Bilingual
En/Fa
Geographical Research is Published in both Persian and English Full-text.
Volume 40, Issue 2 (2025)
GeoRes 2025, 40(2): 115-123 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2025/05/8 | Accepted: 2025/06/10 | Published: 2025/06/13
Received: 2025/05/8 | Accepted: 2025/06/10 | Published: 2025/06/13
How to cite this article
Mirvakili A, Moradi Masihi V. Institutional and Social Capacity Indicators Emphasizing the Substantive Approach to Urban Development Strategy. GeoRes 2025; 40 (2) :115-123
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1714-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1714-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:
Authors
A.A. Mirvakili1, V. Moradi Masihi *1
1- Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Central Tehran Branch (CTC), Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract (463 Views)
Aims: One of the modern approaches in urban planning and development is strategic planning, which emphasizes adopting a strategic mindset for shaping the future of cities. Within this framework, the characteristics of institutional and social capacity play a significant role. Accordingly, this study aimed to explain the indicators of institutional and social capacity with an emphasis on the substantive approach to urban development strategy.
Methodology: This explanatory-descriptive research was conducted in Karaj in 2024. The research followed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Data were collected through library studies. In the initial stage, primary indicators were extracted from theoretical sources and urban planning documents and were then organized into a structured questionnaire. The validity of the questionnaire was assessed and refined through expert judgment using face and content validity methods, and its reliability was confirmed with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.82. The statistical population consisted of 50 urban development experts selected purposively until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data analysis was carried out in two phases using descriptive statistics and Kendall and Friedman tests in SPSS 26.
Findings: The chi-square test yielded significant results, indicating that respondents positively evaluated the proposed indicators. The highest mean scores were related to experiential learning (4.28) and interactive learning (4.26), while the lowest was assigned to collective institutional capacity (4.14). According to the Shannon entropy test, the most important indicators were experiential learning, continuous learning, flexibility, and intra-regional relations, whereas collective institutional capacity received the least weight.
Conclusion: Indicators of learning, interaction, adaptability, and knowledge circulation hold higher importance in assessing institutional and social capacity, while collective structures and physical or human resources are considered lower priorities.
Methodology: This explanatory-descriptive research was conducted in Karaj in 2024. The research followed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Data were collected through library studies. In the initial stage, primary indicators were extracted from theoretical sources and urban planning documents and were then organized into a structured questionnaire. The validity of the questionnaire was assessed and refined through expert judgment using face and content validity methods, and its reliability was confirmed with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.82. The statistical population consisted of 50 urban development experts selected purposively until theoretical saturation was achieved. Data analysis was carried out in two phases using descriptive statistics and Kendall and Friedman tests in SPSS 26.
Findings: The chi-square test yielded significant results, indicating that respondents positively evaluated the proposed indicators. The highest mean scores were related to experiential learning (4.28) and interactive learning (4.26), while the lowest was assigned to collective institutional capacity (4.14). According to the Shannon entropy test, the most important indicators were experiential learning, continuous learning, flexibility, and intra-regional relations, whereas collective institutional capacity received the least weight.
Conclusion: Indicators of learning, interaction, adaptability, and knowledge circulation hold higher importance in assessing institutional and social capacity, while collective structures and physical or human resources are considered lower priorities.
Keywords:
References
1. Ahrend R, Farchy E, Kaplanis I, Lembcke AC (2014). What makes cities more productive? Evidence on the role of urban governance from five OECD countries. Paris: OECD. [Link]
2. Altaf A, Dillinger WR, Evenett SJ, Fay M, Henderson JV, Kenny CJ, et al (2000). World development report 1999/2000: Entering the 21st century. Washington, DC: World Bank. [Link]
3. Ansell C, Gash A (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 18(4):543-571. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/jopart/mum032]
4. Argote L (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. New York: Springer. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-5251-5]
5. Badri SA, Nemati M (2009). Strategic planning of economic development with participatory approach, the case: Central part of lengeh township. Human Geography Research. 41(68):69-83. [Link]
6. Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Bloomberg L (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review. 74(4):445-456. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/puar.12238]
7. Chatzitheodoridis F, Melfou K, Kontogeorgos A, Kalogiannidis S (2022). Exploring key aspects of an integrated sustainable urban development strategy in Greece: The case of Thessaloniki City. Smart Cities. 6(1):19-39. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/smartcities6010002]
8. Chobbasti B, Zare R, Esaabadi M (2019). Analyzing the effects of effective strategic thinking on organizational learning and intellectual capital of employees (Case Study: One of the executive agencies of Qom Province). Journal of Science and Technology Policy Letters. 9(1):33-44. [Persian] [Link]
9. Esmailpoor N, Mahmoudy V, Esmaeilpoor F (2020). Investigating the situation of social capacity building in urban areas and its relationship with participation in the reconstruction of worn-out texture (case study: Yazd's Fahadan neighborhood). Quarterly Journals of Urban & Regional Development Planning. 3(5):143-181. [Persian] [Link]
10. Fainstein SS (2014). The just city. New York: Cornell University Press. [Link]
11. Farahbakhsh Daghigh R, Mohammadi M (2022). An overview of the importance of social sustainability in strategic planning. The Art of Green Management. 1(3):7-23. [Persian] [Link]
12. Garvin DA, Edmondson AC, Gino F (2008). Is yours a learning organization?. Harvard Business Review. 86(3):109-116. [Link]
13. Gephart MA, Marsick VJ, Van Buren ME, Spiro MS (1996). Learning organization. Educational Research and Perspectives. 38(1):105-123. [Link]
14. Ghasemi M, Moradi Chadegani D, Shahivandi A, Mohammadi M (2019). Application of strategic planning process to reduce the risk of drought impact on Isfahan's habitation using AIDA. Geographical Research. 34(4):455-469. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.29252/geores.34.4.455]
15. Hall P, Tewdwr-Jones M (2019). Urban and regional planning. London: Routledge. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9781351261883]
16. Healey P (1997). Traditions of planning thought. In: Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: Palgrave. p. 7-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-1-349-25538-2_1]
17. Heidari Sareban V, Majnooni Totakhaneh A (2017). The role of psychological capital in promoting rural entrepreneurship in East Azerbaijan Province. Economy. 6(22):97-118. [Persian] [Link]
18. Hsu SW, Lamb P (2020). Still in search of learning organization? Towards a radical account of The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. The Learning Organization. 27(1):31-41. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/TLO-09-2019-0142]
19. ICLEI (2015). Resilient cities report 2015: Global developments in urban adaptation and resilience. Local Governments for Sustainability. Bonn: Local Governments for Sustainability. [Link]
20. Kaburu S, Rambo C, Abuya I (2024). Enhancing performance of public-private partnership projects: Data management and capacity building of standard gauge railway. The African Journal of Monitoring and Evaluation. 2(1):61-77. [Link] [DOI:10.69562/afrijme.v2i1.16]
21. Kiani G, Afzali K, Ziari K (2021). A model for assessing the feasibility of strategic planning in Iranian urban development. Geography and Environmental Studies. 10(39):43-57. [Persian] [Link]
22. Nonaka I (2009). The knowledge-creating company. In: The economic impact of knowledge. London: Routledge. p. 175-187. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-7506-7009-8.50016-1]
23. OECD (2020). A territorial approach to the sustainable development goals: Synthesis report. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1787/e86fa715-en]
24. OECD (2020). Strengthening the governance of skills systems. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Link] [DOI:10.1787/3a4bb6ea-en]
25. Ostrom E (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review. 100(3):641-672. [Link] [DOI:10.1257/aer.100.3.641]
26. Polverari L, Domorenok E, Graziano P (2024). Empowerment via delegation? The administrative capacity-building potential of Cohesion Policy urban development strategies. Regional Studies. 58(4):733-744. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/00343404.2022.2058698]
27. Sabel CF (2004). Beyond principal-agent governance: Experimentalist organizations, learning and accountability. In: The state of democracy. Democracy beyond the state. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. p. 173-195. [Link]
28. Sabet NS, Khaksar S (2024). The performance of local government, social capital and participation of villagers in sustainable rural development. The Social Science Journal. 61(1):1-29. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/03623319.2020.1782649]
29. Santander AA, Garai-Olaun AA (2016). Urban planning and sustainable development in the 21st century, conceptual and management issues. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 44(3):032005. [Link] [DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/44/3/032005]
30. Sedlacek S, Gaube V (2010). Regions on their way to sustainability: The role of institutions in fostering sustainable development at the regional Level. Environment, development and sustainability. 12:117-134. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10668-008-9184-x]
31. Shadmanfar R, Poorjoharu AH, Imani Jjrami H (2023). Identifying challenges and solutions for institutional capacity building in neighborhood communities: A qualitative study. Urban Sociological Studies. 12(45):161-196. [Persian] [Link]
32. Shmelev SE, Shmeleva IA (2018). Global urban sustainability assessment: A multidimensional approach. Sustainable Development. 26(6):904-920. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/sd.1887]
33. Shon J, Kim J (2018). The impact of revenue diversification on municipal debts: Comparing short term and long term debt levels. Local Government Studies. 45(2): 241-261. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/03003930.2018.1552144]
34. Simaei Chaffi H, Memarzadeh Tehran G (2022). A model for capacity building in network governance. Management and Development Process. 35(1):25-60. [Persian] [Link] [DOI:10.52547/jmdp.35.1.25]
35. UN-Habitat (2004). Urban strategic planning: A guidebook for municipal practitioners. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. [Link]
36. UN-Habitat (2016). World cities report 2016: Urbanization and development-emerging futures. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. [Link]
37. UNDP (2018). Human development indices and indicators: 2018 statistical update. New York: United Nations Development Programme. [Link]
38. Uttara S, Bhuvandas N, Aggarwal V (2012). Impacts of urbanization on environment. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2(2):1637-1645. [Link]
39. Vongvisitsin TB, Tung VWS (2025). Technology start-ups in tourism and hospitality: A networked social capital theory perspective from early-stage start-up founders. Tourism Management. 106:104996. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2024.104996]
40. Watson V (2009). 'The planned city sweeps the poor away …': Urban planning and 21st century urbanization. Progress in Planning. 72(3):151-193. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.progress.2009.06.002]
41. Webster DR, Muller LR (2006). Guide to city development strategies: Improving urban performance. Washington, DC: Cities Alliance. [Link]
42. Williams MJ (2021). Beyond state capacity: Bureaucratic performance, policy implementation and reform. Journal of Institutional Economics. 17(2):339-357. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/S1744137420000478]
43. World Bank (2008). Decentralization and local democracy in the world. Washington, DC: World Bank. [Link]
44. Ziari K, Hosseini A, Behzadirad M (2022). Analysis and identification of key drivers of city development strategy (CDS) in urban planning; A future research approach to the city category. Journal Sustainable City. 5(3):39-60. [Persian] [Link]