Science parks: economic engines or a real estate concept (original) (raw)
Related papers
Towards a segmentation of science parks: A typology study on science parks in Europe
Research Policy, 2018
Although science parks are established globally for decades as an innovation policy instrument to foster growth and networking, there is limited attention given towards research into possible types within these real estate objects. Prior attempts in categorising science parks are characterised by the limited number of cases and/or variables. Science parks are believed to enhance innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic value for firms and regions. Past academic research showed mixed results on these performances and it is reasoned that distinct types within science parks exist that might explain these unclear results. We argue that before we can grasp what science parks can do, we should know what they are. Therefore, a survey on science park characteristics was completed by 82 science park managers in Europe. A cluster analysis was conducted which grouped the 82 participating science parks in three types; 'research', 'cooperative', and 'incubator' locations. Next, differences and similarities of these three types within science parks in Europe were analysed as a basis for advancing the academic debate. The types provide further understanding of science parks and offer researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers a means to compare, market, and benchmark science parks more adequately.
R & D Management, 1991
This paper examines the role of university science parks in fostering interorganizational technology transfers and technological development. We first try to contrast the development of science parks with the theoretical and empirical findings from scholarly work in the area of the management of technology. This theoretical context allows us to interpret and to discuss empirical data collected from Belgian and Dutch science park firms. The data collection mainly focused on the interactions of park-based firms with their external R&D environment. This analysis leads to two important findings: (1) the level of R&D activity at the tenants is rather moderate for most of the parks studied, and (2) the tension between ‘regionalism’ and ‘internationalism’ in contemporary R&D management.In the wake of this second finding, arguments are presented to complement and even to change the focus from the ‘miniature’ R&D network which might develop on university science parks toward the ‘R&D community’ network holding together researchers working on a particular, interrelated set of scientific and technological problems wherever they may be located around the globe. Moreover, it is argued that a unified theory on the emergence and the development of new technologies is badly needed. Only if the dynamics underlying the development of a new technology are unravelled and better understood can technology policies, such as the ones involving the creation of science parks, be targeted more effectively.
Science Parks and Economic Development
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1989
Science parks originated in the USA in the 1950s where they were established in order to increase the possibilities and profitability of commercializing university research, and to meet the needs of entrepreneurially minded academics. They spread in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s and have now become a worldwide phenomenon. The original technology transfer motivation exists to a greater or lesser extent depending on the context. No two countries have the same pattern of development of science parks. This chapter defines science parks and traces the history of their development and compares their operation in different countries. The cases of Sweden and the UK are used to compare the roles played by science parks in economic development in different countries.
Perceived benefits of science park attributes among park tenants in the Netherlands
The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2019
Science parks as area developments have existed for decades and captivated the attention of academia and policy-makers for their potential impact on firms and regions. Only limited attention is given to the needs of science park firms regarding what science parks offer. Therefore, this study focused on science park facilities and services and how firms perceive the benefits associated with these attributes. An online survey distributed among tenants on seven science parks in the Netherlands yielded 103 respondents. An a priori list of science park attributes was presented in order to gain insight in how the respondents associated these facilities and services with potential benefits. The benefits considered were derived from proximity and innovation literature within the science park context. In general, science park attributes were associated with either proximity benefits or benefits related to the SP real estate. Based on a cluster analysis of organisational characteristics three tenant types were identified. The three tenant types sought different benefits through different attributes. Commercially-orientated firms associated science park attributes as ways for being near customers. Mature science-based firms associated attributes with a wider range of benefits, such as image benefits, being near customers and other firms. Young technology-based firms were more cost-driven and focused on image benefits. The associations between various types of facilities and the benefits that tenant types seek, provide insights for practitioners in terms of the design and management of science parks and add to the body of knowledge of science parks within the context of innovation management.
International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 2010
Science and Technology Parks (STPs) have been widely studied in recent years. The majority of the contributions were mainly focused on the economic performances of the firms located in the parks, whilst limited attention has been devoted to the scientific and technological performances of the research centres, laboratories and firms located in these structures and to their impact on scientific and technological local development. In this paper, we propose and apply to the first and most important Italian STP (AREA Science Park -Trieste) a methodology to evaluate this aspect on the basis of established data and indicators of publications, patents and projects. We suggest that this approach can be useful to provide preliminary indications on the park strengths and weaknesses on these important aspects to Park managers and Policy Makers.
Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK
Scientometrics, 2014
This study investigates whether scientific publications can give plausible suggestions about whether R&D support infrastructures in the UK successfully foster scientific activity and cooperation. For this, research publications associated with UK SPs were identified from Scopus for the years 1975-2010 and analysed by region, infrastructure type and organisation type. There was apparently a systematic intensification of R&D from the 90s as evidenced by the publications of on-park firms and research institutions. Science Parks and Research Parks were the most successful infrastructures in fostering cooperation and research production, in comparison to Science and Innovation centres, Technology parks, Incubators and other parks, and HEIs were the major off-park partners for the on-park businesses. The East of England, the South East, and Scotland concentrate the highest proportion of parks, each of these three major geographical agglomerations exhibit distinct areas of scientific specialisation. Parks seem to have a positive impact on the overall level of collaboration and production of science and technology, which are highly concentrated in competitive regions. Nevertheless, industry-academia collaborations show that on-park firms tend to collaborate with partners beyond their local region rather than the local HEI. Support infrastructures may therefore not help to reduce the uneven development and geographic distribution of research-intensive industries in the UK.
Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference?
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2016
Although the notion of Science and Technology Parks (STPs) has become fairly widespread, however, the level of university involvement in these parks differs hugely. At the extremes, there are parks that are owned and managed by universities, and parks with no formal links of any kind with a university. We use data from the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) for Spain and a survey of STP park managers to analyse how the level of involvement of a university in the STP affects the innovation outputs of its tenants and their links with universities. We find that higher involvement of a university in the STP negatively affects tenant's innovation sales and positively affects the number of patent applications. We find no robust evidence of the involvement of a university in the propensity for park firms to cooperate with a university or to purchase external R&D services from the university.
Technovation, 2006
This paper aims to highlight the role of facilities management (FM) for new technology-based firms (NTBFs) that are located on respectively off Science Parks. It incorporates FM as a contributory background element in the enhancement of the entrepreneurial environment, which is one explanatory factor of the superior performance and growth of NTBFs located inside Science Parks. Differences in location preferences between on and off park NTBFs are brought into evidence in this paper by means of an extensive quantitative survey. This resulted in the finding that the proximity to university is especially significant among NTBFs inside parks. Furthermore, infrastructure has high significance in both groups whereas significance of facilities cost differs in range of significance. In a model it is argued that FM indirectly contributes to beneficial scenarios for interaction, interfirm relations and networks that can be found particularly in Science Parks. A discussion and a set of hypotheses in the conclusive part link FM and location issues to the performance for NTBFs.