Knowledge-Based Urban Development Frameworks And Models

Following the widespread reputation of KBUD, different patterns and models have been proposed by scholars and experts from the dawn of the new millennium which can be divided into three generations:

4.1. The First Generation Of KBUD: Individual And Separate Contexts

The first half of 2000s witnessed a diversified and numerous studies which have addressed KBUD from a specific perspective. These researches often failed to address multi-dimensional nature of the concept and do not a clear view of the way new development strategies are formulated that can be knowledge- based:

Carrillo (2004) proposed a theoretical framework and methodology for design, evaluation and measuring knowledge cities on the basis of knowledge social capital that is regarded as a common field between knowledge management and urban studies and planning arena. Ergazakis et al. (2004) illustrate some of knowledge cities characteristics and advantages, the main success factors and also some cases from real life experiences. Gonzalez Ovalle et al. (2004) provided synthetic and organized information regarding innovations in knowledge cities, knowledge regions and knowledge countries. These organized information are divided in different categories in the field of knowledge-based urban development. Baqir and Katawalla (2004) have introduced a knowledge city model through creation of knowledge homes using constituent units of future technology which can contribute to the share, manage and create knowledge. Chen and Choi (2004) emphasized the role the three interrelated process that produce and transfer knowledge to create successful knowledge cities. Garcia (2004) reviewed the background theory beyond the knowledge city and KBUD concept. She stated that one of the most complicated experiences in knowledge-based models and knowledge cities plans, utilize theoretical variables to measurable equivalent or measurable variables. Chatzkel (2004) provided a strategic perspective for better understanding the essential elements to create a successful knowledge capital. Dvir and Pasher (2004) investigated the concept of urban innovation engines (events, library, museum, university, digital infrastructure, industrial districts and scientific parks, cyber spaces) and their significance for knowledge city’s development. Cheng et al. (2004) provided visions for policy makers to design or development of global cities through the debate about linkage between knowledge management and knowledge cities growth.

4.2. Second Generation Of Knowledge Based Urban Development: Addressing

Multiple Nature

The second generation of KBUD frameworks show an evolution compared with the previous as they try to reflect more integrated dimensions of the concept:

KnowCis is a model initiated by Ergazakis et al. (2006a) based on analysis and evaluation of different successful knowledge cities which draw a pattern of iteration of crucial characteristics of kcs. The findings have been articulated as a framework to design, develop and initiate successful kcs. Moreover, Ergazakis et al. (2006b) have proposed knowcis methodology which has adopted a procedural approach to KBUD which is innovative. Corey and Wilson (2006) represented ALERT model which is a prescriptive approach and support system for the practice of local and regional planning in global economy and network society. The term ALERT is derived from key words the content of the model: Awareness, Layers, E-business, Responsiveness and Talk. The KBUD characteristic model advanced by van Winden et al. (2007) introduced seven structural characteristics which make the cities to adjust with the necessities of knowledge era. These factors are: a knowledge base, an economic base, quality of life, accessibility, urban diversity, urban scale and social equity. They also believe that the organizational capacity is required for attracting knowledge workers, creating knowledge, using knowledge and developing growth clusters. This model shows a significant evolution compared with previous ones as it engaged with new dimension of urban development and can be regarded as a transition from the second to third generation.

4.3. The Third Generation Of Knowledge-Based Urban Development Studies: The

Integrated Models

analyzing the development, Yigitcanlar (2008) in the knowledge-based urban development analysis model talk about the requirements of a city with the aspire to knowledge-based urban development classify into society, environment, management and economy. Sarimin et al. (2010) with addition of weight factor which was not addressed in none of KBUD models, tried to represent a more integrated and effective model. The comparative analysis of knowledge-based urban development model has been proposed by Yigitcanlar (2010c) based on the idea that the evaluation of KBD in knowledge cities is crucial for determining KBD performance and city ranks and defining their achievement index to KBD. This model sees KBUD a new form of development in knowledge era with the aim of creating economic prosperity and environmental sustainability together with social-spatial order. Accordingly four goals have been identified: economic, socio-cultural, enviro-urban and management.

Fernandez Maldonado and Romein (2010) have had similar interest in sustainability and notice the economic, social and organizational quality as the main factors for knowledge-based urban development. The main focus of this framework is seeking a sustainable way of development which addresses a balance between individuals, prosperity and projects.

Although these models and frameworks represent a convergent conceptual context for KBUD, they seem to be proper for evaluation of a development rather than offering a general guideline for directing a holistic development.