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
Full-Text (HTML) (93 Views)
Background
Strategic urban planning has recently become a key approach to tackling urban management challenges, poverty, and policy inefficiencies in developing countries. The City Development Strategy (CDS) focuses on public participation, poverty reduction, and strengthening institutional and social capacities, especially at the neighborhood level. However, there is a notable gap in the literature due to the lack of an analytical model explaining the systematic relationship between these capacities and socially just urban development strategies.
Previous Studies
Previous studies have examined various dimensions of urban development strategy, institutional and social capacity, and sustainability. Farahbakhsh Daghigh and Mohammadi (2022) show that in developing countries, the focus on social sustainability is often limited to traditional aspects; however, public participation remains a key factor. Ziari et al. (2022) have emphasized factors such as competitiveness, branding, and government effectiveness at the metropolitan scale. Kiani et al. (2021) identify the physical factor as the most influential component in implementing strategic plans. Meanwhile, Polvwrari et al. (2024) stress strengthening institutional capacity and resilience at local and regional levels, while Chatzitheodoridis et al. (2022) highlight the role of institutional participation, sustainable alliances, and bottom-up approaches in urban development strategy formulation. However, most of these studies lack a direct and systematic analysis of the relationship between institutional capacity and social justice at the neighborhood level.
Aim(s)
This study aims to identify and analyze institutional and social capacity indicators and evaluate their role in the content strategy of urban regeneration with a compensatory justice approach.
Research Type
This research is applied-developmental in terms of its objective and is classified as a descriptive-explanatory study in terms of nature and methodology.
Research Society, Place and Time
The research population consisted of informed stakeholders in the field of urban policy and planning, including city managers, development experts, researchers, and planners. The study was conducted in Karaj in the year 2024.
Sampling Method and Number
The sampling method of this study was purposive with a theoretical approach. The sample individuals were selected from informed stakeholders in urban policy and planning, including managers, experts, researchers, and planners. The sampling process continued until theoretical saturation was reached, meaning that after the tenth respondent, the content of responses was considered repetitive. However, to ensure diversity of viewpoints, data collection continued until the fiftieth respondent. As a result, the final sample size was set at 50 participants.
Used Devices & Materials
For data collection in this study, a structured questionnaire was used. The questionnaire consisted of two sections: The first section covered respondents’ demographic information (age, education, professional experience), and the second section included a table of institutional and social capacity indicators evaluated using a five-point Likert scale.
For data analysis, SPSS version 26 software was employed. To assess the validity of the instrument, both face validity and content validity (through expert opinions) were used, and Cronbach’s alpha test was applied to evaluate reliability. Additionally, thematic analysis was utilized to extract theoretical concepts from library sources.
Findings by Text
In this study, a set of 13 key institutional capacity indicators were identified through a literature review and conceptual analysis. These indicators included human capital, financial and physical resources, goal orientation, incentive systems, internal relations, flexibility, inter-institutional relations, collective capacity, local knowledge, interactive learning, experiential learning, continuous learning, and rules and regulations.
The findings showed that most indicators received an average score above 4 (out of 5), indicating a positive and favorable assessment of the current status by respondents. Experiential learning received the highest score with an average of 4.28, followed by interactive and continuous learning. Conversely, the lowest average was related to collective capacity (4.14). Additionally, low standard deviations (ranging from 0.87 to 0.98) and the significance of Chi-square tests (p < 0.0001) for all indicators demonstrated high agreement among participants regarding the importance of the indicators (Table 1).
Table 1) Descriptive findings and Chi-square test for the evaluation of institutional indicators based on responses from 50 participants
Shannon entropy test results for prioritizing the indicators revealed that experiential learning had the highest final weight (0.1029), followed by continuous learning (0.0935) and interactive learning (0.0914). This highlighted the significant role of learning dimensions, especially learning from experience, in enhancing institutional capacity. In contrast, collective capacity had the lowest importance weight (0.0568) (Table 2).
Table 2. Shannon entropy test results for prioritizing institutional indicators
Overall, the study results indicate that the institutions under review placed the greatest emphasis on learning, knowledge exchange, and adaptability to conditions, while structural or collective dimensions (such as collective capacity or human capital) were considered less important. These findings can provide a basis for guiding policies and programs aimed at strengthening institutional capacity at the local level.
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The emphasis on institutional learning indicators, particularly experiential and interactive learning is consistent with findings by Argote (2012) and Hsu & Lumb (2020), who highlight the crucial role of organizational learning in enhancing institutional decision-making. The concept of "interactive learning" in this study aligns with Gephart et al. (1996), emphasizing stakeholder dialogue in learning processes. The trial-and-error nature of experiential learning reflects a pragmatic planning tradition [Sabel, 2004], similar to approaches adopted by pioneering cities in ICLEI (2015) for addressing urban challenges. Additionally, the importance of institutional flexibility and inter-regional relations resonates with Ostrom (2010), OECD (2020), and UN-Habitat (2016), all of which underscore the need for multilevel governance and adaptive institutional capacities. Furthermore, the findings correspond with Nonaka’s (2009) perspective on internal knowledge circulation within organizations, reinforcing the value of continuous knowledge flow in institutional performance
Suggestions
Future studies should adopt deeper mixed-method approaches, including more qualitative interviews with diverse stakeholders, to better understand how institutional capacity indicators influence urban development. Longitudinal studies are also recommended to track changes in these indicators over time.
Additionally, it is suggested to develop more accurate tools for measuring qualitative indicators like institutional flexibility and social capital, possibly through composite indices or multi-criteria analysis. Exploring the interactions among these indicators under different urban contexts can further enrich future research
Conclusion
The institutional and social capacity for urban development in Tehran is generally evaluated as favorable. Among the assessed indicators, experiential, interactive, and continuous learning were of greater importance. Institutional flexibility and inter-regional relationships were also significant, while the collective capacity of institutions received the lowest score.
Acknowledgments: None reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: None reported by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Mirvakili AA (First author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer /Methodologist (50%); Moradi Masihi V (Second author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer /Methodologist (50%)
Funding: None reported by the authors.
Strategic urban planning has recently become a key approach to tackling urban management challenges, poverty, and policy inefficiencies in developing countries. The City Development Strategy (CDS) focuses on public participation, poverty reduction, and strengthening institutional and social capacities, especially at the neighborhood level. However, there is a notable gap in the literature due to the lack of an analytical model explaining the systematic relationship between these capacities and socially just urban development strategies.
Previous Studies
Previous studies have examined various dimensions of urban development strategy, institutional and social capacity, and sustainability. Farahbakhsh Daghigh and Mohammadi (2022) show that in developing countries, the focus on social sustainability is often limited to traditional aspects; however, public participation remains a key factor. Ziari et al. (2022) have emphasized factors such as competitiveness, branding, and government effectiveness at the metropolitan scale. Kiani et al. (2021) identify the physical factor as the most influential component in implementing strategic plans. Meanwhile, Polvwrari et al. (2024) stress strengthening institutional capacity and resilience at local and regional levels, while Chatzitheodoridis et al. (2022) highlight the role of institutional participation, sustainable alliances, and bottom-up approaches in urban development strategy formulation. However, most of these studies lack a direct and systematic analysis of the relationship between institutional capacity and social justice at the neighborhood level.
Aim(s)
This study aims to identify and analyze institutional and social capacity indicators and evaluate their role in the content strategy of urban regeneration with a compensatory justice approach.
Research Type
This research is applied-developmental in terms of its objective and is classified as a descriptive-explanatory study in terms of nature and methodology.
Research Society, Place and Time
The research population consisted of informed stakeholders in the field of urban policy and planning, including city managers, development experts, researchers, and planners. The study was conducted in Karaj in the year 2024.
Sampling Method and Number
The sampling method of this study was purposive with a theoretical approach. The sample individuals were selected from informed stakeholders in urban policy and planning, including managers, experts, researchers, and planners. The sampling process continued until theoretical saturation was reached, meaning that after the tenth respondent, the content of responses was considered repetitive. However, to ensure diversity of viewpoints, data collection continued until the fiftieth respondent. As a result, the final sample size was set at 50 participants.
Used Devices & Materials
For data collection in this study, a structured questionnaire was used. The questionnaire consisted of two sections: The first section covered respondents’ demographic information (age, education, professional experience), and the second section included a table of institutional and social capacity indicators evaluated using a five-point Likert scale.
For data analysis, SPSS version 26 software was employed. To assess the validity of the instrument, both face validity and content validity (through expert opinions) were used, and Cronbach’s alpha test was applied to evaluate reliability. Additionally, thematic analysis was utilized to extract theoretical concepts from library sources.
Findings by Text
In this study, a set of 13 key institutional capacity indicators were identified through a literature review and conceptual analysis. These indicators included human capital, financial and physical resources, goal orientation, incentive systems, internal relations, flexibility, inter-institutional relations, collective capacity, local knowledge, interactive learning, experiential learning, continuous learning, and rules and regulations.
The findings showed that most indicators received an average score above 4 (out of 5), indicating a positive and favorable assessment of the current status by respondents. Experiential learning received the highest score with an average of 4.28, followed by interactive and continuous learning. Conversely, the lowest average was related to collective capacity (4.14). Additionally, low standard deviations (ranging from 0.87 to 0.98) and the significance of Chi-square tests (p < 0.0001) for all indicators demonstrated high agreement among participants regarding the importance of the indicators (Table 1).
Table 1) Descriptive findings and Chi-square test for the evaluation of institutional indicators based on responses from 50 participants
Shannon entropy test results for prioritizing the indicators revealed that experiential learning had the highest final weight (0.1029), followed by continuous learning (0.0935) and interactive learning (0.0914). This highlighted the significant role of learning dimensions, especially learning from experience, in enhancing institutional capacity. In contrast, collective capacity had the lowest importance weight (0.0568) (Table 2).
Table 2. Shannon entropy test results for prioritizing institutional indicators
Overall, the study results indicate that the institutions under review placed the greatest emphasis on learning, knowledge exchange, and adaptability to conditions, while structural or collective dimensions (such as collective capacity or human capital) were considered less important. These findings can provide a basis for guiding policies and programs aimed at strengthening institutional capacity at the local level.
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The emphasis on institutional learning indicators, particularly experiential and interactive learning is consistent with findings by Argote (2012) and Hsu & Lumb (2020), who highlight the crucial role of organizational learning in enhancing institutional decision-making. The concept of "interactive learning" in this study aligns with Gephart et al. (1996), emphasizing stakeholder dialogue in learning processes. The trial-and-error nature of experiential learning reflects a pragmatic planning tradition [Sabel, 2004], similar to approaches adopted by pioneering cities in ICLEI (2015) for addressing urban challenges. Additionally, the importance of institutional flexibility and inter-regional relations resonates with Ostrom (2010), OECD (2020), and UN-Habitat (2016), all of which underscore the need for multilevel governance and adaptive institutional capacities. Furthermore, the findings correspond with Nonaka’s (2009) perspective on internal knowledge circulation within organizations, reinforcing the value of continuous knowledge flow in institutional performance
Suggestions
Future studies should adopt deeper mixed-method approaches, including more qualitative interviews with diverse stakeholders, to better understand how institutional capacity indicators influence urban development. Longitudinal studies are also recommended to track changes in these indicators over time.
Additionally, it is suggested to develop more accurate tools for measuring qualitative indicators like institutional flexibility and social capital, possibly through composite indices or multi-criteria analysis. Exploring the interactions among these indicators under different urban contexts can further enrich future research
Conclusion
The institutional and social capacity for urban development in Tehran is generally evaluated as favorable. Among the assessed indicators, experiential, interactive, and continuous learning were of greater importance. Institutional flexibility and inter-regional relationships were also significant, while the collective capacity of institutions received the lowest score.
Acknowledgments: None reported by the authors.
Ethical Permission: None reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: None reported by the authors.
Authors’ Contributions: Mirvakili AA (First author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer /Methodologist (50%); Moradi Masihi V (Second author), Introduction Writer/Discussion Writer /Methodologist (50%)
Funding: None reported by the authors.
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]