Journals / İDEALKENT / 2020 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 30

Spatial Effect of Urban-Innovation on Urbanization

Kentsel İnovasyonun Kentleşme Üzerine Mekânsal Etkisi

Journal
İDEALKENT
Pages
592–620
Publication Date
2020-08-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In the context of the article, within the urban innovation indicators obtained on the basis of 2018, it was determined that while the research-development activity indicators and environmental activity indicators negatively affect urbanization, the health investment, infrastructure activity and individual investment-saving indicators affect urbanization positively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Cities, adapting to changing society structure with developing technology and globalization, are open systems where interactions within the innovation process, new ideas emerge and information spreads.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the age where artificial intelligence, robots and information systems are in our daily lives and we have access to new information about the unknown, half of the world's population lives in cities and urban residents consume more than three quarters of the world's natural resources.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the context of the article, within the urban innovation indicators obtained on the basis of 2018, it was determined that while the research-development activity indicators and environmental activity indicators negatively affect urbanization, the health investment, infrastructure activity and individual investment-saving indicators affect urbanization positively.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Mekansal Ekonometri · Kentleşme · Kentsel İnovasyon

Abstract

Cities, adapting to changing society structure with developing technology and globalization, are open systems where interactions within the innovation process, new ideas emerge and information spreads. In the age where artificial intelligence, robots and information systems are in our daily lives and we have access to new information about the unknown, half of the world's population lives in cities and urban residents consume more than three quarters of the world's natural resources. Rapid urbanization and population growth bring along problems and cause cities to lose their livability. To prevent rapid urbanization from turning into a crisis, it is necessary to equip and manage cities with an innovative approach. As a result of this requirement, urban innovation emerges as a way to solve the confusion and problems caused by rapid urbanization. In the context of the article, within the urban innovation indicators obtained on the basis of 2018, it was determined that while the research-development activity indicators and environmental activity indicators negatively affect urbanization, the health investment, infrastructure activity and individual investment-saving indicators affect urbanization positively.

Özet

Gelişen teknoloji ve küreselleşmeyle değişen toplum yapısına uyum sağlayan kentler inovasyon süreci içinde etkileşim sağlanan, yeni fikirlerin ortaya çıktığı ve bilginin yayıldığı açık sistemler olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Yapay zekanın, robotların ve bilişim sistemlerinin günlük hayatımızda yer aldığı, her gün bilinmeyenle ilgili yeni bilgilere eriştiğimiz çağda, dünya nüfusunun yarısı kentlerde yaşamakta ve kent sakinleri dünyanın doğal kaynaklarının dörtte üçünden fazlasını tüketmektedir. Hızlı kentleşme ve nüfus artışı sorunları beraberinde getirmekte ve kentlerin yaşanabilir olma özelliklerini kaybetmelerine neden olmaktadır. Hızlı kentleşmenin bir krize dönüşmesini engellemek için kentleri yenilikçi bir yaklaşımla donatmak ve yönetmek çağın gerekliliğidir. Bu gerekliliğin sonucunda, kentsel inovasyon hızlı kentleşmenin ortaya çıkardığı karışıklığı ve sorunları çözmenin bir yolu olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Makale kapsamında, 2018 yılı baz alınarak elde edilen kentsel inovasyon göstergelerinden araştırma-geliştirme faaliyet göstergelerinin ve çevresel faaliyet göstergelerinin kentleşmeyi olumsuz yönde etkilerken; sağlığa yapılan yatırımları gösteren faaliyetlerin, altyapı faaliyet göstergelerinin ve bireysel yatırım-tasarruf göstergelerinin kentleşme üzerinde olumlu yönde etkisi olduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TERZİOĞLU, M. K., YÜCEL, M. A., DEMİRKIRAN, S., ACAROĞLU, D. (2020). Spatial Effect of Urban-Innovation on Urbanization. İDEALKENT, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 30, 592–620. https://ajindex.com/articles/92533

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Akubue,A. I. (2002).Technology transfer: A third world perspective. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(1), 14-21. Anselin,L. (1988).Model validation in spatial econometrics: a review and evaluation of alternative approaches. International Regional Science Review, 11(3), 279-316. Anselin,L. (1990).Some robust approaches to testing and estimation in spatial econometrics. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 20(2), 141-163. Anselin,L. (1995).Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical analysis, 27(2), 93-115. Anselin,L. ve Bera,A.K. (1998). Introduction to spatial econometrics. Handbook of applied economic statistics, 237. Anselin,L., Le Gallo,J. ve Jayet,H. (2008).Spatial panel econometrics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Bera,A.K. ve Yoon, M.J. (1993). Specification testing with locally misspecified alternatives. Econometric theory, 9(4), 649-658.
  2. Berdegue, J. ve Escobar, G. (2002). Rural diversity, agricultural innovation policies and poverty reduction. Agricultural Research and Extension Network. Birleşmiş Milletler, (UN). (2013). Science, technology and innovation for sustainab-le cities and peri-urban communities, Report of the Secretary-General, Econo-mic and Social Council, Commission on Science and Technology for Deve-lopment, 2013
  3. Capello, R. (2001). Urban innovation and collective learning: theory and evidence from five metropolitan cities in Europe. Knowledge, complexity and innova-tion systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Darmofal, D. (2006). Spatial econometrics and political science. In Annual Meeting of Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, 5-7. Demir,K.A., Döven G. ve Sezen,B. (2019). Industry 5.0 and Human-Robot Co-working. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 688-695. Demiral,B. (2005). Sürdürülebilir kentler ve bölge. Planlamada Yeni Politika ve Stratejiler: Riskler ve Fırsatlar 8 Kasım Dünya Şehircilik Günü 29. Kolokyumu, 252-260. Demiral,N., Evin,H. ve Demiral,B. (2007). Yoksulluğun küreselleşmesi ve küresel yoksulluk, IV. Uluslararası Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları Kongresi, 19-21. Dente,B., Bobbio, L. ve Spada, A. (2005). Government or governance of urban ınnovation? A tale of two cities. DisP-The Planning review, 41(162), 41-52.
  4. Elhorst, J. P. (2011).
  5. Spatial panel models. York, UK: The University of York. Enhancinh Productivity in UK Core Cities. (2020). Connecting Local and Regio-nal Growth, OECD Urban Policy Reviews. Fischer,M.M. ve Wang,J. (2011). Spatial data analysis: models, methods and techniques. Spri