The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda

  • Laura Lecluyse
  • Mirjam Knockaert
  • André Spithoven


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.


Science parks Contribution Literature review Technology transfer 

JEL Classification




The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from The National Bank of Belgium and The Special Research Fund of Ghent University.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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. Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amirahmadi, H., & Saff, G. (1993). Science parks: A critical assessment. Journal of Planning Literature, 8(2), 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Anttiroiko, A. V. (2004). Global competition of high-tech centres. International Journal of Technology Management, 28(3–6), 289–323.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Autio, E., & Rannikko, H. (2016). Retaining winners: Can policy boost high-growth entrepreneurship? Research Policy, 45(1), 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bass, S. J. (1998). Japanese research parks: National policy and local development. Regional Studies, 32(5), 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bathelt, H., & Zhao, J. (2016). Conceptualizing multiple clusters in mega-city regions: The case of the biomedical industry in Beijing. Geoforum, 75, 186–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bower, D. J. (1993). Successful joint ventures in science parks. Long Range Planning, 26(6), 114–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Cabral, R. (1998). The Cabral-Dahab science park management paradigm: An introduction. International Journal of Technology Management, 16(8), 721–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the world: The making of twenty-first-century industrial complexes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Chordá, I. M. (1996). Towards the maturity stage: An insight into the performance of French technopoles. Technovation, 16(3), 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Chou, T.-L., & Lin, Y. C. (2007). Industrial park development across the Taiwan Strait. Urban Studies, 44(8), 1405–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2000). Emergence and growth of high-tech activity in Cambridge and Grenoble. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(2), 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Eckardt, F. (2017). The multidimensional role of science parks in attracting international knowledge migrants. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 4(1), 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Falk, R. (2007). Measuring the effects of public support schemes on firms’ innovation activities: Survey evidence from Austria. Research Policy, 36(5), 665–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-related science parks—“Seedbeds” or “enclaves” of innovation? Technovation, 14(2), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Fikirkoca, A., & Saritas, O. (2012). Foresight for science parks: The case of Ankara University. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(10), 1071–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Flynn, D. M. (1993). Sponsorship and the survival of new organizations. Journal of Small Business Management, 31(1), 51–63.Google Scholar
  70. Foray, D. (2018). Smart specialisation strategies and industrial modernisation in European regions—Theory and practice. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 42(6), 1505–1520.Google Scholar
  71. Forsyth, A., & Crewe, K. (2010). Suburban technopoles as places: The international campus-garden-suburb style. Urban Design International, 15(3), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  75. Gans, J., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32(2), 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Goldstein, H. A., & Luger, M. I. (1990). Science/technology parks and regional development theory. Economic Development Quarterly, 4(1), 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Goldstein, H. A., & Luger, M. I. (1992). University-based research parks as a rural development strategy. Policy Studies Journal, 20(2), 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Good, M., Knockaert, M., Soppe, B., & Wright, M. (2018). The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective. Technovation. Scholar
  81. Guy, I. (1996). A look at Aston Science Park. Technovation, 16(5), 217–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Gwynne, P. (1993). Directing technology in Asia’s “dragons”. Research Technology Management, 36(2), 12–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8), 1365–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Hommen, L., Doloreux, D., & Larsson, E. (2006). Emergence and growth of Mjärdevi Science Park in Linköping, Sweden. European Planning Studies, 14(10), 1331–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Hu, A. G. (2007). Technology parks and regional economic growth in China. Research Policy, 36(1), 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Hung, W. C. (2012). Measuring the use of public research in firm R&D in the Hsinchu Science Park. Scientometrics, 92(1), 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. IASP. (2017). IASP in a few words. Retrieved November 9, 2017 from
  96. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Jonsson, O. (2002). Innovation processes and proximity: The case of IDEON firms in Lund, Sweden. European Planning Studies, 10(6), 705–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Kinsella, N. S. (2001). Against intellectual property. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 15(2), 1–54.Google Scholar
  101. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Koçak, Ö., & Can, Ö. (2014). Determinants of inter-firm networks among tenants of science technology parks. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(2), 467–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Ku, Y. L., Liau, S.-J., & Hsing, W.-C. (2005). The high-tech milieu and innovation-oriented development. Technovation, 25(2), 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Lee, W.-H., & Yang, W.-T. (2000). The cradle of Taiwan high technology industry development—Hsinchu Science Park (HSP). Technovation, 20(1), 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Lin, G. T. R., & Sun, C.-C. (2010). Driving industrial clusters to be nationally competitive. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(1), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Link, A. N., & Link, K. R. (2003). On the growth of U.S. Science Parks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003a). The growth of Research Triangle Park. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2006). U.S. University Research Parks. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 25(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2018). Geographic proximity and science parks. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. Scholar
  126. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden—Industrial renewal and development? R&D Management, 31(3), 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2003). Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science parks and business policy in growing firms. Technovation, 23(1), 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Malairaja, C., & Zawdie, G. (2008). Science parks and university–industry collaboration in Malaysia. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 727–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Massey, D., & Wield, D. (2003). High-tech fantasies: Science parks in society, science and space. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 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.Google Scholar
  138. Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Technology business incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Mieg, H. A. (2012). Sustainability and innovation in urban development: Concept and case. Sustainable Development, 20(4), 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Research excellence and university–industry collaboration in UK science parks. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Monck, C. S., Porter, R. B., Quintas, P., & Storey, D. J. (1988). Science parks and the growth of high technology firms. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  144. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Nahm, K.-B. (2000). The evolution of science parks and metropolitan development. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 4(1), 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. OECD. (2011). Regions and innovation policy. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Park, S. C. (2004). The city of brain in South Korea: Daedeok science town. International Journal of Technology Management, 28(3–6), 602–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, J. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  152. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Phillips, M. S.-A., & Yeung, H. W. (2003). A place for R&D? The Singapore Science Park. Urban Studies, 40(4), 707–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: Questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Radosevic, S., & Myrzakhmet, M. (2009). Between vision and reality: Promoting innovation through technoparks in an emerging economy. Technovation, 29(10), 645–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Ratinho, T., & Henriques, E. (2010). The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation, 30(4), 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 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.Google Scholar
  163. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Salvador, E., Mariotti, I., & Conicella, F. (2013). Science park or innovation cluster? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 19(6), 656–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Secundo, G., & Elia, G. (2014). A performance measurement system for academic entrepreneurship: A case study. Measuring Business Excellence, 18(3), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Shin, D.-H. (2001). An alternative approach to developing science parks: A case study from Korea. Papers in Regional Science, 80(1), 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Squicciarini, M. (2009). Science parks: Seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms’ patenting activity. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Stephan, U., Hart, M., & Drews, C. C. (2015). Understanding motivations for entrepreneurship: A review of recent research evidence. Report, Birmingham: Enterprise Research Centre.Google Scholar
  179. Storey, D., & Tether, B. (1998). Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union. Research Policy, 26(9), 1037–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Tan, J. (2006). Growth of industry clusters and innovation: Lessons from Beijing Zhongguancun Science Park. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 827–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. UKSPA. (2017). About UKSPA. Retrieved October 4, 2017 from
  184. Vaidyanathan, G. (2008). Technology parks in a developing country: The case of India. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Walcott, S. M. (2002). Chinese industrial and science parks: Bridging the gap. The Professional Geographer, 54(3), 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1998). Independent technology-based firms: The perceived benefits of a science park location. Urban Studies, 35(12), 2197–2219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1999). Perceived benefits of a managed science park location. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(2), 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1994). An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the United Kingdom. Richmond: HM Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  198. Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1995). Links between higher education institutions and high technology firms. Omega, 23(4), 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2010). Commercialization strategies of technology: Lessons from Silicon Valley. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(2), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Yin, R. K. (2004). The case study anthology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  206. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.University of Oslo, Digitization & EntrepreneurshipOsloNorway
  3. 3.Belgian Science Policy OfficeBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations