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
Full-Text (HTML) (14 Views)
Background
Cities are complex, multidimensional systems that play a critical role in human life. However, they face various challenges such as urban population growth, environmental protection, and climate adaptation, all requiring transformative changes for sustainability.
Previous Studies
Previous studies emphasize the significance of urban innovation in addressing challenges such as economic stagnation, social instability, and environmental issues. Research highlights that cities with robust innovation systems can enhance sustainability and foster economic growth through new products, services, and technologies [Neves & Branco, 2020; Kalliomäki et al., 2024]. Several studies also point out the need for strategic policies and strong innovation ecosystems to create smart, sustainable cities [Keeler et al., 2018; Popescu, 2020]. Additionally, urban innovation is a key driver for improving city competitiveness and addressing local challenges through collaborative governance and entrepreneurship [Ferraris et al., 2020; Wagner & Wilhelmer, 2017]. Some researchers have explored the specific urban innovation systems in different cities, emphasizing the importance of adapting strategies to each city's unique characteristics and competitive advantages [Paskaleva & Cooper, 2018; Lederman & Whitney, 2023].
Aim
The study aims to explore and identify the key components that contribute to urban innovation in Tehran. It seeks to evaluate the current state of innovation and its various functional aspects within the context of urban development.
Research Type
This research was applied in nature and utilized a mixed-method approach (qualitative-quantitative). The qualitative part uses an exploratory approach to gather expert opinions through semi-structured interviews, while the quantitative phase followed a descriptive, survey-based method to confirm and validate the qualitative findings.
Research Society, Place, and Time
The study was conducted in Tehran, Iran, in the year 2024. The research focused on experts and professionals within urban planning, innovation policy, and related fields.
Sampling Method and Number
The qualitative part involved purposive sampling, selecting 10 experts based on their expertise and experience in relevant urban sectors. The interviews continued until theoretical saturation was reached. In the quantitative phase, 40 respondents were chosen using convenience sampling, ensuring they had sufficient expertise and experience related to the study's topic.
Used Devices & Materials
For the qualitative data, semi-structured interviews were conducted, with the interview questions designed based on the literature and expert opinions. Data analysis was performed using theoretical coding methods, specifically open, axial, and selective coding. For the quantitative phase, a researcher-developed questionnaire was used, and its validity was evaluated using the Guba and Lincoln criteria. The reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed with a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.83, indicating good internal consistency.
Findings by Text
The study's sample consisted of 30% male participants, 30% female, 20% in the 30-39 age range, 60% in the 40-49 age range, and 20% in the 50-59 age range. 60% of the participants held academic positions and 40% had managerial roles (Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of the Study Sample
The data analysis process followed open, axial, and selective coding stages, with the coding tables being scrutinized. A total of 178 initial codes were extracted. Data was read line by line, and open codes were identified. Similar codes were grouped under one category, resulting in several categories. In axial coding, these concepts were grouped into higher-level categories for abstraction (Table 2). Selective coding created relationships between the categories from axial coding. The final analysis consolidated 20 categories into 11 (Table 3). Statistical analysis using the T-test showed that most dimensions related to urban innovation in Tehran were statistically significant, with some dimensions showing relatively good results, while others like financial policies, citizen participation, and institutional framework showed lower ratings. The overall average of 2.94 indicates that urban innovation in Tehran was not yet at an optimal level.
Table 2. Key Categories and Concepts for Urban Innovation and Development
Table 3. Categorization of Factors Influencing Ur5/6/2025ban Innovation
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The study's findings align with similar research by Mirzaee & Rabbani (2018), highlighting the critical role of financial policy in promoting urban innovation, and confirm that weak institutional financial policies remain a significant barrier. Asadi et al. (2017) also emphasize the poor status of national innovation systems in urban management, which mirrors this study's results, particularly regarding regulations and educational frameworks. Ghafari Gilandeh et al. (2017) and Li et al. (2023) similarly stress the need for organizational collaboration and human capital development for urban innovation, which is affirmed in the study's findings. Furthermore, Zhang et al. (2023) and Bevilacqua et al. (2023) identify key socio-economic, environmental, and policy factors that impact innovation, all of which were also observed in this study. The research corroborates the need for systemic change and local-national efforts to enhance innovation, consistent with the conclusions of previous studies..
Suggestions
The status of Tehran in terms of innovation indicators requires serious attention alongside a commitment to collaborative work and citizen participation under the umbrella of meritocracy. This approach is essential for urban innovation indicators to properly guide the city toward becoming an innovative urban hub. In this process, the role of the government and its policies in streamlining the transformation of Tehran into an innovative city is highly significant.
Conclusion
While Tehran has potential for urban innovation, it currently faces several challenges that hinder the full realization of its innovative capacity.
Acknowledgments: No acknowledgments were reported by the authors.
Ethical Approval: No ethical approval was reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This dissertation is derived from the first author's doctoral thesis.
Author Contributions: Sheikhi A (First Author), Introduction writer/discussion writer/methodologist (30%); Hataminejad H (Second Author), Introduction writer/discussion writer/methodologist (25%); Zangeneh Shahraki S (Third Author), Methodologist (15%); Pourahmad A (Fourth Author), Introduction writer/methodologist (15%); Mirzaei H (Fifth Author), Introduction writer/methodologist (15%)
Funding: No funding was reported by the authors.
Cities are complex, multidimensional systems that play a critical role in human life. However, they face various challenges such as urban population growth, environmental protection, and climate adaptation, all requiring transformative changes for sustainability.
Previous Studies
Previous studies emphasize the significance of urban innovation in addressing challenges such as economic stagnation, social instability, and environmental issues. Research highlights that cities with robust innovation systems can enhance sustainability and foster economic growth through new products, services, and technologies [Neves & Branco, 2020; Kalliomäki et al., 2024]. Several studies also point out the need for strategic policies and strong innovation ecosystems to create smart, sustainable cities [Keeler et al., 2018; Popescu, 2020]. Additionally, urban innovation is a key driver for improving city competitiveness and addressing local challenges through collaborative governance and entrepreneurship [Ferraris et al., 2020; Wagner & Wilhelmer, 2017]. Some researchers have explored the specific urban innovation systems in different cities, emphasizing the importance of adapting strategies to each city's unique characteristics and competitive advantages [Paskaleva & Cooper, 2018; Lederman & Whitney, 2023].
Aim
The study aims to explore and identify the key components that contribute to urban innovation in Tehran. It seeks to evaluate the current state of innovation and its various functional aspects within the context of urban development.
Research Type
This research was applied in nature and utilized a mixed-method approach (qualitative-quantitative). The qualitative part uses an exploratory approach to gather expert opinions through semi-structured interviews, while the quantitative phase followed a descriptive, survey-based method to confirm and validate the qualitative findings.
Research Society, Place, and Time
The study was conducted in Tehran, Iran, in the year 2024. The research focused on experts and professionals within urban planning, innovation policy, and related fields.
Sampling Method and Number
The qualitative part involved purposive sampling, selecting 10 experts based on their expertise and experience in relevant urban sectors. The interviews continued until theoretical saturation was reached. In the quantitative phase, 40 respondents were chosen using convenience sampling, ensuring they had sufficient expertise and experience related to the study's topic.
Used Devices & Materials
For the qualitative data, semi-structured interviews were conducted, with the interview questions designed based on the literature and expert opinions. Data analysis was performed using theoretical coding methods, specifically open, axial, and selective coding. For the quantitative phase, a researcher-developed questionnaire was used, and its validity was evaluated using the Guba and Lincoln criteria. The reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed with a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.83, indicating good internal consistency.
Findings by Text
The study's sample consisted of 30% male participants, 30% female, 20% in the 30-39 age range, 60% in the 40-49 age range, and 20% in the 50-59 age range. 60% of the participants held academic positions and 40% had managerial roles (Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of the Study Sample
The data analysis process followed open, axial, and selective coding stages, with the coding tables being scrutinized. A total of 178 initial codes were extracted. Data was read line by line, and open codes were identified. Similar codes were grouped under one category, resulting in several categories. In axial coding, these concepts were grouped into higher-level categories for abstraction (Table 2). Selective coding created relationships between the categories from axial coding. The final analysis consolidated 20 categories into 11 (Table 3). Statistical analysis using the T-test showed that most dimensions related to urban innovation in Tehran were statistically significant, with some dimensions showing relatively good results, while others like financial policies, citizen participation, and institutional framework showed lower ratings. The overall average of 2.94 indicates that urban innovation in Tehran was not yet at an optimal level.
Table 2. Key Categories and Concepts for Urban Innovation and Development
Table 3. Categorization of Factors Influencing Ur5/6/2025ban Innovation
Main Comparisons to Similar Studies
The study's findings align with similar research by Mirzaee & Rabbani (2018), highlighting the critical role of financial policy in promoting urban innovation, and confirm that weak institutional financial policies remain a significant barrier. Asadi et al. (2017) also emphasize the poor status of national innovation systems in urban management, which mirrors this study's results, particularly regarding regulations and educational frameworks. Ghafari Gilandeh et al. (2017) and Li et al. (2023) similarly stress the need for organizational collaboration and human capital development for urban innovation, which is affirmed in the study's findings. Furthermore, Zhang et al. (2023) and Bevilacqua et al. (2023) identify key socio-economic, environmental, and policy factors that impact innovation, all of which were also observed in this study. The research corroborates the need for systemic change and local-national efforts to enhance innovation, consistent with the conclusions of previous studies..
Suggestions
The status of Tehran in terms of innovation indicators requires serious attention alongside a commitment to collaborative work and citizen participation under the umbrella of meritocracy. This approach is essential for urban innovation indicators to properly guide the city toward becoming an innovative urban hub. In this process, the role of the government and its policies in streamlining the transformation of Tehran into an innovative city is highly significant.
Conclusion
While Tehran has potential for urban innovation, it currently faces several challenges that hinder the full realization of its innovative capacity.
Acknowledgments: No acknowledgments were reported by the authors.
Ethical Approval: No ethical approval was reported by the authors.
Conflict of Interest: This dissertation is derived from the first author's doctoral thesis.
Author Contributions: Sheikhi A (First Author), Introduction writer/discussion writer/methodologist (30%); Hataminejad H (Second Author), Introduction writer/discussion writer/methodologist (25%); Zangeneh Shahraki S (Third Author), Methodologist (15%); Pourahmad A (Fourth Author), Introduction writer/methodologist (15%); Mirzaei H (Fifth Author), Introduction writer/methodologist (15%)
Funding: No funding was reported by the authors.
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]