Kentsel İnovasyonun Kentleşme Üzerine Mekânsal Etkisi

Abstract

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.

Keywords

• Mekansal Ekonometri
• Kentleşme
• Kentsel İnovasyon

Spatial Effect of Urban-Innovation on Urbanization

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.

Keywords

• Spatial econometrics
• urbanization
• urban innovation

References

1. Akubue,A. I. (2002) .Technology transfer: A third world perspective. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(1), 14-21.
2. Anselin,L. (1988) .Model validation in spatial econometrics: a review and evaluation of alternative approaches. International Regional Science Review, 11(3), 279-316.
3. Anselin,L. (1990) .Some robust approaches to testing and estimation in spatial econometrics. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 20(2), 141-163.
4. Anselin,L. (1995) .Local indicators of spatial association—LISA. Geographical analysis, 27(2), 93-115.
5. Anselin,L. ve Bera,A.K. (1998). Introduction to spatial econometrics. Handbook of applied economic statistics, 237.
6. 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.
7. Berdegue, J. ve Escobar, G. (2002). Rural diversity, agricultural innovation policies and poverty reduction. Agricultural Research and Extension Network.
8. 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

9. 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.
10. Darmofal, D. (2006). Spatial econometrics and political science. In Annual Meeting of Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, 5-7.
11. Demir,K.A., Döven G. ve Sezen,B. (2019). Industry 5.0 and Human-Robot Co-working. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 688-695.
12. Demiral,B. (2005). Sürdürülebilir kentler ve bölge. Planlamada Yeni Politika ve Stratejiler: Riskler ve Fırsatlar 8 Kasım Dünya Şehircilik Günü 29. Kolokyumu, 252-260.
13. Demiral,N., Evin,H. ve Demiral,B. (2007). Yoksulluğun küreselleşmesi ve küresel yoksulluk, IV. Uluslararası Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları Kongresi, 19-21.
14. 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.
15. Elhorst, J. P. (2011). 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.
16. Fischer,M.M. ve Wang,J. (2011). Spatial data analysis: models, methods and techniques. Springer Science & Business Media.
17. Gumprecht, D. (2007). Spatial methods in econometrics (Doctoral dissertation, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business).
18. Gutzmer, A. (2016). Urban innovation networks. Springer Books.
19. Goi,C.L. (2017). The impact of technological innovation on building a sustai-nable city. International Journal of Quality Innovation, 3(6), 9-13.
20. Komninos,N. ve Sefertzi,E.(2009).Intelligent cities: R&D offshoring, Web 2.0 product development and globalization of innovation systems. Second Knowledge Cities Summit, 2009.
21. Kremic,T. (2003). Technology transfer: a contextual approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(2), 149-158.
22. Krugman P. (1979). A model of innovation, technology transfer, and the world distribution of income. Journal of political economy, 87(2), 253-266.
23. LeSage, J.P. (1999). The theory and practice of spatial econometrics. University of Toledo. Toledo, Ohio, 28.
24. Macomber, J.D. (2013). Building sustainable cities. Harv Bus Rev, 91(7/8), 40–50.
25. Mitchell, W.J. (2007). Intelligent cities. UOC papers, 5, 3-8.
26. Mol, A. P. (2009). Urban environmental governance innovations in Chi-na. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1(1), 96-100.
27. Nahavandi, S. (2019). Industry 5.0—A Human-Centric Solution. Sustainability, 11(16), 4371.
28. Nam,T. ve Pardo, T.A. (2011). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. In Proceedings of the 5th international con-ference on theory and practice of electronic governance, 185-194.
29. OECD. (2020). OECD Urban Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing.
30. OECD. (2020). Enhancing Productivity in UK Core Cities Connecting Local and Regional Growth, OECD Publishing
31. Oosterlynck, S., Kazepov, Y., Novy, A., Cools, P., Barberis, E., Wukovitsch, F. ve Leubolt, B. (2013). The butterfly and the elephant: local social innovation, the welfare state and new poverty dynamics. Improve Paper.
32. Ritchie,H. ve Roser, M. (2019). Urbanization, OurWorldInData Schiederig, T., Tietze, F. ve Herstatt, C. (2012). Green innovation in technology and innovation management–an exploratory literature review. R&D Ma-nagement, 42(2), 180-192.
33. Simmie, J. (2003). Innovation and urban regions as national and international nodes for the transfer and sharing of knowledge. Regional studies, 37(6-7), 607-620.
34. Skobelev, P. O. ve Borovik, S. Y. (2017). On the way from Industry 4.0 to In-dustry 5.0: from digital manufacturing to digital society. Industry 4.0, 2(6), 307-311.
35. Soplop J., Wright, J., Kammer, K. ve Rivera, R. (2009). Manufacturing Execu-tion Systems for Sustainability: Extending the Scope of MES to Achieve Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Goals
36. Suthersanen, U. (2006). Utility models and innovation in developing countries (No. 13), International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).
37. Tatlı, S. (2016). Mekansal ekonometrik modeller ve türkiye’de iç göçün belirle-yicilerinin analizi. (YL Tezi), İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Ekonometri Anabilim Dalı.
38. Tekeli, İ. (2016). Yerleşmeler için temsil sorunları ve strateji önerileri. İdealkent Yayınları: Ankara.
39. Tekeli, İ. (2019). Ülkesel/Milli fiziki plan üzerinde dördüncü kez konuşurken, Sketch Journal of City and Regional Planing, 01, 1-14
40. While, A., Jonas, A.E. ve Gibbs, D. (2004). The environment and the entrepre-neurial city: searching for the urban ‘sustainability fix’ in Manchester and Leeds. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), 549-569.
41. Viton, P.A. (2010). Notes on spatial econometric models. City and regional planning, 870(3), 1-23.