تحلیل نقش اکوسیستم کارآفرینی و نوآوری در توسعه پایدار شهری مناطق آزاد تجاری-صنعتی با تأکید بر زنجیره ارزش گردشگری هوشمند: مطالعه موردی شهر چابهار

Extended Abstract



Introduction



In recent decades, the sustainable development approach has gained increasing attention as a comprehensive strategy in urban and regional planning, aiming to balance economic growth, social equity, and environmental protection. Within this framework, free trade‑industrial zones serve as a policy tool for governments to achieve regional development and strengthen integration with the global economy, established with objectives such as attracting investment, boosting exports, upgrading infrastructure, and improving social welfare. However, empirical evidence from successful countries indicates that a sole focus on physical infrastructure development, without the formation of an innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem, not only fails to lead to sustainable growth but can also foster unproductive dependence on government resources and weaken the region’s economic dynamism. In response to the limitations of infrastructure‑centric approaches in urban and regional development, the concept of an innovation ecosystem has emerged as a new paradigm in urban and regional policy‑making, emphasizing the interaction among actors, institutions, and knowledge flows. This concept is built on a network of key players—entrepreneurs, universities, incubators, government agencies, and local communities—whose interactions shape the capacity for value creation and local competitive advantage. One of the key arenas for the emergence of such an ecosystem is the tourism industry; within the framework of smart tourism, it provides a platform for the convergence of digital technologies, data analytics, and sustainable experience‑creation, directly influencing urban planning quality, local resource management, and economic prosperity. In this context, innovation across the tourism value chain—from service production to marketing and tourist‑experience management—is recognized as a primary driver of sustainable urban development.



Materials and Methods



The present study is applied in purpose and descriptive‑analytical in execution. The statistical population comprises the main and specialized actors of the entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystem in Chabahar city, including entrepreneurs, investors, institutional officials active in business support, and academic experts related to urban development and innovation, totaling 3,000 individuals. Using Cochran’s formula, a sample of 341 individuals was selected. The data‑collection instrument was a questionnaire, whose face and content validity were confirmed by specialists and experts, and its reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The obtained alpha values for all variables exceeded 0.70, and the overall questionnaire alpha was 0.83, indicating appropriate reliability. The study employed the independent variable of entrepreneurship ecosystem (comprising six variables: policy and governance, culture and norms, financial resources, human resources, knowledge infrastructure, and knowledge and innovation), the dependent variable of urban development, and the mediating variable of smart‑tourism value chain, along with numerous indicators and items. For data analysis, a one‑sample t‑test and multiple regression analysis were used.



Findings



The research findings were examined in descriptive and inferential sections. Descriptive results showed that 61% of respondents were male and 39% female. Regarding age, the highest frequency (32%) belonged to the 41–50‑year‑old group, while the lowest (12%) was in the over‑60 group. In terms of education, the highest frequency (36%) was at the bachelor’s level, and the lowest (8%) at the doctoral level.



Conclusion



The examination of the research findings indicates that Chabahar city has taken effective steps toward becoming a hub of entrepreneurship and sustainable urban development. The overall mean of the main dimensions of the entrepreneurship ecosystem was generally evaluated above the standard desirability level (value 3), suggesting the existence of a positive initial foundation. However, this overall positive assessment conceals substantive and functional differences across dimensions, requiring precise disaggregation for future strategy formulation. Focusing on strengths and addressing structural challenges will be the key to achieving comprehensive and sustainable development.

The results indicate that in the domain of policy and governance, basic supportive infrastructure is in place; particularly in promoting risk‑tolerant regulations and institutional intervention to remove legal barriers, which exhibited the most favorable status. Concurrently, social culture and norms are largely receptive to entrepreneurs, with the social status of entrepreneurs and the acceptance of failure as a learning experience at a desirable level. These two dimensions, as essential software layers, provide a solid foundation for innovative activities. Despite the general desirability in governance, two serious gaps were identified in this area: the absence of a formal strategic plan and the lack of a single point of contact for entrepreneurial services. These weaknesses suggest that existing support may be scattered and reactive rather than strategic and proactive. To transition from a “supportive” to a “proactive” status, the formulation of a strategic document and the facilitation of services through an integrated portal are essential. The human‑resources and knowledge dimension demonstrated the strongest performance across the entire ecosystem; the low unemployment rate among specialists and the attraction of skilled personnel indicate success in retaining and supplying technical talent. However, the knowledge and innovation sector, despite adequate university collaborations, suffers from a gap between theory and practice. The number of practical innovations (products and business models) and the transfer of specialized knowledge to businesses fall below the desirability level; this means that universities produce knowledge, but the operational outputs and commercialization of this knowledge require significant strengthening.