ABSTRACT
In earlier chapters of the book-for example, Chapter 3 —we introduced the conceptual background of the KBUD phenomenon. In Chapter 5 , we investigated some of the prosperous knowledge city examples in which their development KBUD played a prominent role. In this chapter, we explore the essence, nature and novelty of KBUD and knowledge city formation from an urban planning and development perspective by using both quantitative and qualitative performance assessment techniques. Measuring KBUD-by using both quantitative and qualitative methodsis essential as KBUD is an emerging paradigm and fi eld of practice, and we still have a limited grasp on the unique conditions that cause successful development outcomes. While doing this, we also attempt to address the second research question of the book: how to apply the knowledge-based development models to analyze and manage cities. The chapter fi rst provides an overview of the available KBUD assessment models and frameworks that are used to benchmark the performances of cities. This chapter selects one among these models-that is, the KBUD Assessment Model (KBUD/AM)—that provides the most comprehensive KBUD assessment. It then introduces KBUD/AM’s methodology, indicators, data, statistical procedures and weightings in detail. Following this, by utilizing this assessment model, the chapter puts a number of global prosperous knowledge cities under the microscope and scrutinizes their achievements from the lens of KBUD. The chapter presents the fi ndings of the application of the model in fi ve differing knowledge city contexts: (a) the single-city context: Istanbul (Turkey) benchmarked against Helsinki (Finland) and Manchester (U.K.); (b) the developing country city context: Cyberjaya, Multimedia Super Corridor (Malaysia); (c) the national metropolitan city context: Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane (Australia) benchmarked against Boston (U.S.); (d) the national second-tier city context: Tampere, Turku and Oulu (Finland) benchmarked against Helsinki (Finland); and (v) the international metropolitan city context: Helsinki (Finland) benchmarked against Boston and San Francisco (U.S.), Birmingham and Manchester (U.K.), Melbourne and Sydney (Australia) and Toronto, and Vancouver (Canada). Last, the fi ndings, lessons and directions from these
international successful knowledge city practices are discussed to provide a clear understanding on the applications of KBUD/AM as well as KBUD mechanisms and disclose invaluable insights for other cities’ planning for such prosperous development.
