شناخت همگرایی و واگرایی بین ذینفعان شهر هوشمند (مطالعه موردی: شهر اصفهان)

نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• فاطمه دانشور ¹
• احمد خادم الحسینی ²
• امیر گندمکار ³
• محمد حسین ندیمی ⁴

¹ دانشگاه آزاد نجف آباد

² دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد نجف‌آباد، نجف‌آباد، ایران،

³ گروه جغرافیا ، واحد نجف آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف آباد، ایران.

⁴ ایران اصفهان، نجف آباد بلوار دانشگاه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد نجف آباد

https://doi.org/10.22067/jgusd.2022.69993.1035

چکیده

تحقیقات محدودی به مقایسه دیدگاه ذینفعان شهر هوشمند (طرف عرضه و تقاضا) در شهرهای هوشمند پرداخته است. این مقاله به پر کردن این خلاء مهم تحقیقاتی کمک می­کند. این پژوهش اولویت­های اقدامات هوشمندسازی مورد نیاز از دیدگاه تصمیم­گیران (مدیران شهری، برنامه­ریزان شهری، طراحان و ارائه دهندگان خدمات شهر هوشمند) را با اولویت­های جامعه هدف (شهروندان) در شهر اصفهان مقایسه کرده است تا نقاط همگرایی و واگرایی این دو گروه را شناسایی کند. جمعیت آماری پژوهش شامل دو گروه است، گروه اول را شهروندان اصفهانی بالای 18 سال تشکیل می­دادند و گروه دوم تصمیم­گیران امور شهری در سازمان­ها و ادارات شهری هستند. مقاله حاضر از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نظر روش توصیفی - تحلیلی می­باشد. به منظور تحلیل پرسشنامه­ها از روش­های آماری آزمون فریدمن و ANOVA استفاده شده است. با توجه به متفاوت بودن تعداد نمونه­ها، دو گروه مورد مطالعه از آزمون تعقیبی LSD به منظور تعیین معناداری تفاوت میانگین ­درون­گروهی و بیرون­گروهی استفاده شده است. نتایج پژوهش نشان می­دهد که در هر دو گروه مورد مطالعه حمل و نقل هوشمند و محیط هوشمند که از زیرساخت­های سخت شهر هوشمند در اولویت قرار دارد. از بیست الویت تعیین شده در خدمات هوشمند، هشت مورد مشترک وجود دارد، در حالی که دوازده مورد باقیمانده متفاوت است. مقایسه بین اولویت­ها، برداشت­ها و جهت­گیری مسئولان و شهروندان شهر اصفهان از یک سو برخی همگرایی­ها را بین آنها نشان می­دهد، اما از سوی دیگر واگرایی­های بیشتری مشاهده شده است. همگرایی­های مشخص شده می­تواند برای برنامه­ریزی مشارکتی در هوشمندسازی شهر اصفهان مورد استفاده قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• شهر هوشمند
• خدمات شهر هوشمند
• شهروندان
• شهر اصفهان

عنوان مقاله [English]

Determining the Convergences and Divergences among Smart City Beneficiaries (Case Study: Isfahan City)

نویسندگان [English]

• FATEMEH DANESHVAR ¹
• AHMAD Khademolhoseiny ²
• amir gandomkar ³
• Mohammad H Nadimi-Shahraki ⁴

¹ PhD Candidate, Department of Geography, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch, Najafabad, Iran

² Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch, Najafabad, Iran

³ Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch, Najafabad, Iran

⁴ Assistant Professor, Faculty of Computer Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch, Najafabad, Iran

چکیده [English]

Only few research has been conducted to compare smart city beneficiaries (supply and demand side) in smart cities. This study help fill this important research gap. This study examines and compares the priorities of intelligent actions required from the perspective of decision-makers (city managers, city planners, designers, and smart city service providers) with the preferences of the target community (citizens) in Isfahan to identify the points of convergence and divergence of these two groups. The statistical population of the study consists of two groups; the first group consisted of citizens of Isfahan who were over 18 and partly familiar with technology and intelligence. Using Cochran's formula, 340 people were selected. The second group of decision-makers are active in urban organizations and departments selected by snowball sampling. The research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of nature and method. The results showed that transportation and smart environment are convergences among the top three priorities of both groups, and there is a convergence between the views of citizens, officials, and managers. In both studied groups, the priorities are related to hard infrastructure. Comparing the top 20 smart city services for officials and managers with citizens, eight items are common to both groups. While the remaining 12 are different. The comparison between the priorities, perceptions, and orientations of the officials, managers, and citizens of Isfahan, on the one hand, shows some convergences between them, but on the other hand, more divergences were observed. The identified convergences can be used for participatory planning in smartening of Isfahan

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Smart City
• Smart City Actions
• Citizens
• Isfahan City

مراجع

1. رهنما، م.، حسینی، س.، و محمدی حمیدی، س. (1399). سنجش و ارزیابی شاخص های شهر هوشمند در کلان شهر اهواز. پژوهش­های جغرافیای انسانی (پژوهش های جغرافیایی)، 52(2 )، 589-611.
2. سرگلزایی، ش.، و ابراهیم زاده سپاسگزار، م. (1396). مدلسازی پذیرش فناوری از سوی کاربران برای دستیابی به شهر هوشمند مطالعه موردی: شهرهای مرکز استان. مطالعات شهری، 6(22)، 27-42.

 

3. Al-Hader, M., Rodzi, A., Sharif, A. R., & Ahmad, N. (2009, November). SOA of smart city geospatial management. Third UKSim European Symposium on Computer Modeling and Simulation.
4. Allen, B., Tamindael, L. E., Bickerton, S. H., & Cho, W. (2020). Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects? An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101412.
5. Araral, E. (2020). Why do cities adopt smart technologies? Contingency theory and evidence from the United States. Cities, 106, 102873
6. ARUP (2019). Transforming the 21st Century City via the Creative Use of Technology. Accessed: April 26, 2019. Available from: <http:// arup.com/ Publications/ Smart_Cities. aspx
7. Belanche, D., V. Casaló, L., & Orús, C. (2016). City attachment and use of urban services: Benefits for smart cities. Cities, 50, 75-81.
8. Bertot, J., Estevez, E., & Janowski, T. (2016). Universal and contextualized public services: Digital public service innovation framework. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 211-222.
9. Bibri, S.E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 183–212.
10. Boll, T., Von Haaren, C., & von Ruschkowski, E. (2014). The preference and actual use of different types of rural recreation areas by urban dwellers—The Hamburg case study. PloS one, 9(10), e108638.
11. Bouzguenda, I., Alalouch, C., & Fava, N. (2019). Towards smart sustainable cities: A review of the role digital citizen participation could play in advancing social sustainability. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50, 101627
12. Camboim, G.F., Zawislak, P.A., & Pufal, N.A. (2019). Driving elements to make cities smarter: Evidences from European projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,142, 154-167.
13. Caulton, J.R. (2012). The development and use of the theory of ERG: A literature review. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 5(1), 2–8.
14. Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., & Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences.
15. Fernandez-Anez, V., Fern´andez-Güell, J. M., & Giffinger, R. (2018). Smart City implementation and discourses: An integrated conceptual model. The case of Vienna. Cities, 78, 4–16.
16. Heaton, J., & Parlikad, A.K. (2020). A Conceptual Framework for the Alignment of Infrastructure Assets to Citizen Requirements in Smart Cities. In Value Based and Intelligent Asset Management, 39-63.
17. Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Raman, K. R. (2019). Smart cities: Advances in research—An information systems perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 47, 88-100.
18. Komninos, N., Kakderi, C., Panori, A., & Tsarchopoulos, P. (2019). Smart city planning from an evolutionary perspective. Journal of Urban Technology, 26(2), 3-20.
19. Lara, A.P., Moreira Da Costa, E., Furlani, T.Z., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2016). Smartness that matters: towards a comprehensive and humancentred characterization of smart cities. Open Innov., 2, 1–13.
20. Lean, O.K., Zailani, S., Ramayah, T., & Fernando, Y. (2020). Factors influencing intention to use e-government services among citizens in Malaysia. International Journal of Information management, 29(6). 458-475.
21. Lee, J., & Lee, H. (2014). Developing and validating a citizen-centric typology for smart city services. Government Information Quarterly, 31, S93-S105.
22. Leydesdorff, L., and Deakin, M. (2011). The triple-Helix model of smart cities: A neo-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 53–63.
23. Lin, C., & He, Y. (2009, November). Joint sentiment/topic model for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information (pp.375-384).
24. Macke, J., Casagrande, R.M., Sarate, J.A.R., & Silva, K.A. (2018). Smart city and quality of life: Citizens’ perception in a Brazilian case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 717–726
25. Martin, C., Evans, J., Karvonen, A., Paskaleva, K., Yang, D., & Linjordet, T. (2019). Smart-sustainability: A new urban fix. Sustainable Cities and Society, 45, 640-648.
26. Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A.C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25-36.
27. Nicolas, C., Kim, J., & Chi, S. (2020). Quantifying the dynamic effects of smart city development enablers using structural equation modeling. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101916.
28. Porumbescu, G.A., Cucciniello, M., & Gil-Garcia, J.R. (2020). Accounting for citizens when explaining open government effectiveness. Government Information Quarterly, 37(2), 227-236.
29. Ruhlandt, R.W.S. (2018). The governance of smart cities: A systematic literature review. Cities, 81, 1-23.
30. Salvia, G., & Morello, E. (2020). Sharing cities and citizens sharing: Perceptions and practices in Milan. Cities, 98,
31. Shelton, T., Zook, M., & Wiig, A. (2015). The actually existing smart city. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 13-25.
32. Shen, L., Huang, Z., Wong, S.W., Liao, S., & Lou, Y. (2018). A holistic evaluation of smart city performance in the context of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 200, 667–679.
33. Silva, B.N., Khan, M. & Han, K. (2018). Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 697-713.
34. Simonofski, A., Asensio, E.S., De Smedt, J., & Snoeck, M. (2017). Citizen participation in smart cities: Evaluation framework proposal. IEEE 19th conference on business informatics (CBI), 1, 227-236.
35. Siokas, G., Tsakanikas, A., & Siokas, E. (2021). Implementing smart city strategies in Greece: Appetite for success. Cities, 108, 102938
36. Söderström, O., Paasche, T., & Klauser, F. (2020). Smart cities as corporate storytelling. The Routledge Companion to Smart Cities, 283-300.
37. Sorn-in, K., Tuamsuk, K., & Chaopanon, W. (2015). Factors affecting the development of e-government using a citizen-centric approach. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag., 6(3), 206–222.
38. Stratigea, A., Papadopoulou, C. A., & Panagiotopoulou, M. (2015). Tools and technologies for planning the development of smart cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(2), 43-62.
39. Vidiasova, L., & Cronemberger, F. (2020). Discrepancies in perceptions of smart city initiatives in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Sustainable cities and society, 59, 102158.
40. Wu, W.N. (2020). Determinants of citizen-generated data in a smart city: Analysis of 311 system user behavior. Sustainable Cities and Society, 59, 102167.
41. Yahia, N.B., Eljaoued, W., Saoud, N.B.B., & Colomo-Palacios, R. (2019). Towards sustainable collaborative networks for smart cities co-governance. International Journal of Information Management,
42. Yang, C.L., Hwang, M., & Chen, Y.C. (2011). An empirical study of the existence, relatedness and growth (ERG) theory in consumers’ selection of mobile value-added services. African Journal of Business Management, 5(19), 7885–7898.
43. Yeh, H. (2017). The effects of successful ICT-based smart city services: From citizens perspectives. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 556–565
44. Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Foth, M., Sabatini-Marques, J., da Costa, E., & Ioppolo, G. (2019). Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature. Sustainable Cities and Society, 45, 348–365.