural identity, and instill optimism among its inhabitants, Tehran metropolis necessitates an enhanced utilization of resources and the implementation of various novel solutions to address prevailing and emerging challenges. The primary objective of this study was to assess the urban innovation status of Tehran metropolis.
Methodology: The current research is pragmatic in its objectives, exhibiting a mixed methodology approach and employing a descriptive-analytical survey method. Data was gathered through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires devised by the researcher. Subsequent to the coding and examination of the interviews utilizing thematic analysis, the outcomes were incorporated into a researcher-developed questionnaire for the evaluation of Tehran metropolis, with the data being scrutinized using SPSS software.
Findings: The efficient institutional framework and transparent laws, along with the financial-institutional policies of the government, the level of citizen participation, the presence of parent universities, a pool of creative and expert human resources, the existence of technological and innovative companies, access to diverse markets, well-developed urban innovation infrastructures, a unique city brand, the strategic city location, and the quality of life are all crucial factors that can be used to assess the state of the Tehran metropolis. Among these factors, the parent universities, strategic location, human resources, and city brand exhibit a more favorable condition.
Conclusion: The current situation of the Tehran metropolis does not appear to be very conducive in terms of urban innovation and its functionalities. Optimal conditions for the adaptation of such systems to the Tehran metropolis are also not adequately observed.
Methodology: The current research is pragmatic in its objectives, exhibiting a mixed methodology approach and employing a descriptive-analytical survey method. Data was gathered through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires devised by the researcher. Subsequent to the coding and examination of the interviews utilizing thematic analysis, the outcomes were incorporated into a researcher-developed questionnaire for the evaluation of Tehran metropolis, with the data being scrutinized using SPSS software.
Findings: The efficient institutional framework and transparent laws, along with the financial-institutional policies of the government, the level of citizen participation, the presence of parent universities, a pool of creative and expert human resources, the existence of technological and innovative companies, access to diverse markets, well-developed urban innovation infrastructures, a unique city brand, the strategic city location, and the quality of life are all crucial factors that can be used to assess the state of the Tehran metropolis. Among these factors, the parent universities, strategic location, human resources, and city brand exhibit a more favorable condition.
Conclusion: The current situation of the Tehran metropolis does not appear to be very conducive in terms of urban innovation and its functionalities. Optimal conditions for the adaptation of such systems to the Tehran metropolis are also not adequately observed.
Keywords:
References
1. Acuto M, Parnell S, Seto KC (2018). Building a global urban science. Nature Sustainbility. 1:2-4. [Link] [DOI:10.1038/s41893-017-0013-9]
2. Asadi R, Rezghi Shirsavar H (2017). Evaluation of the national innovation system in the field of urban management in Tehran metropolis and providing a suitable model. Quarterly of New Attitudes in Human Geography. 9(3):223-246. [Persian] [Link]
3. Bevilacqua C, Pizzimenti P, Ou Y (2023). Cities in transition and urban innovation ecosystems: Place and innovation dynamics in the case of Boston and Cambridge (USA). Sustainability. 15(18):13346. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su151813346]
4. Caragliu A, Del Bo CF (2019). Smart innovative cities: The impact of smart city policies on urban innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 142:373-383. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.022]
5. Ferraris A, Belyaeva Z, Bresciani S (2020). The role of universities in the smart city innovation: Multistakeholder integration and engagement perspectives. Journal of Business Research. 119:163-171. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.010]
6. Ghafari Gilandeh A, Ali Kharazmi O, Yazdani MH, Roshanroodi S (2017). Analyzing the status of forming the innovative city in Mashhad city with an emphasis on vision of 2025. Geography and Territorial Spatial Arrangement. 7(25):1-18. [Persian] [Link]
7. Glaeser E, Kourtit K, Nijkamp P, editors (2020). Urban empires: Cities as global rulers in the new urban world. 1st edition. London: Routledge. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9780429469978]
8. Hartley K, Woo JJ, Chung SK (2018). Urban innovation policy in the postdevelopmental era: Lessons from Singapore and Seoul. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies. 5(3):599-614. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/app5.255]
9. Hutton TA (2009). Trajectories of the new economy: Regeneration and dislocation in the inner city. Urban Studies. 46(5/6):987-1001. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0042098009103852]
10. Kalliomäki H, Oinas P, Salo T (2024). Innovation districts as strategic urban projects: The emergence of strategic spatial planning for urban innovation. European Planning Studies. 32(1):78-96. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/09654313.2023.2216727]
11. Keeler LW, Beaudoin F, Wiek A, John B, Lerner AM, Beecroft R, et al (2019). Building actor-centric transformative capacity through city-university partnerships. Ambio. 48(5):529-538. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s13280-018-1117-9]
12. Kresl P, Singh B (2012). Urban competitiveness and US metropolitan centres. Urban Studies. 49(2):239-254. [Link] [DOI:10.1177/0042098011399592]
13. Lederman J, Whitney RA (2023). What is progressive city building? Global expertise and local entanglements in Latin America. Urban Geography. 44(8):1723-1746. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/02723638.2022.2125668]
14. Li S, Wang Y, Dincer H, Yuksel S, Yu D (2023). The effects of new urbanization pilot city policies on urban innovation: Evidence from China. Sustainability. 15(14):11352. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su151411352]
15. Markatou M, Alexandrou E (2015). Urban system of innovation: Main agents and main factors of success. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 195:240-250. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.355]
16. Mirzaee H, Rabbani T (2018). Analysis of the problems of Tehran metropolitan innovation system using fuzzy cognitive mapping. Sustainable City. 1(2):1-16. [Persian] [Link]
17. Nadin V, Stead D, Dąbrowski M, Fernandez-Maldonado AM (2021). Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: Trends across Europe. Regional Studies. 55(5):791-803. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/00343404.2020.1817363]
18. Neves M, Branco J (2020). Determinants of R&D on European high technology industry: Panel data evidence. Management Research. 18(3):285-305. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/MRJIAM-11-2019-0969]
19. Osborne S, Radnor Z, Strokosch K (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review. 18(5):639-653. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927]
20. Paskaleva K, Cooper I (2018). Open innovation and the evaluation of internet-enabled public services in smart cities. Technovation. 78:4-14. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.technovation.2018.07.003]
21. Popescu AI (2020). Long-term city innovation trajectories and quality of urban life. Sustainability. 12(24):10587. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su122410587]
22. Samari H, Delangizan S, Soheili K (2021). The urban innovation system modeling: Using Meta-synthesis method. International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management. 6(4):445-460. [Link]
23. Sassen S, editor (2002). Global networks, linked cities. 1st edition. New York: Routledge. [Link]
24. Tukiainen T, Leminen S, Westerlund M (2015). Cities as collaborative innovation platforms. Technology Innovation Management Review. 5(10):16-23. [Link] [DOI:10.22215/timreview/933]
25. Wagner P, Wilhelmer D (2017). An integrated transformative process model for social innovation in cities. Procedia Engineering. 198:935-947. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.139]
26. Wang R, Cai W, Ren H, Ma X (2023). Heterogeneous effects of the talent competition on urban innovation in China: Evidence from prefecture-level cities. Land. 12(3):719. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/land12030719]
27. Zhang JX, Cheng JW, Philbin SP, Ballesteros-Perez P, Skitmore M, Wang G (2023). Influencing factors of urban innovation and development: A grounded theory analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 25(3):2079-2104. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10668-022-02151-7]