Evaluation of the Capacity of Khavaran Lands in University of Tabriz, for Establishing an Innovation Area with Emphasis on Effecting Factors

Document Type : Article extracted from dissertations

Authors

1 Faculty of Urban Planning, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

2 Faculty of Urban Planning, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

3 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract
1. Introduction
This study aims to elucidate the components influencing the formation of a knowledge-based agricultural innovation district and assess the multidimensional capacity of Khavaran Lands, University of Tabriz. The research addresses the possibility of transforming a traditional agricultural research farm into a place-based innovation ecosystem connected to knowledge production, field testing, institutional collaboration, and market-oriented agricultural development.
2. Methods and Material
This applied, descriptive-analytical research uses an exploratory-evaluative mixed approach. In the first stage, documentary studies, theoretical review, and analysis of domestic and international experiences were used to extract the components and indicators of agricultural innovation districts. The components were organized into three levels: basic and enabling elements, functional and innovative elements, and connecting and governance elements. They were then operationalized in six dimensions: physical-spatial, environmental, scientific-technological, economic, institutional-governance, and social-network. In the second stage, Khavaran/Khalatpushan Research Station was evaluated through an expert-based importance-capacity matrix completed by 16 experts.
3. Results and Discussion
The findings show that Khavaran has considerable initial capacity due to its large and relatively integrated lands, institutional connection with the University of Tabriz and the Faculty of Agriculture, educational-research background, and potential for establishing testing spaces and living labs. However, the greatest importance-capacity gap was identified in the institutional-governance dimension, followed by the environmental, social-network, and economic dimensions.
4. Conclusion
The main challenge of Khavaran is not the absence of basic capacity, but weaknesses in joint leadership, institutional coordination, sustainable resource management, actor networking, and knowledge-to-market connection.
5. References
Key references include Katz and Wagner (2014), Leminen et al. (2012), Yigitcanlar (2014), and Granstrand and Holgersson (2020).

Keywords

Subjects

Adu-McVie, R., Yigitcanlar, T., Erol, I., & Xia, B. (2021). Classifying innovation districts: Delphi validation of a multidimensional framework. Land Use Policy, 111, 105779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105779
Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P., & Piirainen, T. (2010). Exploring the quadruple helix: Report of quadruple helix research for the CLIQ project. Work Research Centre, University of Tampere.
Asadifard, R., & Khaledi, A. (2019). The challenges of asymmetric technological collaboration between large firms and small technological firms of nano. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 11(3), 15–30. (in Persian)
Asadifard, R., & Nozari, M. (2023). A development pattern for university-based innovation ecosystems: The case study of Sharif Innovation District. Strategic Journal of Public Policy Studies, 12(45), 140–165. https://doi.org/10.22034/sspp.2022.553811.3198 (in Persian)
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31–56.
Belso-Martínez, J. A., Molina-Morales, F. X., & Mas-Verdú, F. (2011). The drivers of the open district development: A social capital approach. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 3(2), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-7802.2011.01029.x
BioSTL. (2025). Driving bioscience innovation in St. Louis. Retrieved June 3, 2026, from https://www.biostl.org/
Bittencourt, B. A., Zen, A. C., Schmidt, V., & Wegner, D. (2018). The orchestration process for emergence of clusters of innovation. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 9(1), 2–22.
Cameron, R., Odendaal, N., & Todes, A. (2004). Integrated area development projects: Working towards innovation and sustainability. Urban Forum, 15(4), 311–339.
Caragliu, A., & Del Bo, C. F. (2019). Smart innovative cities: The impact of smart city policies on urban innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 373–383.
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C. F., Kourtit, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2016). The winner takes it all: Forward-looking cities and urban innovation. The Annals of Regional Science, 56, 617–645.
Carvalho, L., & Van Winden, W. (2017). Planned knowledge locations in cities. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 8(1), 47–67.
Castells, M. (1989). The informational city: Information technology, economic restructuring, and the urban-regional process. Basil Blackwell.
Danaeifard, H. (2004). Entrepreneurial university, national innovation system and knowledge-based development. Roshd-e-Fanavari (Journal of Technology Incubator), 5(17), 19–25. (in Persian)
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center. (2025). The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center. Retrieved June 3, 2026, from https://www.danforthcenter.org/
Engel, J. S. (2015). Global clusters of innovation: Lessons from Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 57(2), 36–65.
Engel, J. S., & del-Palacio, I. (2009). Global networks of clusters of innovation: Accelerating the innovation process. Business Horizons, 52(5), 493–503.
Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., & Guaralda, M. (2020). How can an enhanced community engagement with innovation districts be established? Evidence from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Cities, 96, 102430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102430
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Fernández, M., & Bentley, T. (2022). Early evolution of an innovation district: Origins and evolution of MID and RMIT University’s social innovation precinct in Melbourne’s City North. Journal of Evolutionary Studies in Business, 7(2), 184–218. https://doi.org/10.1344/jesb2022.2.j111
Fernández-Maldonado, A., & Romein, A. (2010). The role of organisational capacity and knowledge-based development. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 1(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2010.032587
Florida, R., & Kenney, M. (1993). The new age of capitalism: Innovation-mediated production. Futures, 25(6), 637–651.
Ghazinoory, S., Phillips, F., Afshari-Mofrad, M., & Bigdelou, N. (2021). Innovation lives in ecotones, not ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 135, 572–580.
González, O., & Carrillo, F. J. (2012). Cities-benchmarking algorithm: A meta-ranking exercise. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 3(4), 367–387.
Graham, R. (2014). Creating university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems: Evidence from emerging world leaders. MIT Skoltech Initiative.
Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90–91, 102098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.102098
Hanna, K. (2016). Space to think: Innovation districts and the changing geography of London’s knowledge economy. Centre for London.
Höglund, L., & Linton, G. (2018). Smart specialization in regional innovation systems: A quadruple helix perspective. R&D Management, 48(1), 60–72.
Jafar, A., Akbari, M., & Davari, A. (2020). The effective factors on the formation of innovation clusters: The case of Sharif Innovation District. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.22034/jstp.2020.12.1.1119 (in Persian)
Kalliomäki, H., Oinas, P., & Salo, T. (2024). Innovation districts as strategic urban projects: The emergence of strategic spatial planning for urban innovation. European Planning Studies, 32(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2023.2216727
Karimlou, R., & Zakery, A. (2021). Analysing the interactions between key stakeholders in a regional innovation system: Case study: Rab-e-Rashidi Special Region of Science and Technology. Journal of Improvement Management, 14(4), 85–115. (in Persian)
Katz, B., & Wagner, J. (2014). The rise of innovation districts: A new geography of innovation in America. Brookings Institution.
Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A. G. (2012). Living labs as open-innovation networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9), 6–11.
Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix, …, and an N-tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25–35.
Leydesdorff, L., & Deakin, M. (2011). The triple-helix model of smart cities: A neo-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 53–63.
Mahdnejad, H., & Zanganeh, A. (2024). Meta-synthesis of influential social drivers in the development of urban innovation and knowledge-based hubs. Journal of Sustainable City, 7(3), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.22034/jsc.2024.388160.1687 (in Persian)
Markkula, M., & Kune, H. (2015). Making smart regions smarter: Smart specialization and the role of universities in regional innovation ecosystems. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(10), 7–15.
Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1992). High-tech fantasies: Science parks in society, science and space. Routledge.
McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302.
Morisson, A. (2020). A framework for defining innovation districts: Case study from 22@ Barcelona. In H. Bougdah, A. Versaci, A. Sotoca, F. Trapani, M. Migliore, & N. Clark (Eds.), Urban and transit planning (pp. 185–191). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17308-1_17
Morisson, A., & Bevilacqua, C. (2019). Balancing gentrification in the knowledge economy: The case of Chattanooga’s innovation district. Urban Research & Practice, 12(4), 472–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2018.1472799
Nikina, A., & Piqué, J. M. (2016). Areas of innovation in a global world: Concept and practice. International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation.
Norouzi, M., & Jafari Touyeh, J. (2023). Formation of innovation district with humanities approach: A context for the university’s role in development. Management in the Islamic University, 12(2), 55–96. https://doi.org/10.22034/miu.2023.26.55 (in Persian)
North. (2025). Saint Louis’ Agtech Innovation District. Retrieved June 3, 2026, from https://39northstl.org/
Nozari, M., & Asadifard, R. (2021). Factors affecting capacity building for technology transfer from university to industry: The case of Sharif Innovation District. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 14(3), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.22034/jstp.2021.14.3.1331 (in Persian)
Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2015). Placemaking facilitators of knowledge and innovation spaces: Insights from European best practices. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 6(3), 215–240.
Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2018). Societal integration that matters: Placemaking experience of Macquarie Park Innovation District, Sydney. City, Culture and Society, 13, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.09.004
Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2019). Placemaking in knowledge and innovation spaces: The Australia experience. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 616–625.
Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., Guaralda, M., Mayere, S., Caldwell, G. A., & Medland, R. (2020). University and innovation district symbiosis in the context of placemaking: Insights from Australian cities. Land Use Policy, 99, 105109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105109
Piqué, J. M., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Etzkowitz, H. (2018). Triple helix and the evolution of ecosystems of innovation: The case of Silicon Valley. Triple Helix, 5(1), 1–21.
Placemaking Chicago. (2008). Placemaking guide. Project for Public Spaces.
Rafieian, M. (2021). Urban innovation district: From theory to practice. Tarbiat Modares University Press. (in Persian)
Rahimpour, M., Aghazadeh, H., & Zarei Hanzaki, A. (2022). University innovation district model to realize entrepreneurial university policies. Strategic Management Studies, 49, 213–230. (in Persian)
Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press.
Stimson, R. J., Stough, R. R., & Roberts, B. H. (2006). Regional economic development: Analysis and planning strategy (2nd ed.). Springer.
Van Winden, W., & Carvalho, L. (2016). Urbanize or perish? Assessing the urbanization of knowledge locations in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(1), 53–70.
Yigitcanlar, T. (2014). Position paper: Benchmarking the performance of global and emerging knowledge cities. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(12), 5549–5559.
Yigitcanlar, T., & Bulu, M. (2016). Urban knowledge and innovation spaces. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(1), 1–9.
Yigitcanlar, T., & Sarimin, M. (2011). The role of universities in building prosperous knowledge cities. Built Environment, 37(3), 260–280.
York, A. S., & Ahn, M. J. (2012). University technology transfer office success factors: A comparative case study. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 11(1/2), 26–50.

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 26 July 2026

  • Receive Date 06 May 2026
  • Revise Date 11 July 2026
  • Accept Date 24 July 2026
  • First Publish Date 26 July 2026
  • Publish Date 26 July 2026