تحلیل وضعیت شکل‌گیری شهر نوآور در شهر مشهد با تأکید بر افق 1404

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی

2 استادیار جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

3 دانشیار جغرافیا و برنامه‌‌‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی

4 دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی

چکیده

هدف این پژوهش، بررسی وضع موجود نوآوری در سازمان‌های واسطة شهر مشهد و پیش‌بینی سمت و سوی نوآوری در افق 1404 است که در این راستا بر‌اساس نمونه‌گیری سادة تصادفی، 100 نفر با استفاده از فرمول مورگان انتخاب و پرسشنامه‌‌ها با سه عامل کلیدی و 44 عامل مؤثر در 4 سازمان شهری شرکت شهرک‌‌های صنعتی، دانشگاه فردوسی، سازمان راه و شهرسازی و شهرداری مشهد پر شد؛ سپس 9 نفر از متخصصان این سازمان‌‌ها با استفاده از نمونه‌‌گیری گلوله‌برفی انتخاب شده و مصاحبة نیمه‌‌ساختاریافته‌‌ای به‌منظورِ تحلیل نتایج پرسشنامه‌‌ با آن‌‌ها انجام پذیرفت. این پژوهش ازنظرِ هدف، از نوع تحقیقات کاربردی و ازنظرِ ماهیت و روش، از نوع تحقیقات توصیفی- تحلیلی است. به‌دلیل نرمال‌نبودن و طیفی‌بودن داده‌‌ها همچنین تفاوت معنی‌‌دار گویه‌‌ها و رتبه‌بندی مطلوب‌ترین عوامل مؤثر در وضع موجود نوآوری و عدم‌قطعیت و ابهام بالای آن‌‌ها در افق 1404 از آزمون فریدمن استفاده شد و این رتبه‌‌بندی در اختیار متخصصان شهری قرار گرفت. بر‌اساس تحلیل مصاحبه‌‌های متخصصان شهری، مدیران شهری تمایل چندانی به نوآوری در پروژه‌های شهری ندارند. حتی اگر در مراحل اولیة پژوهش در طرح‌ها نوآوری در‌نظر گرفته شود، در مرحلة اجرا با مشکلات فراوانی روبه‌رو می‌شوند. همچنین نبود تعامل افقی (بین سازمانی) و عمودی (سازمان و مردم) در سازمان‌ها و وجود قوانین دست‌و‌پاگیر و موازی‌کاری‌های فراوان، باعث‌شده عوامل مؤثر نوآوری شهری با عدم‌قطعیت بالایی همراه بوده و رسیدن به شهر نوآور در افق 1404 تقریباً بعید باشد؛ در‌نتیجه دستیابی به شهر نوآور به تغییرات بنیادی در عوامل کلیدی و مؤثر نیاز است که این امر اهتمام همه‌جانبه‌ای از‌طریق مدیران، هم در بُعد محلی و هم در بُعد ملی را می‌طلبد. در‌نهایت نیز پیشنهادهایی درجهتِ دستیابی به شهر نوآور توسط متخصصان شهری ارائه شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analyzing the Status of Forming the Innovative City in Mashhad City With an Emphasis on Vision of 2025

نویسندگان [English]

  • Dr. ata ghafari gilandeh 1
  • Dr. omid ali kharazmi 2
  • Dr.mohammad hasan yazdani 3
  • Dr.somayeh Roshanroodi 4
چکیده [English]

Successful and innovator cities have been formed from three levels of creative individuals, national and international companies and organizations that connect these two levels with each other. The most important reason of lacking access to urban innovation has been absence or weakness of the middle level. The effects of creativity and innovation are established by proximity between two levels of innovative actors which are included in the cities (Underground) and also innovative firms (Upperground). In this environment another level should also be considered that acts as an intermediary between these two levels and called the connective level (Middleground). The fertility of middleground and its ability to facilitate the connection between the two mentioned levels of underground and upperground, finally leads to urban innovation. Cities in developing countries generally lack effectiveness in these layers especially in connective level. Accordingly, in order to investigate the present status of innovation in the intermediary organizations of Mashhad City and predict the side and direction of innovation in vision of 2025 (the perspective vision of preparing Khorasan Razavi province), 100 questionnaire with three key factors and 44 effective factors (effective factors are subset of key factors) have been filled in 4 organizations and Friedman test has been used for ranking the most desirable factors affecting the present status of innovation and effective factors with the high uncertainty and ambiguity in vision of 2025. Also interviews were carried out with 9 experts of urban organizations. This study is applied research and the nature and methods of research, cross - is composed. As well as to assess the current situation and uncertainty on the vision, the middle layer connecting the national innovation system as is used a combination of four mode. Results of this research showed that there are suitable supporting laws for improving innovation, but these laws are not sufficient and not supported by enforcement. Also there are not necessary supports for encouraging innovation in research centers. Also intellectual property rights are weak and venture capitalists are not active in the city. The general situation of innovation has been undesirable presently and the urban managers don’t so many tendencies to innovation in urban plans and projects. Even if the innovation in projects is considered in the first stages of research, faces with many problems in the implementation and practical stage and innovation is forgotten in them. Also, the lack of horizontal and vertical interaction in the organizations and the existence of cumbersome laws and many parallel activities have been caused to being accompanied the effective factors of urban innovation with the high uncertainty and reaching to the innovator city in vision of 2025 is almost unlikely. As a result of reaching to the innovator city, the fundamental changes are required in the key and effective factors that this affair demands a holistic effort by managers both in the local and national aspects and Finally suggestions are offered.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Innovator city
  • Theories of innovation
  • Mashhad city
  • vision of 2025
رضوی، سید مصطفی؛ اکبری، مرتضی. (1390). نظام نوآوری. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
ریاحی، پریسا؛ قاضی‌نوری، سپهر؛ حجت‌الله، حاجی‌حسینی. (1392). گونه‌‌شناسی رفتار نوآوری استان‌‌های ایران با تأکید بر عوامل اجتماعی. فصلنامة علمی- پژوهشی سیاست علم و فنّاوری، مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، سال پنجم، شمارة 4، تابستان، صص 66-47.
مطالعات آمایش استان خراسان رضوی. (1390)، مدیریت آمایش استان خراسان رضوی. مشهد: انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی مشهد.
 
Abbasi, F. and Hajihoseini, H. (2004). Evaluating Iranian National Innovation System. Research Institute for Technological Development Studies, Tehran, Iran, 5(1) 25-32.
Athey,G. Glossop,C. Harrison,B. Nathan,M. Webber,C. (2007). Innovation and the city,NESTA
Briggs, M.J. (2008). Innovation and the city: a macro marketing approach to industry development, Marketing Intelligence & Planning Vol. 27 No. 2, 2009 pp. 233-245
Brown, R. (2000). Cluster Dynamics in Theory and Practice with Application to Scotland, Regional and Industrial Policy Research Paper Number 38, 221-229
Bunnell, T; PA Barter. (2002). City Profile Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area A globalizing city-region, Cities, Vol. 19, No. 5, p. 357–370
Chung, S. (2002). "Building a National Innovation System through Regional Innovation System", Technovation, 22  (8), pp 485-491
CLANCY, Paula, EOIN O’MALLEY, LARRY O’CONNELL and CHRIS VAN EGERAAT. (2001). Industry Clusters in Ireland: An Application of Porter’s Model of National Competitive Advantage to, European Planning Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1
Cohendet, P; Grandadam, D; Simon, L. (2011). Rethinkingurban creativity:Lessons from Barcelona and Montreal,City,culture and society, journal of elsevier,Pp151-158.
Dutta, S and Mia, I. (2007). The Global Information Technology Report2006–2007. Connecting to the Networked Economy. World Economic Forum, France.
Edvinsson, L. (2003). Introduction to Issues in Knowledge Management. Oxfordshire, Henley Knowledge Management Forum.
Ergazakis, kostas, kostas Metaxiotis & john Asarras. (2004). Towards knowledge cities; conceptual anahysis and success stories, Journal of knowledge management, VOL.8, NO 5.
Etzkowitz, H; Leydesdorff, L. (2004). “The dynamics of innovation: from national system and mode 2 to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations”, Research Policy,Vol. 29, pp. 109.
Farhangi, M. ( 2013). Moving Esfahan forward in knowledge based urban development: the opportunities and constraints, The 6th knowledge cities word summit, Istanbul, Turkey.
Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the Creative Class. Routledge, New York.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, Pinter Publishers, London/New York.
Graham, D. (2005). ‘Wider Economic Benefi ts of Transport Improvements: Link between city size and productivity.’ London: Department for Transport; Rice, P. and Venables, A. (2004) ‘Spatial Determinants of Productivity: Analysis for the Regions of Great Britain.’ Unpublished paper. London: LSE.
Inzelt, Annamária. (2004). The evolution of university–industry–government relationships during transition, Journal Research Policy 33, 455-461.
Johnson, B. (1992). “Institutional Learning,” in: Lundvall, B. -A.  (ed.), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London, pp. 23-44.
Katz, Bruce & Julie Wagner. (2014). The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America, Metropolitan Policy Program At Brookings. Brookings Institution. May.
Kharazmi, Omid Ali, Amin Nedaei, Nazi Javadi Nejad. (2013), PROMOTING THE CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE CITIES THROUGH UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION IN THE IRANIAN CONTEXT, The 6th knowledge cities word summit, Istanbul, Turkey.
Leon, Nick. (2008). Attract and connect: The 22@ Barcelona innovation district and the internationalisation of Barcelonabusiness, Innovation: Management policy and practice, VOL 10, Issue 2-3.
Lundvall, B. (1992). National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Frances Pinter.
Nagy, G. (2001). Knowledge-based development: Opportunities for medium-sized cities in Hungary. European Urban and Regional Studies, 8, 329–339.
Nelson, R. (1993). National Innovation Systems: a Comparative Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Porter, M. E. (1998). “Clusters and the New Economics of Competition”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, No.6, pp. 77-91.
Rezazadeh Mehrizi, M.H & M. Pakneiat. (2008). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SECTORAL INNOVATION SYSTEM AND DIAMOND MODEL  (THE CASE OF TELECOM SECTOR OF IRAN), Journal of Technology Managemen & Innovation, Vol 3, No 3, 78-90
Saad. M; Zawdie. G. (2005). frome technology transfer to the emergence of a triple helix culture,Technology analysis & strtegie management, vol 17. No.1,89-103 Volume 3, Issue
Salami, R & J. Soltanzadeh,  (2012). Comparative Analysis for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy; Lessons Learned from Some Selected Countries  (Brazil, India, China, South Korea and South Africa) for Other LdCs Like Iran, Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, Volume 7, Issue 1212-221.,
Sharif, N. (2006). “Emergence and development of the National Innovation Systems concept”, Research Policy, 35(5),  pp 745-766.
Shaw, K. (2003). ‘‘Discretion vs regulation and the sorry case of Melbourne City Plan 2010’’, Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 441-7.
Shearmur, R. (2012). Are cities the font of innovation? A critical review of the literature on cities and innovation, cities 29, 451-460
Shin, J-H., Lee, I-K. (2006). Cheong Gye Cheon restoration in Seoul, Korea. Civil Engineering 159  (4), 162–170.
Southworth, M., Ruggeri, D. (2011). Beyond placelessness: place identity and the global city. In: Banerjee, T., Loukaitou-Sideris, A.  (Eds.), Companion to Urban Design. Routledge, Oxon, Oxford, pp. 495–509.
Tushman, M.I. & O’Reilly, C.A., III. (1997). Winning through innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press: 353-375.
Wignaraja, G. (2003). “Competitiveness Strategy in Developing Countries”. First Edition, Routledge,
Yigitcanlar, T, K. O’Connor & C. Westerman. (2008). The making of knowledge cities: Melbourne’s knowledge-based urban development experience, Cities 25, 63-72.
Yigitcanlar, T. (2009). Planning for knowledge-based urban development: global perspectives Journal of  knowledge management, VOL. 13 NO., 5, pp. 228-242