Abstract
Over the past decades, public policy has promoted the establishment of science parks to support the development and growth of technology-based firms and, as such, spur economic prosperity. However, despite the worldwide proliferation of science parks and scholarly interest, their contribution is yet to be fully understood. This paper presents the current state of knowledge on science park contribution using the Input–Mediator–Outcome framework and is based upon an analysis of 175 journal articles published between 1988 and 2018. Furthermore, the paper uncovers critical methodological and theoretical deficiencies in the literature, and identifies promising avenues for future research, which will provide important insights to both academics and practitioners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This is the most cited definition in the SP literature.
References
Albahari, A. (2015). Science and technology parks: Does one size fit all? In J. T. Miao, P. Benneworth, & N. A. Phelps (Eds.), Making 21st century knowledge complexes: technopoles of the world revisited (pp. 191–207). London: Routledge.
Albahari, A., Barge-Gil, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Modrego, A. (2016). The influence of science and technology park characteristics on firms’ innovation results. Papers in Regional Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12253.
Albahari, A., Catalano, G., & Landoni, P. (2013). Evaluation of national science park systems: A theoretical framework and its application to the Italian and Spanish systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(5), 599–614.
Albahari, A., Pérez-Canto, S., Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego, A. (2017). Technology parks versus science parks: Does the university make the difference? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 13–28.
Amezcua, A. S., Grimes, M. G., Bradley, S. W., & Wiklund, J. (2013). Organizational sponsorship and founding environments: A contingency view on the survival of business-incubated firms, 1994–2007. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1628–1654.
Amirahmadi, H., & Saff, G. (1993). Science parks: A critical assessment. Journal of Planning Literature, 8(2), 107–123.
Annerstedt, J. (2006). Science parks and high-tech clustering. In P. Bianchi (Ed.), International handbook on industrial policy (pp. 279–296). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Anttiroiko, A. V. (2004). Global competition of high-tech centres. International Journal of Technology Management, 28(3–6), 289–323.
Appold, S. J. (2004). Research parks and the location of industrial research laboratories: An analysis of the effectiveness of a policy intervention. Research Policy, 33(2), 225–243.
Armanios, D. E., Eesley, C. E., Li, J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2017). How entrepreneurs leverage institutional intermediaries in emerging economies to acquire public resources. Strategic Management Journal, 38(7), 1373–1390.
Barbera, F., & Fassero, S. (2013). The place-based nature of technological innovation: The case of Sophia Antipolis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 216–234.
Battelle Technology Partnership Practice. (2018). Driving regional innovation and growth: The 2012 survey of North American University Research Parks. Columbus, OH. Retrieved October 10, 2017 from http://aurp.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/aurp_batelllestudy2012-final.pdf.
Autio, E., & Rannikko, H. (2016). Retaining winners: Can policy boost high-growth entrepreneurship? Research Policy, 45(1), 42–55.
Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D. C., & Varsakelis, N. C. (2002). Science park, a high tech fantasy?: An analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation, 22(2), 123–128.
Bass, S. J. (1998). Japanese research parks: National policy and local development. Regional Studies, 32(5), 391–403.
Bathelt, H., & Zhao, J. (2016). Conceptualizing multiple clusters in mega-city regions: The case of the biomedical industry in Beijing. Geoforum, 75, 186–198.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Benneworth, P., & Ratinho, T. (2014). Reframing the role of knowledge parks and science cities in knowledge-based urban development. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(5), 784–808.
Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A. I., Nosella, A., & Petroni, G. (2006). Assessing science parks’ performances: Directions from selected Italian case studies. Technovation, 26(4), 489–505.
Bower, D. J. (1993). Successful joint ventures in science parks. Long Range Planning, 26(6), 114–120.
Brockhaus, R. H., & Horwitz, P. S. (1986). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In N. Krueger (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: Critical perspectives on business and management (2nd ed., pp. 260–283). London: Routledge.
Cabral, R. (1998). The Cabral-Dahab science park management paradigm: An introduction. International Journal of Technology Management, 16(8), 721–725.
Cantù, C. (2010). Exploring the role of spatial relationships to transform knowledge in a business idea—Beyond a geographic proximity. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(6), 887–897.
Carsrud, A., Brännback, M., Elfving, J., & Brandt, K. (2009). Motivations: The entrepreneurial mind and behavior. In A. Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.), Understanding the entrepreneurial mind (pp. 141–165). New York: Springer.
Carvalho, L., & van Winden, W. (2017). Planned knowledge locations in cities: Studying emergence and change. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 8(1), 47–67.
Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the world: The making of twenty-first-century industrial complexes. New York: Routledge.
Chan, K. F., & Lau, T. (2005). Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: The good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation, 25(10), 1215–1228.
Chan, K.-Y. Y. A., Oerlemans, L. A. G., & Pretorius, M. W. (2010). Knowledge exchange behaviours of science park firm: The innovation hub case. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(2), 207–228.
Chan, K.-Y. A., Oerlemans, L. A., & Pretorius, M. W. (2011). Innovation outcomes of South African new technology-based firms: A contribution to the debate on the performance of science park firms. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 14(4), 361–378.
Chang, Y.-S., Lin, T. R., Yu, H.-C., & Chang, S.-C. (2009). The CEOs of Hsinchu Science Park. Research Technology Management, 52(6), 12–13.
Chen, C.-P., Chien, C.-F., & Lai, C.-T. (2013a). Cluster policies and industry development in the Hsinchu Science Park: A retrospective review after 30 years. Innovation-Management Policy & Practice, 15(4), 416–436.
Chen, C.-Y., Lin, Y.-L., & Chu, P.-Y. (2013b). Facilitators of national innovation policy in a SME-dominated country: A case study of Taiwan. Innovation-Management Policy & Practice, 15(4), 405–415.
Chen, C.-J., Wu, H.-L., & Lin, B.-W. (2006). Evaluating the development of high-tech industries: Taiwan’s science park. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(4), 452–465.
Cheng, F., van Oort, F., Geertman, S., & Hooimeijer, P. (2014). Science parks and the co-location of high-tech small- and medium-sized firms in China’s Shenzhen. Urban Studies, 51(5), 1073–1089.
Chordá, I. M. (1996). Towards the maturity stage: An insight into the performance of French technopoles. Technovation, 16(3), 143–152.
Chou, T.-L. (2007). The science park and the governance challenge of the movement of the high-tech urban region towards polycentricity: The Hsinchu Science-based industrial park. Environment and Planning A, 39(6), 1382–1402.
Chou, T.-L., & Lin, Y. C. (2007). Industrial park development across the Taiwan Strait. Urban Studies, 44(8), 1405–1425.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Colley, K., Brown, C., & Montarzino, A. (2016). Restorative wildscapes at work: An investigation of the wellbeing benefits of greenspace at urban fringe business sites using “go-along” interviews. Landscape Research, 41(6), 598–615.
Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.
Cummings, A. S. (2017). “Brain Magnet”: Research triangle park and the origins of the creative city, 1953–1965. Journal of Urban History, 43(3), 470–492.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Del Castillo Hermosa, J., & Barroeta, B. (1998). The technology park at Beocillo: An instrument for regional development in Castilla-León. Progress in Planning, 49(3/4), 241–254.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619–654.
Dettwiler, P., Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2006). Utility of location: A comparative survey between small new technology-based firms located on and off science parks—Implications for facilities management. Technovation, 26(4), 506–517.
Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2015). Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: How can firms benefit most? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 70–84.
Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2017). The effect of science and technology parks on firms’ performance: How can firms benefit most under economic downturns? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(10), 1153–1166.
Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. N. (2016). How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation, 50, 41–52.
Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. N. (2017). From incubation to maturity inside parks: The evolution of local knowledge networks. International Journal of Technology Management, 73(1–3), 132–150.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, P. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(1), 45–53.
Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M. S. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, 35(10), 1450–1464.
Dosso, M., Martin, B. R., & Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P. (2018). Towards evidence-based industrial research and innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 45(2), 143–150.
Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2000). Emergence and growth of high-tech activity in Cambridge and Grenoble. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(2), 163–177.
Durão, D., Sarmento, M., Varela, V., & Maltez, L. (2005). Virtual and real-estate science and technology parks: A case study of Taguspark. Technovation, 25(3), 237–244.
Eckardt, F. (2017). The multidimensional role of science parks in attracting international knowledge migrants. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 4(1), 218–226.
Ellis, A. P., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 821–836.
Eto, H. (2005). Obstacles to emergence of high/new technology parks, ventures and clusters in Japan. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(3), 359–373.
Eveleens, C. P., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Niesten, E. M. (2017). How network-based incubation helps start-up performance: A systematic review against the background of management theories. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 676–713.
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.
Falk, R. (2007). Measuring the effects of public support schemes on firms’ innovation activities: Survey evidence from Austria. Research Policy, 36(5), 665–679.
Feldman, J. M. (2007). The managerial equation and innovation platforms: The case of Linköping and Berzelius science park. European Planning Studies, 15(8), 1027–1045.
Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-related science parks—“Seedbeds” or “enclaves” of innovation? Technovation, 14(2), 93–110.
Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs—Location, survival and growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 5–17.
Fernández-Alles, M., Camelo-Ordaz, C., & Franco-Leal, N. (2015). Key resources and actors for the evolution of academic spin-offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 976–1002.
Ferrara, M., Lamperti, F., & Mavilia, R. (2016). Looking for best performers: A pilot study towards the evaluation of science parks. Scientometrics, 106(2), 717–750.
Fikirkoca, A., & Saritas, O. (2012). Foresight for science parks: The case of Ankara University. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(10), 1071–1085.
Flynn, D. M. (1993). Sponsorship and the survival of new organizations. Journal of Small Business Management, 31(1), 51–63.
Foray, D. (2018). Smart specialisation strategies and industrial modernisation in European regions—Theory and practice. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 42(6), 1505–1520.
Forsyth, A., & Crewe, K. (2010). Suburban technopoles as places: The international campus-garden-suburb style. Urban Design International, 15(3), 165–182.
Fukugawa, N. (2006). Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(2), 381–400.
Fulgencio, H. (2017). Social value of an innovation ecosystem: The case of Leiden Bioscience Park, The Netherlands. International Journal of Innovation Science, 9(4), 355–373.
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
Gans, J., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2), 333–350.
Gilchrist, K., Brown, C., & Montarzino, A. (2015). Workplace settings and wellbeing: Greenspace use and views contribute to employee wellbeing at peri-urban business sites. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 32–40.
Gkypali, A., Kokkinos, V., Bouras, C., & Tsekouras, K. (2016). Science parks and regional innovation performance in fiscal austerity era: Less is more? Small Business Economics, 47(2), 313–330.
Goldstein, H. A., & Luger, M. I. (1990). Science/technology parks and regional development theory. Economic Development Quarterly, 4(1), 64–78.
Goldstein, H. A., & Luger, M. I. (1992). University-based research parks as a rural development strategy. Policy Studies Journal, 20(2), 249–263.
Good, M., Knockaert, M., Soppe, B., & Wright, M. (2018). The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.06.009.
Guy, I. (1996). A look at Aston Science Park. Technovation, 16(5), 217–218.
Gwynne, P. (1993). Directing technology in Asia’s “dragons”. Research Technology Management, 36(2), 12–15.
Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8), 1365–1379.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
Hansson, F., Husted, K., & Vestergaard, J. (2005). Second generation science parks: From structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation, 25(9), 1039–1049.
Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017). Science and technology parks: An annotated and analytical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 957–976.
Hoffman, K., Parejo, M., Bessant, J., & Perren, L. (1998). Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: A literature review. Technovation, 18(1), 39–55.
Hommen, L., Doloreux, D., & Larsson, E. (2006). Emergence and growth of Mjärdevi Science Park in Linköping, Sweden. European Planning Studies, 14(10), 1331–1361.
Hu, A. G. (2007). Technology parks and regional economic growth in China. Research Policy, 36(1), 76–87.
Hu, T. S. (2008). Interaction among high-tech talent and its impact on innovation performance: A comparison of Taiwanese science parks at different stages of development. European Planning Studies, 16(2), 163–187.
Hu, T. S., Lin, C.-Y., & Chang, S.-L. (2005). Technology-based regional development strategies and the emergence of technological communities: A case study of HSIP, Taiwan. Technovation, 25(4), 367–380.
Huang, Y., Audretsch, D. B., & Hewitt, M. (2013). Chinese technology transfer policy: The case of the national independent innovation demonstration zone of East Lake. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(6), 828–835.
Huang, K.-F., Yu, C.-M. J., & Seetoo, D.-H. (2012). Firm innovation in policy-driven parks and spontaneous clusters: The smaller firm the better? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 715–731.
Hung, W. C. (2012). Measuring the use of public research in firm R&D in the Hsinchu Science Park. Scientometrics, 92(1), 63–73.
IASP. (2017). IASP in a few words. Retrieved November 9, 2017 from https://www.iasp.ws/About-us/IASP-in-a-few-words.
Jimenez-Moreno, J. J., Martínez-Cañas, R., Ruiz-Palomino, P., & Sáez-Martínez, F. J. (2013). The role of science and technology parks in the generation of firm level social capital through university-firm relations: An empirical study in Spain. In J. J. M. Ferreira, M. Raposo, R. Rutten, & A. Varga (Eds.), Cooperation, clusters, and knowledge transfer: Universities and firms towards regional competitiveness (pp. 19–34). Berlin: Springer.
Jonsson, O. (2002). Innovation processes and proximity: The case of IDEON firms in Lund, Sweden. European Planning Studies, 10(6), 705–722.
Joseph, R. A. (1989). Technology parks and their contribution to the development of technology-oriented complexes in Australia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 7(2), 173–192.
Kihlgren, A. (2003). Promotion of innovation activity in Russia through the creation of science parks: The case of St. Petersburg (1992–1998). Technovation, 23(1), 65–76.
Kinsella, N. S. (2001). Against intellectual property. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 15(2), 1–54.
Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New venture teams a review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1), 226–255.
Koçak, Ö., & Can, Ö. (2014). Determinants of inter-firm networks among tenants of science technology parks. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(2), 467–492.
Koh, F. C. C., Koh, W. T. H., & Tschang, F. T. (2005). An analytical framework for science parks and technology districts with an application to Singapore. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 217–239.
Ku, Y. L., Liau, S.-J., & Hsing, W.-C. (2005). The high-tech milieu and innovation-oriented development. Technovation, 25(2), 145–153.
Lai, Y.-L., Hsu, M.-S., Lin, F.-J., Chen, Y.-M., & Lin, Y.-H. (2014). The effects of industry cluster knowledge management on innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 734–739.
Lai, H.-C., & Shyu, J. Z. (2005). A comparison of innovation capacity at science parks across the Taiwan Strait: the case of Zhangjiang High-Tech Park and Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park. Technovation, 25(7), 805–813.
Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2017). The role of science parks: A puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(1), 1–26.
Latorre, M. P., Hermoso, R., & Rubio, M. A. (2017). A novel network-based analysis to measure efficiency in science and technology parks: The ISA framework approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1255–1275.
Lee, W.-H., & Yang, W.-T. (2000). The cradle of Taiwan high technology industry development—Hsinchu Science Park (HSP). Technovation, 20(1), 55–59.
Leyden, D. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the decision to locate on a university research park. EEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 23–28.
Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., & Tanzi, G. M. (2016). Science and technology parks in Italy: Main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 694–729.
Liefner, I., Hennemann, S., & Xin, L. (2006). Cooperation in the innovation process in developing countries: Empirical evidence from Zhongguancun, Beijing. Environment and Planning A, 38(1), 111–130.
Lin, G. T. R., & Sun, C.-C. (2010). Driving industrial clusters to be nationally competitive. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(1), 81–97.
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2002). Growth, management and financing of new technology-based firms—Assessing value-added contributions of firms located on and off Science Parks. Omega, 30(3), 143–154.
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2003). Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden—Implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics, 20(3), 245–258.
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: University-industry links for technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 311–326.
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2005). Academic versus corporate new technology-based firms in Swedish science parks: An analysis of performance, business networks and financing. International Journal of Technology Management, 31(3–4), 334–357.
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2006). Environmental hostility and firm behavior—An empirical examination of new technology-based firms on science parks. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3), 386–406.
Link, A. N., & Link, K. R. (2003). On the growth of U.S. Science Parks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 81–85.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003a). The growth of Research Triangle Park. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 167–175.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003b). U.S. science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1323–1356.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106–1112.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2006). U.S. University Research Parks. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 25(1), 43–55.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2018). Geographic proximity and science parks. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.013.272.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden—Industrial renewal and development? R&D Management, 31(3), 309–322.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—Academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31(6), 859–876.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2003). Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science parks and business policy in growing firms. Technovation, 23(1), 51–64.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2005). R&D networks and product innovation patterns—Academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on science parks. Technovation, 25(9), 1025–1037.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.
Malairaja, C., & Zawdie, G. (2008). Science parks and university–industry collaboration in Malaysia. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 727–739.
Martínez-Cañas, R., Sáez-Martínez, F. J., & Ruiz-Palomino, P. (2012). Knowledge acquisition’s mediation of social capital-firm innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 61–76.
Massey, D., & Wield, D. (1992). Science parks: A concept in science, society, and “space” (a realist tale). Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 10(4), 411–422.
Massey, D., & Wield, D. (2003). High-tech fantasies: Science parks in society, science and space. New York: Routledge.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.
McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2008). High tech start-ups in University Science Park incubators: The relationship between the start-up’s lifecycle progression and use of the incubator’s resources. Technovation, 28(5), 277–290.
McCoach, D. B. (2010). Hierarchical linear modeling. In R. Hancock & R. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 123–140). New York: Routledge.
Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Technology business incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50, 1–12.
Miao, J. T. (2017). Housing the knowledge economy in China: An examination of housing provision in support of science parks. Urban Studies, 54(6), 1426–1445.
Miao, J. T., & Hall, P. (2014). Optical illusion? The growth and development of the optics valley of China. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(5), 863–879.
Mieg, H. A. (2012). Sustainability and innovation in urban development: Concept and case. Sustainable Development, 20(4), 251–263.
Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Research excellence and university–industry collaboration in UK science parks. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 181–196.
Monck, C. S., Porter, R. B., Quintas, P., & Storey, D. J. (1988). Science parks and the growth of high technology firms. London: Croom Helm.
Montoro-Sanchez, A., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M., & Mora-Valentín, E. M. (2011). Effects of knowledge spillovers on innovation and collaboration in science and technology parks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 948–970.
Motohashi, K. (2013). The role of the science park in innovation performance of start-up firms: An empirical analysis of Tsinghua Science Park in Beijing. Asia Pacific Business Review, 19(4), 578–599.
Nahm, K.-B. (2000). The evolution of science parks and metropolitan development. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 4(1), 81–95.
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206.
OECD. (2011). Regions and innovation policy. Paris: OECD.
Olcay, G. A., & Bulu, M. (2016). Technoparks and technology transfer offices as drivers of an innovation economy: Lessons from Istanbul’s innovation spaces. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(1), 71–93.
Park, S. C. (2004). The city of brain in South Korea: Daedeok science town. International Journal of Technology Management, 28(3–6), 602–614.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, J. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182.
Phelps, N. A., & Dawood, S. R. S. (2014). Untangling the spaces of high technology in Malaysia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(5), 896–915.
Phelps, N. A., Kim, H., Lee, Y.-S., & Valler, D. C. (2014). Science and the city: Comparative perspectives on the urbanity of science and technology parks. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(5), 777–783.
Phillimore, J. (1999). Beyond the linear view of innovation in science park evaluation: An analysis of Western Australian Technology Park. Technovation, 19(11), 673–680.
Phillips, M. S.-A., & Yeung, H. W. (2003). A place for R&D? The Singapore Science Park. Urban Studies, 40(4), 707–732.
Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: Questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161–175.
Radosevic, S., & Myrzakhmet, M. (2009). Between vision and reality: Promoting innovation through technoparks in an emerging economy. Technovation, 29(10), 645–656.
Ramasamy, B., Chakrabarty, A., & Cheah, M. (2004). Malaysia’s leap into the future: An evaluation of the multimedia super corridor. Technovation, 24(11), 871–883.
Ramirez, M., Li, X., & Chen, W. (2013). Comparing the impact of intra- and inter-regional labour mobility on problem-solving in a Chinese Science Park. Regional Studies, 47(10), 1734–1751.
Ratinho, T., & Henriques, E. (2010). The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation, 30(4), 278–290.
Rowe, D. (2014). Setting up, managing and evaluating EU science and technology parks—An advice and guidance report on good practice. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy.
Salvador, E. (2011). Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 203–232.
Salvador, E., Mariotti, I., & Conicella, F. (2013). Science park or innovation cluster? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(6), 656–674.
Salvador, E., & Rolfo, S. (2011). Are incubators and science parks effective for research spin-offs? Evidence from Italy. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 170–184.
Schiavone, F., Meles, A., Verdoliva, V., Del Giudice, M., Giudice, M. Del, & Del Giudice, M. (2014). Does location in a science park really matter for firms’ intellectual capital performance? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4), 497–515.
Schmitt, A., Raisch, S., & Volberda, H. W. (2018). Strategic renewal: Past research, theoretical tensions and future challenges. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 81–98.
Schwartz, M., & Hornych, C. (2010). Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: Empirical evidence from Germany. Technovation, 30(9), 485–495.
Secundo, G., & Elia, G. (2014). A performance measurement system for academic entrepreneurship: A case study. Measuring Business Excellence, 18(3), 23–37.
Shearmur, R., & Doloreux, D. (2000). Science parks: actors or reactors? Canadian science parks in their urban context. Environment and Planning A, 32(6), 1065–1082.
Shin, D.-H. (2001). An alternative approach to developing science parks: A case study from Korea. Papers in Regional Science, 80(1), 103–111.
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003a). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1357–1369.
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003b). Science parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: A review of recent U.K. evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 177–184.
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582–595.
Sofouli, E., & Vonortas, N. S. (2007). S&T Parks and business incubators in middle-sized countries: The case of greece. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5), 525–544.
Squicciarini, M. (2008). Science parks’ tenants versus out-of-Park firms: Who innovates more? A duration model. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 45–71.
Squicciarini, M. (2009). Science parks: Seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms’ patenting activity. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 169–190.
Stephan, U., Hart, M., & Drews, C. C. (2015). Understanding motivations for entrepreneurship: A review of recent research evidence. Report, Birmingham: Enterprise Research Centre.
Storey, D., & Tether, B. (1998). Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union. Research Policy, 26(9), 1037–1057.
Su, Y.-S., & Hung, L.-C. (2009). Spontaneous vs. policy-driven: The origin and evolution of the biotechnology cluster. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(5), 608–619.
Sung, T. K., Gibson, D. V., & Kang, B.-S. (2003). Characteristics of technology transfer in business ventures: The case of Daejeon, Korea. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(5), 449–466.
Tan, J. (2006). Growth of industry clusters and innovation: Lessons from Beijing Zhongguancun Science Park. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 827–850.
UKSPA. (2017). About UKSPA. Retrieved October 4, 2017 from http://www.ukspa.org.uk/our-association/about-us.
Vaidyanathan, G. (2008). Technology parks in a developing country: The case of India. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 285–299.
van der Borgh, M., Cloodt, M., & Romme, A. G. L. (2012). Value creation by knowledge-based ecosystems: Evidence from a field study. R&D Management, 42(2), 150–169.
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.
Vanacker, T., & Forbes, D. P. (2016). Disentangling the multiple effects of affiliate reputation on resource attraction in new firms. Organization Science, 27(6), 1525–1547.
Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., & Rico, A. M. (2015). Which firms benefit more from being located in a Science and Technology Park? Empirical evidence for Spain. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 107–117.
Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., & Rico, A. M. (2016). Science and technology parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Research Policy, 45(1), 137–147.
Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., Rico, A. M., & Paraskevopoulou, E. (2014). The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ product innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(4), 835–873.
Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491–531.
Villasalero, M. (2014). University knowledge, open innovation and technological capital in Spanish science parks: Research revealing or technology selling? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4), 479–496.
Walcott, S. M. (2002). Chinese industrial and science parks: Bridging the gap. The Professional Geographer, 54(3), 349–364.
Westhead, P. (1997). R and D inputs and outputs of technology-based firms located on and off science parks. R&D Management, 27(1), 45–62.
Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1998). Independent technology-based firms: The perceived benefits of a science park location. Urban Studies, 35(12), 2197–2219.
Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1999). Perceived benefits of a managed science park location. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(2), 129–154.
Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1994). An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the United Kingdom. Richmond: HM Stationery Office.
Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1995). Links between higher education institutions and high technology firms. Omega, 23(4), 345–360.
Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2010). Commercialization strategies of technology: Lessons from Silicon Valley. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 225–236.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.
Wright, M., Liu, X., Buck, T., & Filatotchev, I. (2008). Returnee entrepreneurs, science park location choice and performance: An analysis of high-technology SMEs in China. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 131–155.
Xue, L. (1997). Promoting industrial R&D and high-tech development through science parks: The Taiwan experience and its implications for developing countries. International Journal of Technology Management, 13(7–8), 744–761.
Yang, Y. R., Hsu, J.-Y., & Ching, C.-H. (2009a). Revisiting the Silicon Island? The geographically varied “strategic coupling” in the development of high-technology parks in Taiwan. Regional Studies, 43(3), 369–384.
Yang, C.-H., Motohashi, K., & Chen, J.-R. (2009b). Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative?: Evidence from Taiwan. Research Policy, 38(1), 77–85.
Yin, R. K. (2004). The case study anthology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zhang, Y. (2004). Critical factors for science park management: The North American and European experience. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 4(6), 575–586.
Zhang, F., & Wu, F. (2012). “Fostering indigenous innovation capacities”: The development of biotechnology in Shanghai’s Zhangjiang High-Tech Park. Urban Geography, 33(5), 728–755.
Zhu, D., & Tann, J. (2005). A regional innovation system in a small-sized region: A clustering model in Zhongguancun Science Park. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(3), 375–390.
Zou, Y., & Zhao, W. (2014). Anatomy of Tsinghua University Science Park in China: Institutional evolution and assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 663–674.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from The National Bank of Belgium and The Special Research Fund of Ghent University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Geographical distribution of SP contribution journal articles per year
Appendix 2: Descriptive statistics on journals publishing SP contribution articles until 2018
Journal | Number of papers | Percent of papers (%) |
|---|---|---|
Technovation | 25 | 14.29 |
The Journal of Technology Transfer | 18 | 10.29 |
International Journal of Technology Management | 9 | 5.14 |
Research Policy | 9 | 5.14 |
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management | 8 | 4.57 |
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy | 6 | 3.43 |
Technological Forecasting and Social Change | 6 | 3.43 |
Small Business Economics | 5 | 2.86 |
Urban Studies | 5 | 2.86 |
Environment and Planning A | 4 | 2.29 |
R&D Management | 4 | 2.29 |
European Planning Studies | 3 | 1.71 |
International Journal of Industrial Organization | 3 | 1.71 |
Journal of Business Research | 3 | 1.71 |
Journal of Business Venturing | 3 | 1.71 |
Regional Studies | 3 | 1.71 |
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development | 2 | 1.14 |
Innovation-Management Policy & Practice | 2 | 1.14 |
Journal of Intellectual Capital | 2 | 1.14 |
Journal of Knowledge Management | 2 | 1.14 |
Journal of Small Business Management | 2 | 1.14 |
Journal of Urban Technology | 2 | 1.14 |
Omega | 2 | 1.14 |
Papers in Regional Science | 2 | 1.14 |
Research Evaluation | 2 | 1.14 |
Research Technology Management | 2 | 1.14 |
Science and Public Policy | 2 | 1.14 |
Scientometrics | 2 | 1.14 |
Urban Geography | 2 | 1.14 |
Asia Pacific Business Review | 1 | 0.57 |
Asia Pacific Viewpoint | 1 | 0.57 |
Economic Development Quarterly | 1 | 0.57 |
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice | 1 | 0.57 |
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space | 1 | 0.57 |
European Journal of Innovation Management | 1 | 0.57 |
Geoforum | 1 | 0.57 |
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management | 1 | 0.57 |
Industrial and Corporate Change | 1 | 0.57 |
Industrial Marketing Management | 1 | 0.57 |
Information & Management | 1 | 0.57 |
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management | 1 | 0.57 |
International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behavior | 1 | 0.57 |
International Journal of Innovation and Technology | 1 | 0.57 |
International Journal of Innovation Science | 1 | 0.57 |
International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development | 1 | 0.57 |
International Journal of Urban Sciences | 1 | 0.57 |
Journal of Evolutionary Economics | 1 | 0.57 |
Journal of Planning Literature | 1 | 0.57 |
Journal of Productivity Analysis | 1 | 0.57 |
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation | 1 | 0.57 |
Journal of Urban History | 1 | 0.57 |
Journal on Innovation and Sustainability | 1 | 0.57 |
Landscape and Urban Planning | 1 | 0.57 |
Landscape Research | 1 | 0.57 |
Long range planning | 1 | 0.57 |
Oxford Review of Economic Policy | 1 | 0.57 |
Policy Studies Journal | 1 | 0.57 |
Professional Geographer | 1 | 0.57 |
Progress in Planning | 1 | 0.57 |
Regional Studies Regional Science | 1 | 0.57 |
South African Journal of Economics and Management | 1 | 0.57 |
Strategic Management Journal | 1 | 0.57 |
Sustainability and Innovation | 1 | 0.57 |
Urban Design International | 1 | 0.57 |
Total | 175 | 100 |
Appendix 3: Outcome measures of SP contribution
Position in framework | Outcome measure | Specific indicators used | Study and country studied |
|---|---|---|---|
Regional level outcomes | New Firm Creation | Creation of new ventures, creation of high-tech startups, creation of academic spinoffs, growth in number of new companies, generation rate of new startups | Benneworth and Ratinho (2014), The Netherlands Chan and Lau (2005), Hong Kong Chen et al. (2013a), Taiwan Chordá (1996), France and Belgium Del Castillo Hermosa and Barroeta (1998), Spain Druilhe and Garnsey (2000), France and U.K. Eto (2005), Japan Guy (1996), U.K. Hansson et al. (2005), Denmark and U.K. Hu et al. (2005), Taiwan Kihlgren (2003), Russia Koh et al. (2005), Singapore Lee and Yang (2000), Taiwan Link and Scott (2005), U.S.A. Massey and Wield (1992), U.K. Ratinho and Henriques (2010), Portugal Salvador and Rolfo (2011), Italy Shin (2001), Korea Sofouli and Vonortas (2007), Greece Wonglimpiyarat (2010), Thailand |
Firm Attraction | Attraction of international leaders in technology,(international) high tech companies, university-affiliated firms, research institutions, attraction of international knowledge workers | Appold (2004), U.S.A. Cheng et al. (2014), China Eckardt (2017), The Netherlands Eto (2005), Japan Hansson et al. (2005), Denmark and U.K. Lee and Yang (2000), Taiwan Vaidyanathan (2008), India Zou and Zhao (2014), China | |
Job Creation | Growth in terms of jobs, number of jobs created, growth in number of employees, job creation rate | Chordá (1996), France and Belgium Forsyth and Crewe (2010), Japan Goldstein and Luger (1990), U.S.A. Goldstein and Luger (1992), U.S.A. Guy (1996), U.K. Hu et al. (2005), Taiwan Kihlgren (2003), Russia Lee and Yang (2000), Taiwan Massey and Wield (1992), U.K. Ratinho and Henriques (2010), Portugal Shearmur and Doloreux (2000), Canada | |
Economic Growth and Development | Labor productivity growth, growth of particular sector/industries, percentage of total industrial growth attributed to SP, perception of net economic impact of SP on region, regional innovation outputs, contribution of SP to national GDP, national competitiveness, competitive advantage, technological growth, employment growth, economic modernization, diversification of the economy, per capita income growth, foreign direct investments | Barbera and and Fassero (2013), France Bass (1998), Japan Chen et al. (2006), Taiwan Chen et al. (2013a), Taiwan Chou (2007), Taiwan Eto (2005), Japan Feldman (2007), Sweden Gkypali et al. (2016), Greece Goldstein and Luger (1992), U.S.A. Gwynne (1993), Singapore, South-Korea and Taiwan Hu (2007), China Huang et al. (2013), China Jonsson (2002), Sweden Ku et al. (2005), Taiwan Lin and Sun (2010), Taiwan Miao and Hall (2014), China Minguillo and Thelwall (2015), U.K. Olcay and Bulu (2016), Turkey Phelps and Dawood (2014), Malaysia Phillips and Yeung (2003), Singapore Radosevic and Myrzakhmet (2009), Kazakhstan Shearmur and Doloreux (2000), Canada Vaidyanathan (2008), India Walcott (2002), China Zhang and Wu (2012), China Zhu and Tann (2005), China | |
Firm level outcomes | Innovative Outcome | ||
IP-related indicators | Number of patents granted per/last year, number of patent applications per/last year, number of patent applications nationally, number of patent applications internationally, number of patent applications per employee, number of copyrights or applications (last year), time between patents, growth in number of patents, dummy patent application, patent elasticity | Albahari et al. (2013), Spain Albahari et al. (2017), Spain Chan et al. (2010), South-Africa Chan et al. (2011), South-Africa Colombo and Delmastro (2002), Italy Hu (2008), Taiwan Hu et al. (2005), Taiwan Huang et al. (2012), Taiwan Lamperti et al. (2017), Italy Liberati et al. (2016), Italy Lindelöf and Löfsten (2003), Sweden Löfsten and Lindelöf (2005), Sweden Motohashi (2013), China Siegel et al. (2003a), U.K. Squicciarini (2008, 2009), Finland Villasalero (2014), Spain Westhead (1997), U.K. Yang et al. (2009b), Taiwan Zhang and Wu (2012), China | |
Product/service-related indicators | Introduction of new products, percentage of sales from new products, new product/service introductions to existing customers versus to new markets, significant innovation level versus incremental innovation level, sales of new-to-the-market products, sales per employee of new-to-the-market products, annual total turnover from product innovation new to the market, launch of new products/services new for firm and new to the market, number of new products/services developed but not yet introduced to market, percentage of sales from technologically improved products/services in year x, percentage of sales of products/services new to the firm in year x, percentage of company turnover from product innovations that are new to the market | Albahari et al. (2013), Spain Albahari et al. (2016), Spain Albahari et al. (2017), Spain Chan et al. (2010), South-Africa Chan et al. (2011), South-Africa Díez-Vial and Fernández-Olmos (2015), Spain Díez-Vial and Montoro-Sánchez (2016), Spain Díez-Vial and Montoro-Sánchez (2017), Spain Felsenstein (1994), Israel Jimenez-Moreno et al. (2013), Spain Lai et al. (2014), Taiwan & China Liefner et al. (2006), China Lindelöf and Löfsten (2003), Sweden Löfsten and Lindelöf (2005), Sweden Martínez-Cañas et al. (2012), Spain Radosevic and Myrzakhmet (2009), Kazakhstan Siegel et al. (2003a), U.K. Vásquez-Urriago et al. (2014, 2015), Spain Westhead (1997), U.K. | |
Other (or unspecified) innovative indicators | Dummy firm engaged in innovation, number of firms involved in EU R&D projects, ratio intangible investment and total assets, knowledge acquisition, technological distinctiveness, dummy product innovation, dummy process innovation, scope of innovation outcomes | Albahari (2015), Spain Cantù (2010), Italy Chan and Lau (2005), Hong Kong Chan et al. (2010), South-Africa Chan et al. (2011), South-Africa Colombo and Delmastro (2002), Italy Forsyth and Crewe (2010), Japan Jimenez-Moreno et al. (2013), Spain Joseph (1989), Australia Lai et al. (2014), Taiwan Liberati et al. (2016), Italy Liefner et al. (2006), China Montoro-Sanchez et al. (2011), Spain Motohashi (2013), China Tan (2006), China | |
Financial outcomes | |||
Sales-related indicators | Sales growth, annual average of sales growth, annual sales, annual operative value added, export | Dettwiler et al. (2006), Sweden Ferguson and Olofsson (2004), Sweden Lamperti et al. (2017), Italy Liberati et al. (2016), Italy Lindelöf and Löfsten (2002), Sweden Lindelöf and Löfsten (2003), Sweden Löfsten and Lindelöf (2001), Sweden Löfsten and Lindelöf (2002), Sweden Löfsten and Lindelöf (2005), Sweden Motohashi (2013), China Vásquez-Urriago et al. (2016), Spain Westhead and Storey (1994), U.K. Zou and Zhao (2014), China | |
Profitability-related indicators | Profit margin, ROA, gross operative margin over total assets, | Dettwiler et al. (2006), Sweden Liberati et al. (2016), Italy Lindelöf and Löfsten (2002), Sweden Lindelöf and Löfsten (2003), Sweden Löfsten and Lindelöf (2001), Sweden Löfsten and Lindelöf (2002), Sweden Löfsten and Lindelöf (2005), Sweden Vásquez-Urriago et al. (2016), Spain Westhead and Storey (1994), U.K. | |
Other financial indicators | Investment propensity, investment growth rate, value added, net worth, market performance | Liberati et al. (2016), Italy Lindelöf and Löfsten (2003), Sweden Sung et al. (2003), Korea Vásquez-Urriago et al. (2016), Spain Lai et al. (2014), Taiwan & China | |
Other outcomes | |||
Firm survival | Firm survival, continued legal existence of firm | Bower (1993), N/A Felsenstein (1994), Israel Ferguson and Olofsson (2004), Sweden Radosevic and Myrzakhmet (2009), Kazakhstan Westhead and Storey (1994), U.K. Westhead and Storey (1995), U.K. | |
Employment growth | Employment growth | Colombo and Delmastro (2002), Italy Dettwiler et al. (2006), Sweden Ferguson and Olofsson (2004), Israel Lindelöf and Löfsten (2002), Sweden Lindelöf and Löfsten (2003), Sweden Lindelöf and Löfsten (2005), Sweden Löfsten and Lindelöf (2001), Sweden Löfsten and Lindelöf (2002), Sweden Monck et al. (1988), U.K. Shearmur and Doloreux (2000), Canada Westhead and Storey (1994), U.K. | |
Other | Intangible results, intellectual capital performance, perceived benefits, perceived advantages, employee well-being, firm development | Colley et al. (2016), Scotland Gilchrist et al. (2015), Scotland Hu (2007), China McAdam and McAdam (2008), Ireland and U.K. Salvador et al. (2013), Italy Schiavone et al. (2014), Italy Van der Borgh et al. (2012), The Netherlands Vásquez-Urriago et al. (2016), Spain | |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lecluyse, L., Knockaert, M. & Spithoven, A. The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda. J Technol Transf 44, 559–595 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-09712-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-09712-x