Benchmarking Knowledge Precincts

  • Tan YigitcanlarEmail author
  • Tommi Inkinen


Benchmarking is a powerful technique to determine the standing of a city or cluster against its competitors. The chapter places a knowledge precinct from Brisbane in a benchmarking exercise and evaluates its performance against the reputable knowledge precinct best practices from Cambridge, Barcelona, Helsinki, Eindhoven, Dublin, Sydney and Melbourne. The chapter employs a place making framework for the benchmarking exercise that is developed to be used in knowledge and innovation spaces. The findings not only provide insights for the further development of the Dutton Park Knowledge Precinct of Brisbane, but also generate overall lessons for other cities aiming to develop prosperous and sustainable knowledge precincts.


Knowledge-based urban development Knowledge city Smart city Sustainable urban development Knowledge and innovation spaces Knowledge precinct Innovation district Place making Brisbane Cambridge Barcelona Helsinki Eindhoven Dublin Sydney Melbourne 


  1. Adams, N., Cotella, G., & Nunes, R. (2014). Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning: Knowledge and policy development in an enlarged EU. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1692–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradfield, J. (1981). The Cambridge Science Park. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 1(2), 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brisbane City Council. (2006). Brisbane city shape 2026. Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Brisbane City Council. (2014). Brisbane city plan 2014. Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Carey, A. (2016). Trial of driverless cars to begin on Melbourne’s freeways early next year. Accessed March 21, 2017 from
  7. Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.Google Scholar
  8. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. City of Ryde. (2013). Planning proposal for Macquarie Park Corridor. City of Ryde, NSW: Urban Planning Unit.Google Scholar
  10. Ergazakis, K., Metaxiotis, K., & Psarras, J. (2004). Towards knowledge cities: Conceptual analysis and success stories. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(5), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernandez-Maldonado, A. (2012). Designing: Combining design and high-tech industries in the knowledge city of Eindhoven. In T. Yigitcanlar, K. Metaxiotis, & J. Carrillo (Eds.), Building prosperous knowledge cities: Policies, plans and metrics (pp. 175–194). Northampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  12. Fernandez-Maldonado, A., & Romein, A. (2010). The role of organisational capacity and knowledge-based development. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 1(1–2), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franzmann, L., & Lodge, T. (2016). Ideas for future urban mobility: Inner city Brisbane strategy. Brisbane: Corview & Hassell.Google Scholar
  14. Gonzalez, O., & Carrillo, F. (2012). Cities-benchmarking algorithm: A meta-ranking exercise. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 3(1), 367–387.Google Scholar
  15. Gottdiener, M. (2000). Lefebvre and the bias of academic urbanism: What can we learn from the ‘new’ urban analysis? City, 4(1), 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hong, P., Hong, S. W., Jungbae Roh, J., & Park, K. (2012). Evolving benchmarking practices: A review for research perspectives. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 19(4/5), 444–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hortz, T. (2016). The smart state test: A critical review of the smart state strategy 2005–2015’s knowledge-based urban development. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 7(1), 75–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kumar, A., Antony, J., & Dhakar, T. S. (2006). Integrating quality function deployment and benchmarking to achieve greater profitability. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13(3), 290–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martí-Costa, M., & Miquel, M. P. (2014). The knowledge city against urban creativity? Artists’ workshops and urban regeneration in Barcelona. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(1), 92–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maynard, N. (2008). Municipal ICT policy goals and technology choices: A decision framework. In T. Yigitcanlar, et al. (Eds.), Creative urban regions: Harnessing urban technologies to support knowledge city initiatives (pp. 95–113). Hersey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCoy, J., & Evans, G. (2002). The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 14(3–4), 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Musterd, S., & Zoltan, K. (2013). Place-making and policies for competitive cities. Somerset: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. NSW Government. (2014). Herring Road Macquarie Park urban activation precinct planning report. Department of Planning and Environment. Accessed April 7, 2016 from
  24. Oksanen, K., & Ståhle, P. (2013). Physical environment as a source for innovation: Investigating the attributes of innovative space. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6), 815–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2014). Urban knowledge and innovation spaces: Concepts, conditions, and contexts. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 15–38.Google Scholar
  26. Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2015). Place making facilitators of knowledge and innovation spaces: Insights from European best practices. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 6(3), 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2017a). Governance that matters: Identifying place-making challenges of Melbourne’s Monash Employment Cluster. Journal of Place Management and Development, 10(1), 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2017b). Place making for innovation and knowledge-intensive activities: The Australian experience. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
  29. Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2018a). Attributes of successful place making in knowledge and innovation spaces: Evidence from Brisbane’s Diamantina Knowledge Precinct. Journal of Urban Design, 23(5), 693–711.Google Scholar
  30. Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2018b). Societal integration that matters: Place making experience of Macquarie Park Innovation District, Sydney. City, Culture and Society, 13, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peschl, M., & Fundneider, T. (2012). Spaces enabling game-changing and sustaining innovations: Why space matters for knowledge creation and innovation. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 9(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. PWC. (2014). Big city analytics. Australia: Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC).Google Scholar
  33. Queensland Government. (2005). Smart Queensland: Smart state strategy. Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  34. Queensland Government. (2007). Smart cities: Rethinking the city centre. Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  35. Queensland Government. (2009a). Smart communities. Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  36. Queensland Government. (2009b). South East Queensland regional plan. Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  37. Romer, P. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, K. (1995). Interaction in knowledge systems: Foundations, policy implications and empirical methods. STI Review, 16(1), 69–102.Google Scholar
  40. Van Winden, W., de Carvalho, L., Van Tuijl, E., Van Haaren, J., & Van den Berg, L. (2012). Creating knowledge locations in cities: Innovation and integration challenges. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Van Winden, W., Van Den Berg, L., & Pol, P. (2007). European cities in the knowledge economy: Towards a typology. Urban Studies, 44(3), 525–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Victorian Government. (2014). Plan Melbourne. Melbourne: Victorian Government.Google Scholar
  43. Yigitcanlar, T. (2009). Planning for knowledge-based urban development: Global perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(5), 228–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yigitcanlar, T. (2011). Position paper: Redefining knowledge-based urban development. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 2(4), 340–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yigitcanlar, T. (2014a). Position paper: Benchmarking the performance of global and emerging knowledge cities. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(12), 5549–5559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yigitcanlar, T. (2014b). Valleys, alleys and roundabouts: Innovating beyond a precinct. The Conversation. Accessed March 17, 2017 from
  47. Yigitcanlar, T., & Dur, F. (2013). Making space and place for knowledge communities: Lessons for Australian practice. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 19(1), 36–63.Google Scholar
  48. Yigitcanlar, T., Guaralda, M., Taboada, M., & Pancholi, S. (2016). Place making for knowledge generation and innovation: Planning and branding Brisbane’s knowledge community precincts. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(1), 115–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yigitcanlar, T., & Lönnqvist, A. (2013). Benchmarking knowledge-based urban development performance: Results from the international comparison of Helsinki. Cities, 31(1), 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yigitcanlar, T., O’Connor, K., & Westerman, C. (2008). The making of knowledge cities: Melbourne’s knowledge-based urban development experience. Cities, 25(2), 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Maritime Studies, Brahea CentreUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations