Place Dynamics for Innovation

  • Tan YigitcanlarEmail author
  • Tommi Inkinen


Innovative urban development commonly requires the recognition of technological development directing the physical infrastructure. This is related to current digitalisation trend taking place in all societal domains including economy, infrastructure, and policy. Leading cities in innovative development have actively participated the development and enablement of services and solutions aiding visitors, inhabitants and businesses on their vicinities. Traditional examples include open access urban networks (enabling access) and different mobile applications helping the use of urban space (e.g., public transport systems and route planners). The availability and low use cost of digital services contributes to urban image and cities potential to advertise themselves as knowledge-intensive locations. This chapter discusses and reflects on innovation system approaches and urban development.


Innovation systems Place dynamics Knowledge-based urban development Urban competition Urban marketing 


  1. Ahlqvist, T., & Inkinen, T. (2007). Technology foresight in multiscalar innovation systems. A spatiotemporal process perspective. Fennia, 185(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
  2. Altshuler, A., & Behn, R. (Eds.). (1997). Innovation in American government: Challenges, opportunities and dilemmas. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  3. Anttiroiko, A. V., & Kasvio, A. (Eds.). (2006). e-City: Analyzing the efforts to generate local dynamism in the city of Tampere. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Asheim, B., Coenen, L., Moodysson, J., & Vang, J. (2007). Constructing knowledge-based regional advantage: Implications for regional innovation policy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 7(2–5), 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asheim, B., & Gertler, M. (2005). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 291–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (2002). Regional innovation systems: The integration of local “sticky” and global “ubiquitous” knowledge. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asheim, B. T., Moodysson, J., & Tödtling, F. (2011a). Constructing regional advantage: Towards state-of-the-art regional innovation system policies in Europe? European Planning Studies, 19(7), 1133–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asheim, B., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011b). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional Studies, 45(7), 893–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boschma, R., & Fritsch, M. (2009). Creative class and regional growth: Empirical evidence from seven European countries. Economic Geography, 85, 391–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capello, R. (1999). Spatial transfer of knowledge in high-technology milieu: Learning versus collective learning processes. Regional Studies, 33(4), 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2014). New frontiers in open innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke, G., & Tracey, P. (2004). Global competitiveness and innovation. An agent-centred perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Bruijn, P., & Lagendijk, A. (2005). Regional innovation systems in the lisbon strategy. European Planning Studies, 13, 1153–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz, H., & Klofsten, M. (2005). The innovative region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R&D Management, 35(3), 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.). (2001). Universities and the global knowledge economy. A triple helix of university–industry–government relations. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  17. Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies: The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, M. (2001). Innovation, knowledge creation and systems of innovation. The Annals of Regional Science, 35(2), 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  21. Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Inkinen, T. (2010). Urban travel information and wireless technologies in Helsinki, Finland. Journal of Urban Technology, 17(2), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inkinen, T. (2015). Reflections on the innovative city: Examining three innovative locations in a knowledge bases framework. Journal of Open Innovation, 1(8), 1–23.Google Scholar
  24. Kellerman, A. (2002). The internet on earth. A geography of information. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Komninos, N. (2002). Intelligent cities: Innovation, knowledge systems, and digital spaces. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  26. Lambooy, J. (2007). The transmission of knowledge, emerging networks, and the role of the universities: An evolutionary approach. European Planning Studies, 12(5), 643–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lemola, T. (2003). Innovation policy in Finland. In: P. Biegelbauer & S. Borra´s (Eds.) Innovation policies in Europe and the US (pp. 77–92). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  28. Lemola, T. (2004). Finnish science and technology policy. In: G. Schienstock (Ed.) Embracing the knowledge economy. The dynamic transformation of the finnish innovation system (pp. 268–284). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  29. Lundvall, B. Å. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  30. Lundvall, B. Å., & Maskell, P. (2000). Nation states and economic development: From national systems of production to national systems of knowledge creation and learning. In G. L. Clark, M. P. Feldmann, & M. S. Gertler (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of economic geography (pp. 353–372). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Makkonen, T., & Inkinen, T. (2014). Innovation quality in knowledge cities: Empirical evidence of innovation award competitions in Finland. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(12), 5597–5604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Makkonen, T., Merisalo, M., & Inkinen, T. (2018). Containers, facilitators, innovators? The role of cities and city employees in innovative activities. In: European Urban and Regional Studies, iFirst.Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. OECD. (2013). Innovation-driven growth in regions: the role of smart specialisation. Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  35. Oughton, C., Landbaso, M., & Morgan, K. (2002). The regional innovation paradox: Innovation policy and industrial policy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Polenske, K. (Ed.). (2007). The economic geography of innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Scott, A. J. (2000). The cultural economy of cities. Essays on the geography of image-producing industries. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Scott, A. J. (Ed.). (2001). Global city-regions: Trends, theory, policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Simmie, J. (Ed.). (2001). Innovative cities. New York: Spon Press.Google Scholar
  40. Simmie, J. (2002). Knowledge spillovers and the reasons from the concentration of innovative SMEs. Urban Studies, 39, 885–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suorsa, K. (2007). Regionality, innovation policy and peripheral regions in Finland, Sweden and Norway. Fennia, 185(1), 15–29.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Yigitcanlar, T. (2016). Technology and the city: Systems, applications and implications. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yigitcanlar, T., Edvardsson, I. R., Johannesson, H., Kamruzzaman, M., Ioppolo, G., & Pancholi, S. (2017). Knowledge-based development dynamics in less favoured regions: Insights from Australian and Icelandic university towns. European Planning Studies, 25(12), 2272–2292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yigitcanlar, T., Inkinen, T., & Makkonen, T. (2015). Does size matter? Knowledge-based development of second-order city-regions in Finland. disP-The Planning Review, 51(3), 62–77.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