Preipheral Urban Spaces Development

Preipheral Urban Spaces Development

Analyzing the effects of entrepreneurial ecosystems on the sustainability of local development in peri-urban areas (Case study: Islamabad Urmia neighborhood, Koshtargah)

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Alireza Jamshidi 1
Roya Kamelnia 2
Davood Jamini 3
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
2 Ph.D. Student, Department of Geography, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Geomorphology, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran (Part-time Researcher at Kurdistan Studies Institute, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran).
10.22034/jpusd.2026.563345.1385
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Countries consist of interconnected systems of settlements, within which the welfare and management of settlements play a strategic role. Each ecosystem is composed of interdependent subsystems that interact to achieve shared objectives. Within an entrepreneurial ecosystem, the presence of diverse stakeholders and their mutual cooperation creates favorable conditions for entrepreneurial activities and the development of advanced businesses, ultimately contributing to improved social welfare and governance. The entrepreneurial ecosystem represents a contemporary approach to entrepreneurship development, encompassing all systems essential to business formation and growth and emphasizing their interactions. This ecosystem includes numerous capacities that can be broadly categorized into six dimensions: market, policy, financial capital, culture, support mechanisms, and human capital. The Islamabad–Koshtargah neighborhood, as one of the least developed urban and peri-urban areas of Urmia, faces significant challenges to sustainable development. Deficiencies in economic, social, and cultural infrastructure, combined with limited access to resources and employment opportunities, have placed this neighborhood among areas requiring targeted development interventions. In this context, entrepreneurial ecosystems offer a comprehensive framework for strengthening innovation and generating employment opportunities and can serve as an operational approach to improving local conditions. Accordingly, the present study seeks to analyze and explain the role of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the local development of this neighborhood, with the aim of reducing inequalities, enhancing endogenous capacities, and improving residents’ quality of life. Due to its specific socio-economic characteristics and its representativeness of underprivileged peri-urban neighborhoods in Urmia, the findings of this study may provide a useful model for similar areas.

Methodology
This study adopts a quantitative approach and is applied in terms of purpose, while methodologically it is descriptive–analytical. Theoretical foundations were developed using library research, and data related to the study area were collected through a survey method. The statistical population comprised households residing in the Koshtargah neighborhood of Urmia, located within the Islamabad area of the city’s second municipal district. The target respondents were individuals who had successfully initiated businesses and demonstrated entrepreneurial characteristics such as risk-taking, innovation, job creation, and effective opportunity utilization. Given the hidden nature of the population and difficulties in access, a snowball sampling method was employed. Ultimately, data were collected through the design and completion of 95 questionnaires. Inferential analyses were conducted using correlation analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM). SPSS and SmartPLS software were used, and the PLS approach was selected due to its suitability for small sample sizes, non-normal data distributions, and multicollinearity among independent variables.

Results and discussion
The coefficient of determination (R²) was used as the primary indicator for evaluating the quality of the structural model, reflecting the proportion of variance in endogenous latent variables explained by their exogenous predictors. The results indicate R² values of 0.703 for institutional development, 0.653 for local economic development, 0.620 for social development, and 0.551 for environmental development. These values suggest that the model exhibits acceptable to strong explanatory power, as they exceed or closely approach the recommended threshold. According to Chin (1998), the structural model therefore demonstrates satisfactory explanatory capability. The SEM results further reveal that the sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem has a positive and statistically significant effect on all dimensions of development in the Islamabad–Koshtargah area. The strongest effect is observed for institutional development (path coefficient = 0.839), followed by economic development (0.808), social development (0.787), and environmental development (0.742). Despite variations in effect magnitude, all relationships are significant, thereby confirming the proposed hypotheses.

Conclusion
The findings indicate that although institutional factors exert the strongest influence on local development, sustainable progress requires an integrated and balanced approach addressing all dimensions simultaneously. Institutional strengthening without economic incentives, or business support without attention to social cohesion and environmental considerations, cannot lead to sustainable development in peri-urban neighborhoods such as Islamabad–Koshtargah. This study quantitatively demonstrates that successful local development depends on a systemic perspective encompassing all components of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Funding
According to the responsible author, this article has no financial support

Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.

Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
Keywords
Ecosystem
Entrepreneurship
Local Development
Peri-urban
Islamabad-Koshtargah
Subjects
افراخته، حسن (1399). فضاهای پیراشهری: الگوها، عوامل و پسایندها. مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، 2(1)، صص 1-18. 20.1001.1.26764164.1399.2.1.1.8
پازکی، معصومه (1402). کارآفرینی گردشگری و کیفیت زندگی در سکونتگاه‌های پیرامونی شهرهای شهرستان شاهرود. توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، 5(1)، صص 202-187. doi: 10.22034/jpusd.2023.344792.1209
تاجیک، زهره.، پورموسوی، سید موسی و سرور، رحیم (1402). تحلیلی بر چالش‌های توسعه محلی مبتنی بر بازآفرینی اقتصاد پایدار شهری مطالعه موردی: شهر تهران. مجله شهر پایدار، 6(2)، صص 132-111. doi: 10.22034/jsc.2021.311842.1560.
جمشیدی، امید.، شفیعی، فاطمه و ولی‌پور حسنلویی، محمد (1402). تأثیر شکل‌گیری و توسعه زیست‌بوم‌های کارآفرینی در آموزش و توانمندسازی بهره‌برداران بخش کشاورزی. آموزش و ترویج نوین کشاورزی، 1(1)، صص 20-1.
جمشیدی، علی رضا.، شمس­الدینی، علی و جمینی، داود. (1401). بررسی و تحلیل آثار کووید19- بر صنعت گردشگری در فضاهای پیراشهری مطالعه موردی: شهر جوانرود. مجله گردشگری شهری، 9(4)، صص 23-45. http://doi.org/10.22059/JUT.2023.347349.1058
جمشیدی، علی­رضا و آذر، سهند (1404). بررسی چگونگی استفاده از فناوری اطلاعات برای بهینه سازی فرایندها و افزایش بهره‌وری در کسب‌وکارهای محلی (مطالعه موردی: شهر ارومیه). فصلنامه مطالعات توسعه پایدار شهری و منطقه‌ای، 6(3)، صص 232-216.
جمینی داود.، جمشیدی، علیرضا.، کماسی، حسین و هوشنگی، عطا (1395). تحلیل موانع توسعه کارآفرینی زنان در نواحی روستایی مورد: روستاهای شهرستان چرداول. اقتصاد فضا و توسعه روستایی، ۵ (۱۸)، صص ۴۵-۶۳. 10.18869/acadpub.serd.5.18.45
جمینی، داود و جمشیدی، علیرضا (1400). مدل‌سازی عوامل مؤثر بر توسعة شاخص‌های کارآفرینی در مناطق روستایی ایران نمونة پژوهش: منطقة اورامانات، استان کرمانشاه. برنامه­ریزی فضایی، 11(3)، صص 94-73. . doi: 10.22108/sppl.2021.128388.1576
جمینی، داود.، شمس­الدینی، علی.، جمشیدی.، علیرضا و قائدی، محمدرضا (1403). شناسایی و تحلیل مهم‌ترین تأثیرات اقتصادی  اجتماعی پاندمی کووید19 بر مناطق نمونه گردشگری مطالعه موردی: سراب روانسر، استان کرمانشاه. فصلنامه پژوهش­های جغرافیای انسانی، 56(1)، 95-79. http://doi.org/10.22059/JHGR.2022.349216.10085
خسروی، احسان.، نادری، نادر.، رضایی، بیژن و آزادی، حسین (1400). بررسی مدل سازگاری رفتاری صاحبان کسب‌وکارهای حوزه گردشگری استان کرمانشاه در رویارویی با بحران کووید19. جغرافیا و پایداری محیط، 11(1)، صص 72-55. 10.22126/ges.2021.6329.2373
شهسوار، امین.، کمانرودی، موسی.، پری­زادی، طاهر و ابوالقاسم پور، مه لقا (1399). برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی توسعه محله‌های شهری تهران (موردمطالعه: محله فردوسی منطقه 12). تحقیقات کاربردی علوم جغرافیایی، 20(57 )، 281-295. 20.1001.1.22287736.1399.20.57.4.7
صفری علی‌اکبری، مسعود و صادقی، حجت‌الله (1398). نقش گردشگری شهر ایذه در تحولات روستاهای پیرامونی. مجله توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، 1(2)، صص 70-59. 20.1001.1.26764164.1398.1.2.5.7
قدیری معصوم، مجتبی.، طهماسی، بهمن.، شکریانی، عباس و کارخانه، معصومه (1398). نقش ظرفیت‌های کارآفرینی در توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری مورد: شهرستان اسلامشهر. توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، 1(2)، صص 46-35. 20.1001.1.26764164.1398.1.2.3.5.
کشاورزی، پرویز.، بیگ بابایی، بشیر و حسین زاده دلیر، کریم (1401). تحلیل رابطه بازآفرینی فرهنگی اجتماعی با توسعه محله­ای (مورد مطالعه: محله دیزج جنوبی شهر بناب). پژوهش و برنامه­ریزی شهری، 13(48 )، 153-168.
مرادی حوریه.، جوان، فرهاد.، امرایی، سپیده و بیرانوندراد، مریم (1399). اثرات کارآفرینی روستایی در توسعه فضا‌های پیراشهری شهرستان کرمانشاه. اقتصاد فضا و توسعه روستایی، 9(34)، صص 82-63. 20.1001.1.23222131.1399.9.34.4.3
مرادی، حوریه. (1398). تحلیل زمینه­های کارآفرینی در توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری مورد: شهرستان کرمانشاه. توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری، 1(2)، صص 150-137. 20.1001.1.26764164.1398.1.2.11.3
مرادی، حوریه (1400). الگوی توسعه فضایی شبکه سکونتگاهی کارآفرینی درمناطق پیراشهری مورد: بخش ماهیدشت؛ شهرستان کرمانشاه. توسعه فضاهای پیراشهری. 3(2)، صص 184-165. 20.1001.1.26764164.1400.3.2.8.4
مومنی هلالی، هاله. (1399). تحلیل فعالیت­های چندگانه کارآفرینانه شالیکاران در حوضه آبریز دشت هراز. رساله دکتری، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران.
نجفی کانی، علی‌اکبر.، حسام، مهدی.، آشور، حدیثه. (1394). سنجش وضعیت توسعه کارآفرینی در مناطق روستایی مورد: دهستان استرآباد جنوبی در شهرستان گرگان. اقتصاد فضا و توسعه روستایی. ۴ (۱۱): ۳۷-۵۶. 10.18869/acadpub.serd.4.11.37
ولیان، علیرضا.(1400).  زیست­بوم نوآوری (سیاست­گذاری نوآوری با رویکرد سیستم پیچیده). تهران: ادیبان روز. چاپ اول
Bischof, K., & Volkmann, C. K. (2018). Stakeholder support for sustainable entrepreneurship—A framework of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 10(2), 172–201. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2018.092714
Boakye, K.; Bovbjerg, M.; Schuna, J.; Branscum, A.; Varma, R.P.; Ismail, R.; Barbarash, O.; Dominguez, J.; Altuntas, Y.; Anjana, R.M.; et al. (2023). Urbanization and Physical Activity in the Global Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology Study. Scientific reports, 13, 290. 10.1038/s41598-022-26406-5
Bortoletto, N. (2016). Participatory action research in local development: an opportunity for social work. European Journal of Social Work, 20(4): 484–496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2016.1188770.
Cascante, D.M., & Brennan, M.A. (2012). Conceptualizing community development in the twenty-first century. Community Development, 43 (3), 293-305. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2011.593267
Cavallo, A., Ghezzi, A., & Balocco, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem research: Present debates and future directions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(4), 1291–1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-018-0526-3
Cleave, E., Arku, G., Sadler, R., & Gilliland, J. (2016). The role of place branding in local and regional economic development: bridging the gap between policy and practicality. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 3(1), 207-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2016.1163506.
Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business strategy and the Environment, 15(1), 1-14.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.428
Florida, R., Adler, P., & Mellander, C. (2017). The city as innovation machine. Regional Studies, 51(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1255324
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980
Grigore, A. M., Dragan, I. M. (2020). Towards sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems in a transitional economy: an analysis of two Romanian city-regions through the lens of entrepreneurs. Sustainability, 12(15): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156061
Grivokostopoulou, F., Kovas, K., & Perikos, I. (2019). Examining the Impact of a Gamified Entrepreneurship Education Framework in Higher Education. Sustainability, 11(20), 5623. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205623
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. M. (2004). A beginner’s guide to partial least squares analysis. Understanding Statistics, 3(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328031us0304_4
Isenberg, D. (2011). The Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Strategy as a New Paradigm for Economic Policy: Principles for Cultivating Entrepreneurship. Institute of International and European Affairs, Dublin, Ireland, 12 May 2011, 1-13.
Jegede, O. O., & Nieuwenhuizen, C. (2021). Assessing the entrepreneurial ecosystem of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) researchers in Nigeria. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(1), 1-20.
Kębłowski, W., Lambert, D. & Bassens, D. (2020), Circular economy and the city: an urban political economy agenda, Culture and Organization, 26 (2), 142-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2020.1718148
Lai, Y., & Vonortas, N. S. (2019). Regional entrepreneurial ecosystems in China. Industrial and Corporate Change, 28(4): 875–897 https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtz035
Li, X., Zhang, F., Hui, E. C. M., & Lang, W. (2020). Collaborative workshop and community participation: A new approach to urban regeneration in China. Cities, 102, 102743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102743.
Malecki, E. J. (2020). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass, 14(3), e12426. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12426.
Mathauer, M., and Hofmann, E. (2019). Technology adoption by logistics service providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49(4), 416-424. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-02-2019-0064
Poudel, S., Gairhe, S., Bhatta, A., Lamichhane, J., Aryal, K., and Subedi, S. (2022). Economics of production and marketing of fish in Dang district of Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 5(1), 63-72. DOI:10.3126/janr.v5i1.50515
Prasetyo, P. E., & Kistanti, N. R. (2020). Human capital, institutional economics and entrepreneurship as a driver for quality & sustainable economic growth. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(4), 2575. DOI: 10.9770/jesi.2020.7.4(1)
Said, Z.M.; Dindar, S. (2024). Key Challenges and Strategies in the Evaluation of Sustainable Urban Regeneration Projects: Insights from a Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 16, 9903. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su16229903
Simon, D. (2008). Urban environments: issues on the peri-urban fringe. Annual review of environment and resources, 33(1), 167-185. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.33.021407.093240
Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49-72.
Spigel, B., & Harrison, R. (2018). Toward a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic entrepreneurship journal, 12(1), 151-168.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1268
Stam, E. (2009). Why butterflies don't leave: Locational behavior of entrepreneurial firms. Economic Geography, 83 (1): 27-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2007.tb00332.x
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759-1769.
Stam, E., & Van de Ven, A. (2021). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small business economics, 56(2), 809-832.
Tiba, S., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hekkert, M. P. (2021). Sustainability startups and where to fnd them: Investigating the share of sustainability startups across entrepreneurial ecosystems and the causal drivers of diferences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2021.127054
Volkmann, C., Fichter, K., Klofsten, M., & Audretsch, D. B. (2021). Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems: An emerging feld of research. Small Business Economics, 56(3), 1047–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11187-019-00253-7
Wang, Y. W. (2020). Authoritative response, resource integration and external pressure neutralization: the logic of choosing policy tools in neighborhood resistance governance-a qualitative comparative analysis based on (fsQCA) fuzzy sets. Journal of Public Administration, 17(2), 27-39.
Xu, Z., and Dobson, S. (2019). Challenges of building entrepreneurial ecosystems in peripheral places. Journal of on business growth. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 7(2): 100-108. DOI: 10.1108/JEPP-03-2019-0023
Yazgan, O.; Ozturkoglu, Y.; Ozkan-Ozen, Y.D. (2023). Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Urban Transformation: A Case Study for Performance Evaluation. International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering Technology, 14, 121–133. DOI:10.30880/ijscet.2023.14.01.013
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing (pp. 277-319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Preipheral Urban Spaces Development
Volume 8, Issue 3 - Serial Number 21
Autumn
Autumn 2026
Pages 27-52