Abstract
This paper summarizes the extant literature on science and technology parks in an effort to provide a foundation to stimulate additional research in this globally important topic. We find from our review of published scholarship over the past 30 years that attention to science and technology parks has indeed increased, but it has not yet exploded. We also find that the current distribution of the country focus of this research is skewed toward China, the United Kingdom, Spain, and the United States. Emphasis on studies related to UK and US parks has been primarily due to data availability; in China and Spain the emphasis has been primarily on case studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Notes
Our effort to summarize the works and findings of the scholars listed in the “Appendix” table in a few sentences is without question an over-simplification of their due diligence. Our sincere apology if we have overstated or understated any key findings. Such was completely unintentional.
Any omissions to the table in the “Appendix” are unintentional. We relied on references in other papers and on Internet searches to assemble the table. That approach to identifying the literature is biased against us finding all relevant book chapters and books. We hope that our review will stimulate others to expand on this literature review and to develop a taxonomy that characterizes it.
Future reviews might well construct alternative categories.
Some case studies relate to parks in different countries, some literature reviews are not country specific, and those publications related to evaluation methods are not country specific.
This finding holds for empirical as well as case study publication.
References
Albahari, A., Catalano, G., & Landoni, P. (2013a). 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. (2013b). Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference? MPRA paper 49227.
Albahari, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Landoni, P. (2010). Science and Technology Parks impacts on tenant organizations: A review of literature. MPRA paper 41914.
Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D. C., & Varsakelis, N. C. (2002). Science park, a high tech fantasy: An analysis of the science parks in Greece. Technovation, 22(2), 123–128.
Carvalho, L. (2009). Four challenges for a new science park: AvePark in Guimaraes, Portugal. Urban Research and Practice, 2(1), 103–108.
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. A., Oerlemans, L. A. G., & Pretorius, M. W. (2010). Knowledge exchange behaviors of science park firms: The innovation hub scene. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(2), 207–228.
Chen, C., Chien, C., & Lai, C. (2013). Cluster policies and industry development in the Hsinchu Science Park: A retrospective review after 30 years. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, 15(4), 416–436.
Chou, T. (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.
Dabrowska, J. (2011). Measuring the success of science parks: Performance monitoring and evaluation. Presented at the XXVIII IASP world conference on science and technology parks.
Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2015). Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: How can firms benefit most? Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 70–84.
Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, A. (2016). How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation, 50–51, 41–52.
Druilhe, C., & Garnsey, E. (2000). Emergence and growth of high-tech activity in Cambridge and Grenoble. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(2), 163–177.
Edington, D. W. (2008). The Kyoto Research Park and innovation in Japanese cities. Urban Geography, 29(5), 411–450.
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.
Feldman, J. M. (2007). The managerial equation and innovation platforms: The case of Linkoping and Berzelius Science Park. European Planning Studies, 15(8), 1027–1045.
Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs: Location, survival and growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 5–17.
Fikirkoca, A., & Saritas, O. (2012). Foresight for science parks: The case of Ankara University. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(10), 1071–1085.
Fu, W. (2016). Industrial clusters as hothouses for nascent entrepreneurs? The Case of Tianhe Software Park in Guangzhou, China. Annals of Regional Science, 57(1), 253–270.
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.
Fukugawa, N. (2015). Heterogeneity among science parks with incubators as intermediaries of research collaboration between startups and universities in Japan. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, 12(4), 231–262.
Gibson, L. J., Lim, J., & Pavlakovich-Kochi, V. (2012). The university research park as a micro-cluster: Mapping its development and anatomy. Studies in Regional Science, 43(2), 177–189.
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.
Gower, S. M., & Harris, F. C. (1994). The funding of, and investment in, British science parks: A review. Journal of Property Finance, 5(3), 7–18.
Guadix, J., Carrillo-Castrillo, J., Onieva, L., & Navascués, J. (2016). Success variables in science and technology parks. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4870–4875.
Guo, Y., & Verdini, G. (2015). The role of geographical proximity in the establishment and development of science parks—evidence from Nanjing, China. Asian Geographer, 32(2), 117–133.
Guy, I. (1996a). A look at Aston Science Park. Technovation, 16(5), 217–218.
Guy, I. (1996b). New ventures on an ancient campus. Technovation, 16(6), 269–270.
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.
Hommen, L., Doloreux, D., & Larsson, E. (2006). Emergence and growth of Mjardevi Science Park in Linkoping, Sweden. European Planning Studies, 14(10), 1331–1361.
Huibing, X., & Nengli, S. (2005). Exploration of science parks. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 3(1), 55–59.
Jongwanich, J., Kohpaiboon, A., & Yang, C. (2014). Science park, triple helix, and regional innovative capacity: Province-level evidence from China. Journal of Asia Pacific Economy, 19(2), 333–352.
Joseph, R. A. (1994). New ways to make technology parks more relevant. Prometheus, 12(1), 46–61.
Kharabsheh, R. (2012). Critical success factors of technology parks in Australia. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4(7), 57–66.
Lai, H. C., & Shyu, J. Z. (2005). A comparison of innovation capacity at science parks across the Taiwan Strait: The case Zhangjiang High-Tech Park and Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park. Technovation, 25(7), 805–813.
Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2015). The role of science parks: A puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-015-9455-2.
Larsen, K. (2004). Science and technology parks and the integration of environmental policy. Innovation: Management, Policy, and Practice, 6(2), 294–305.
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. IEEE 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. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 694–729.
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. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 311–326.
Link, A. N. (1995). A generosity of spirit: The early history of the Research Triangle Park. Research Triangle Park: The Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina.
Link, A. N. (2002). From seed to harvest: The growth of the Research Triangle Park. Research Triangle Park: The Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina.
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). US science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic mission 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 US 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. (2015). Research, science, and technology parks: Vehicles for technology transfer. In A. N. Link, D. S. Siegel, & M. Wright (Eds.), The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Malairaja, C., & Zawdie, G. (2008). Science parks and university–industry collaboration in Malaysia. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 727–739.
Massey, D., & Wield, D. (1992). Evaluating science parks. Local Economy, 7(1), 10–25.
Millar, C. C. J. M., Choi, C. J., & Chu, R. T. J. (2005). The state in science, technology, and innovation districts: Conceptual models for China. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 17(3), 367–373.
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. (2000). The evolution of science parks and metropolitan development. International Journal of Urban Science, 4(1), 81–95.
National Research Council. (2009). Understanding research, science and technology parks: Global best practices. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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.
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.
Quéré, M. (1989). The Provence Alpes Cote d’ Azur high technology road: A technopolis network. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1(2), 155–166.
Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry link and innovation: Questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161–175.
Robertson, M. (2007). Translating breakthroughs in genetics into biomedical innovation: The case of UK genetic knowledge parks. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(2), 189–204.
Russel, M. G., & Moss, D. J. (1989). Science parks and economic development. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 14(1), 54–63.
Rychev, M. V. (1993). Moscow University’s science park. Russian Education & Society, 35(12), 75–80.
Salvador, E. (2011). Are science parks and incubators good ‘brand names’ for spin-offs? The case study of Turin. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 203–232.
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. (2011). 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 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 UK evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 20(2), 177–184.
Simmie, J., & James, N. D. (1986). Will science parks generate the fifth wave? Planning Outlook, 29(2), 54–57.
Sofouli, E., & Vonortas, N. S. (2007). S&T parks and business incubators in middle-sized countries: The case of Greece. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5), 525–544.
Squicciarini, M. (2009). Science parks, knowledge spillovers, and firms’ innovative performance: Evidence from Finland. Economics, 32, 1–28. http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2009-32.
Sutherland, D. (2005). China’s science parks: Production bases or a tool for institutional reform? Asia Pacific Business Review, 11(1), 83–104.
Vaidyanathan, G. (2008). Technology parks in a developing country: The case of India. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 285–299.
Vásquez-Urriago, A. 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, A. 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), 491–502.
Wang, K., & Liu, J. (2009). The dynamic effects of government-supported R&D subsidies: An empirical study on the Taiwan Science Park. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 17(1), 1–12.
Watkins-Mathys, L., & Foster, M. J. (2006). Entrepreneurship: The missing ingredient in China’s STIPs? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18(3), 249–274.
Wessner, C. (1999). A review of the Sandia Science and Technology Park initiative. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Westhead, P. (1995). New owner-managed businesses in rural and urban areas in Great Britian: A matched pairs comparison. Regional Studies, 29(4), 367–380.
Westhead, P. (1997). R&D ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’ of technology-based firms located on and off science parks. R&D Management, 27(1), 45–61.
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., Batstone, S., & Martin, F. (2000). Technology-based firms located on science parks: The applicability of Bullock’ ‘soft-hard’ model. Enterprise Innovation and Management Studies, 1(2), 107–139.
Westhead, P., & Cowling, M. (1995). Employment change in independent owner-managed high-technology firms in Great Britain. Small Business Economics, 7(2), 111–140.
Westhead, P., & Storey, D. (1994). An assessment of firms located on and off science parks in the United Kingdom. London: HMSO.
Westhead, P., & Storey, D. (1997). Financial constraints on the growth of high-technology small firms in the UK. Applied Financial Economics, 7(2), 197–201.
Westhead, P., Storey, D. J., & Cowling, M. (1995). An exploratory analysis of the factors associated with the survival of independent high-technology firms in Great Britain. In F. Chittenden, M. Robertson, & I. Marshall (Eds.), Small firms: Partnerships for growth. London: Paul Chapman.
Yang, W., & Lee, W. (2000). A study on management performance of Taiwan high technology industry—the Hsinchu Science Park experience. Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, 21(1), 19–44.
Zeng, S., Xie, X., & Tam, C. (2010). Evaluating innovation capabilities for science parks: A system model. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(3), 397–413.
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.
Zhou, Y. (2005). The making of an innovative region from a centrally planned economy: Institutional evolution in Zhongguancun Science Park in Beijing. Environment and Planning A, 37(6), 1113–1134.
Zhu, D., & Tann, J. (2012). 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. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 663–674.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Literature related to science and technology parks (authors listed alphabetically)
Appendix: Literature related to science and technology parks (authors listed alphabetically)
Author(s) | Category of study | Country(ies) | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
Albahari et al. (2013b) | Empirical | Spain | Finds that the more involved a university is in management of the park the more slowly firms move innovations to market products. Involvement is positively related to the propensity of firms to apply for patents; involvement does not affect the propensity of firms to cooperate with the university nor with the amount of R&D funding from the university |
Albahari et al. (2010) | Literature review | Italy Spain | Literature review of the role that science and technology parks play in supporting R&D activities in both public research firms and other organizations |
Albahari et al. (2013a) | Empirical | Spain | Analysis of Spanish science and technology parks. Finds that involvement of a university in the STP has a negative effect on tenant innovation sales but a positive effect on the number of patent applications |
Bakouros et al. (2002) | Case study | Greece | Case study of three science parks in Greece. Appear to be no research synergies between the university and the park tenants in any of the parks |
Carvalho (2009) | Case study | Portugal | Case study of the challenges that face new science and technology parks as reflected in the challenges faced by AvePark in Guimarães, Portugal |
Chan et al. (2010) | Case study | South Africa | Case study of the Innovation Hub in Pretoria, South Africa. The conclusion is that the innovative performance of in-park firms and off-park firms is not different |
Chan and Lau (2005) | Evaluation methods | China | Using a set of evaluation criteria, data from six technology start-ups in the Hong Kong Science Park are studied. Findings do not support the claim that incubators are effective in the development process for firms |
Chen et al. (2013) | Case study | China | History of the development of Hsinchu Science Park in China over the past 30 years |
Chou (2007) | Case study | Taiwan | International, national, and subnational forces caused a polycentric development of the Hsinchu science-based industrial park in Taiwan, which in turn has led to governance issues in the region |
Dabrowska (2011) | Evaluation methods | – | Proposes a matrix of indicators to measure performance of science parks in order to create consistency in science park evaluations |
Díez-Vial and Fernández-Olmos (2015) | Empirical | Spain | Shows that firms located on or near science and technology parks in Spain benefit the most from their location if they have had previous cooperative research agreements with universities and their research institutions |
Díez-Vial and Montoro-Sánchez (2016) | Case study | Spain | Case study of firms in the Madrid Science Park in Spain finds firms that pursue formal agreements and informal interactions with the university tend to increase their innovative capacity, while firms that focus on their internal knowledge network tend to increase their innovative outputs |
Druilhe and Garnsey (2000) | Case study | France UK | Comparative case study of the birth and growth of Cambridge (UK) and Grenoble (France) high-tech centers |
Edgington (2008) | Case study | Japan | Case study of the history of the Kyoto Research Park in Japan and the park’s current relationship with regional and local innovation systems |
Eto (2005) | Theoretical | Japan | Identified cultural differences between the administration and businesses world and the science and technology (ST) world as a reason for Japan’s successful outcomes of science and technology policy toward parks |
Feldman (2007) | Case study | Sweden | Explores the political and economic origins of the science park in Linköping, Sweden. Generalizes that growth projects like science parks build on coalitions and networks that are focused on linking together innovative, political, and financial resources |
Ferguson and Olofsson (2004) | Empirical | Sweden | Using matched pairs of firms, there do not appear to be any performance differences between on-park and off-park firms |
Fikirkoca and Saritas (2012) | Case study | Turkey | Case study of the science park at Ankara University in Turkey. Discusses factors associated with the success of the park and concludes that the park has built itself by leveraging complementary resources |
Fu (2016) | Case study | China | Case study of Tianhe Software Park (TSP) in Guangzhou, China, that chronicles the start-up stories of entrepreneurs that clustered in the park |
Fukugawa (2006) | Empirical | Japan | Examines matched-pairs of firms on and off of Japanese parks and concludes that research linkages are more likely formed with universities if firms are on a park than off of a park |
Fukugawa (2015) | Empirical | Japan | Shows, using data on Japanese science parks with incubators, that research cooperation with universities is positively related to whether the managers of the incubators have a broad scope of professional experiences |
Gibson et al. (2012) | Theoretical | – | Suggests that the impact of a park on the local economy can best be understood in terms of the core activities of firms on the park and their inter-relationships |
Gkypali et al. (2016) | Empirical | Greece | Argues that a latent knowledge production function is a useful tool for evaluating the performance of science and technology parks in terms of their regional impacts |
Goldstein and Luger (1990) | Empirical | US | Based on a comparison of university-based and non-university based parks in the United States, concludes that a firm’s decision about the type of park in which to locate is based on the firm’s linkages to the university |
Goldstein and Luger (1992) | Theoretical | US | Discussion of conditions, such as firm spinoffs, that are necessary for a park to have a positive impact on regional development. Conclusions based on a study of US parks |
Gower and Harris (1994) | Empirical | UK | Examines sources of funding and investment dollars for UK science parks. Concludes from descriptive analysis that public sector support is the dominant source of funding |
Guadix et al. (2016) | Theoretical | Spain | Based on characteristics of parks in Spain, models are suggested for identifying park strategies that lead to successful parks |
Guo and Verdini (2015) | Case study | China | Firms locate in Cuiping Technology and Innovation Park in China mainly because of incentives such as tax subsidies and land support; of secondary consideration is the availability of human capital, infrastructure, and facilities |
Guy (1996a) | Case study | UK | Overviews the formation and growth of Aston Science Park in the UK |
Guy (1996b) | Case study | UK | Case study of the Oxford Science Park in the UK with an emphasis on how it has maintained linkages between the university and industry |
Hansson et al. (2005) | Case study | Denmark UK | Two case studies. One was Symbion, a traditional science park near Copenhagen, and the other was the park at the University of Newcastle. Compares and contrasts, based on interviews, growth strategies of the parks |
Hommen et al. (2006) | Case study | Sweden | Case study of the historical development of the growth of the Mjärdevi Science Park in Sweden |
Huibing and Nengli (2005) | Theoretical | China | Offers a retrospective look at the development of China’s science parks and argues that a strategy is needed in China for developing high-tech clusters |
Jongwanich et al. (2014) | Empirical | China | Analysis of data shows that science parks have a positive impact on regional patenting and have acted as a stimulus to coordinating collaborative R&D efforts among firms |
Joseph (1994) | Theoretical | Australia | Drawing on lessons learned about parks from the literature, an argument is set forth that parks should not be evaluated in terms of being just another element within a linear model of innovation. New evaluation methods are needed |
Kharabsheh (2012) | Empirical | Australia | Based on interviews, key managerial characteristics associated with the success of technology parks are identified |
Lai and Shyu (2005) | Case study | China Taiwan | Case study compares the innovation capacity of Zhangjiang High-Tech Park in China with the Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park in Taiwan. Differences between the parks are found in research infrastructure and clusters |
Lamperti et al. (2015) | Empirical | Italy | An analysis of on-park and off-park firms finds that location on a park is associated with more innovation and more investments in R&D, while location is not associated with the growth of firms |
Larsen (2004) | Case study | Finland Sweden | Case study of two parks: Hermia in Tampere, Finland, and Kista Science City in Stockholm, Sweden. Drivers promoting better environmental management are identified |
Leyden et al. (2008) | Theoretical | – | Model of park growth is developed under the assumption that parks invite firms to join a park based on their potential spillover benefits (i.e., knowledge spillover benefits) to existing park firms |
Liberati et al. (2016) | Empirical | Italy | Analysis shows that firms entering a science and technology park did not generally improve their propensity to innovate when compared to being outside of the parks |
Empirical | Sweden | On-park and off-park firms view performance differently. On-park firms emphasize innovation and market measures (i.e., profitability) more so than off-park firms | |
Link (1995) | Case study | US | Case study of the early history of establishing Research Triangle Park in North Carolina |
Link (2002) | Case study | US | Case study of the growth of Research Triangle Park in North Carolina |
Link and Scott (2003a) | Empirical | US | Relies on the history of Research Triangle Park in North Carolina to illustrate the growth in tenants and employees in the park over time |
Link and Scott (2003b) | Empirical | US | Analysis shows that the growth of park formations follows a Gompertz survival-time model; formal park-university relationships lead to increased university publication and patenting activity, greater extramural funding success, and enhanced ability to hire preeminent scholars |
Link and Scott (2005) | Empirical | US | Examines the determinants of spin-off companies from university research parks. Findings are that the propensity is greater in older parks and in parks that are associated with richer university research environments |
Link and Scott (2006) | Empirical | US | Develops a model to describe the growth, or productivity, of research parks. Findings are that parks closer to the university, operated by a private organization, and with a specific technology focus grow faster than average |
Link and Scott (2007) | Literature review | – | Reviews the literature on science and technology parks to date and outlines an agenda for additional theoretical and empirical research on this topic |
Link and Scott (2015) | Literature review | – | Updates the literature review in Link and Scott (2007) |
Malairaja and Zawdie (2008) | Empirical | Malaysia | Matched pairs study shows that on-park firms have more research links with universities than off-park firms |
Massey and Wield (1992) | Evaluation methods | – | Suggests that because the outcomes of science parks are so varied, no generalizations are possible about park success |
Millar et al. (2005) | Theoretical | China | Identifies potential role of the state in pursuing the creation of technology districts, and outlines implications of these roles for what the authors refer to as China’s “social market economy” |
Motohashi (2013) | Empirical | China | Identifies the determinants of start-up firms in the Tsinghua Science Park in Beijing, China. Findings are that when firms’ innovations are grounded in their own competitive advantage they perform better than firms that engage in formal R&D collaboration with the university in the absence of such advantage |
Nahm (2000) | Case study | South Korea | Provides an overview of the science park movement in South Korea and examines the history, present, and future of the Digital Media City in Seoul, South Korea |
Phan et al. (2005) | Literature review | – | Review of the papers in a special issue of Journal of Business Venturing on science parks |
Phillimore (1999) | Case study | Australia | Case study of the Western Australian Technology Park. Presents a taxonomy of how firms interact within the park |
Quéré (1989) | Case study | France | Presents an historical trace of the development of technopoles in France |
Qunitas et al. (1992) | Literature review | UK | Examines the empirical literature on science parks relevant to the UK and concludes that the evidence does not support the contention that parks create linkages between academic research and industrial activity |
Robertson (2007) | Case study | UK | Case study of public sector involvement in the creation of Genetic Knowledge Parks in the UK for the purpose of systematically integrating new genetics and genomics knowledge to develop new treatments and services |
Russel and Moss (1989) | Theoretical | – | Makes recommendations for planning science parks in developing countries or in developing areas of developed countries |
Rychev (1993) | Case study | Russia | Case study of Moscow University’s Science Park and how the park has affected innovative activity in the country |
Salvador (2011) | Case study | Italy | Case study of incubators and science and technology parks located in Turin, Italy. Concludes that lack of funding and lack of managerial experience are drivers for the lack of success in these parks |
Shearmur and Doloreux (2000) | Empirical | Canada | Analysis of Canadian parks show that there is no link between the opening of a science park and employment growth in the regional high-tech sectors |
Shin (2011) | Case study | South Korea | Overviews the development of Daeduck Science Park in Taejon, South Korea |
Siegel et al. (2003a) | Empirical | UK | Matched pairs study of on-park and off-park UK firms. Research productivity of on-park firms greater than that of off-park firms |
Siegel et al. (2003b) | Literature review | UK | Reviews recent evidence comparing the performance of firms located on- and off- science parks in the UK |
Simmie and James (1986) | Theoretical | UK | Argues that innovation does not lead to long waves of economic growth and therefore the failure of employment outcomes at UK science parks was to be expected |
Sofouli and Vonortas (2007) | Case study | Greece | Case study of the development and growth of science and technology parks and business incubators in Greece |
Squicciarini (2009) | Empirical | Finland | Finds that the innovative performance of firms located inside a science park is greater due to knowledge spillovers |
Sutherland (2005) | Case study | China | Case study of the development of China’s strategy to develop science parks and business incubators in pursuit of institutional reform of its innovation system |
Vaidyanathan (2008) | Case study | India | Case study of the institutional history of technology parks in India |
Vásquez-Urriago et al. (2014) | Empirical | Spain | Analyzes the positive impact for firms located on Spanish science and technology parks in terms of the firms’ ability to achieve product innovations |
Vásquez-Urriago et al. (2016) | Empirical | Spain | Analysis shows that when firms locate in a science and technology park the likelihood of cooperation for innovation increases |
Vedovello (1997) | Case study | UK | Case study of Surrey Research Park in the UK. The park has facilitated informal, but not formal, university–industry linkages |
Wang and Liu (2009) | Empirical | Taiwan | Analysis shows that public R&D subsidies substitute for private R&D investments among firms in the Hsinchu Science‐based Industrial Park in Taiwan |
Watkins-Mathys and Foster (2006) | Empirical | China | Analysis of the performance of hi-tech companies situated on science and technology industry parks and those located outside of such parks. Based on interviews and focus groups in the Beijing and Shanghai areas. Findings are that being located in a regional industry cluster (in or outside a park), networking opportunities, entrepreneurial skills, and access to more financial sources and capital are essential for commercializing new technologies |
Wessner (1999) | Case study | US | Overviews the background associated with Sandia National Laboratory’s Science and Technology Park |
Westhead (1995), Westhead and Cowling (1995), Westhead and Storey (1994, 1997), Westhead et al. (1995) | Empirical | UK | Matched pair comparison of on-park and off-park UK firm performance. Findings from the collection of papers are that the survival rate of on-park firms is greater than that of off-park firms |
Westhead (1997) | Empirical | UK | On-park UK firms do not directly invest more in R&D than off-park firms, nor do they record higher levels of technology diffusion |
Westhead and Batstone (1998) | Empirical | UK | Location on a UK science and technology park is driven by the firm’s need to acquire research facilities and scientists at the university |
Westhead and Batstone (1999) | Empirical | UK | Both managed and non-managed park firms appreciate the benefits of locating on a park; however, there are more perks provided to managed than non-managed park firms |
Westhead et al. (2000) | Empirical | UK | Finds that the UK science parks make a contribution to both wealth creation and job growth |
Yang and Lee (2000) | Empirical | Taiwan | Study of firms in Hsinchu Science Park, Taiwan. Availability and use of human capital has been critical for the growth of the park |
Zeng et al. (2010) | Case study | China | Case study of the development of Qingdao Science Park in China |
Zhang and Wu (2012) | Case study | China | Case study of Zhangjiang High-Tech Park in Shanghai, China. History of the park shows that the state action was critical in the initial stage of biotech concentration in the park; latter stage biotech development has been encouraged to become integrated with the global flows of knowledge |
Zhou (2005) | Case study | China | Traces the institutional evolution of Zhongguancun Science Park in Beijing, China |
Zhu and Tann (2012) | Case study | China | Discusses development of Zhongguancun Science Park in Beijing, China |
Zou and Zhao (2014) | Case study | China | Case study of Tsignhua University Science Park (TusPark) in China. History shows that the success of TusPark depends on its entrepreneurial leadership to promote technology commercialization, innovative activities, and regional economic growth |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hobbs, K.G., Link, A.N. & Scott, J.T. Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review. J Technol Transf 42, 957–976 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9522-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9522-3