Abstract
This chapter takes a global perspective on innovative places. It examines 13 different places in the United States, Asia, and Europe. These places are selected as case studies for their diversity in innovation specialties and geography; this diversity allows them to represent a wide spectrum of global innovative places. For each place, the chapter provides background information, explores historical evolutions, identifies driving factors, and seeks best practice planning and policymaking approaches. Each place has a unique setting and history, but they have all achieved international recognition for innovation after several decades of development. Their success in becoming innovative places is dependent on sets of external and internal factors. The chapter summarises these enabling factors for each place to identify converging and diverging patterns. These summaries are not intended as blueprints to be transferred to other settings, but rather they inform a deeper understanding of the factors and approaches that have proven effective in making innovative places.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Andersson, J., Andresen, B., Palmehag, A., & Wessman, J. (2017). State of Medicon Valley 2017. Copenhagen: Medicon Valley Alliance.
Arcadis. (2015). Sustainable Cities Index 2015. Amsterdam: Arcadis.
Baily, M. N., & Montalbano, N. (2018). Clusters and Innovation Districts: Lessons from the United States Experience. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Bakici, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). A Smart City Initiative: The Case of Barcelona. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 135–148.
Barber, A., & Eastaway, M. P. (2010). Leadership Challenges in the Inner City: Planning for Sustainable Regeneration in Birmingham and Barcelona. Policy Studies, 31(4), 393–411.
Bloomberg. (2015). The Bloomberg Innovation Index. Retrieved May 20, 2017, from https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-innovative-countries/
Brinkhoff, T. (2017). City Population. Retrieved August 20, 2017, from http://www.citypopulation.de/
Business Tampere. (2016). Facts & Figures. Retrieved December 20, 2017, from https://investtampere.fi/why-tampere/facts-and-figures
Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the World: The Making of Twenty-First-Century Industrial Complexes. London: Routledge.
Census Organization of India. (2015). Bangalore (Bengaluru) City Census 2011 Data. Retrieved May 20, 2017, from http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/448-bangalore.html
Charnock, G., & Ribera-Fumaz, R. (2011). A New Space for Knowledge and People? Henri Lefebvre, Representations of Space, and the Production of 22@Barcelona. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29, 613–632.
Copenhagen Capacity & Invest in Skane. (2018). Medicon Valley: The Ecosystem. Retrieved August 1, 2018, from http://www.mediconvalley.com/about-medicon-valley/ecosystem
Danish Energy Agency. (2017). Denmark’s Energy and Climate Outlook 2017. Copenhagen: Danish Energy Agency.
Dercon, C. (2015). Why Is Berlin Such a Magnet for Artists? Retrieved October 20, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150430-the-worlds-most-creative-city
European Commission. (2014). Europe More Innovative but Regional Differences Persist [Press Release]. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2017). Ten Cities Enter the Final Round of the 2017 European Capital of Innovation Contest. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?&na=na-290817&pg=newsalert&utm_campaign=58c985f573a6a3222e00ec4c&utm_content=59a57c653622f1089c012a1d&utm_medium=smarpshare&utm_source=twitter&year=2017
Jung, N. (2013). Relational Governance and the Formation of a New Economic Space: The Case of Teheran Valley, Seoul, Korea. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4), 1233–1253.
Jutgla, E. D., & Pallares-Barbera, M. (2015). Industrial Heritage, Economic Revitalization and Urban Compactness in Poblenau-22@Barcelona. A New Barcelona Model? Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 69, 493–497.
Lonnqvist, A., Kapyla, J., Salonius, H., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2014). Knowledge That Matters: Identifying Regional Knowledge Assets of the Tampere Region. European Planning Studies, 22(10), 2011–2029.
Massro, R., & Jennings, J. (2016). 2016 Silicon Valley Index. San Jose: Joint Venture Silicon Valley.
Mercer. (2017). 2017 Quality of Living Worldwide City Rankings Survey. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from https://www.mercer.com.au
Miao, J. T. (2018). Knowledge Economy Challenges for the Post-developmental State: Tsukuba Science City as an In-Between Place. Town Planning Review, 89(1), 61–84.
Monocle. (2015). The Monocle Quality of Life Survey 2015. Retrieved August 1, 2017, from https://monocle.com/film/affairs/the-monocle-quality-of-life-survey-2015/
Morisson, A. (2015). Innovation Districts: A Toolkit for Urban Leaders. Middletown: CreativeSpace.
OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014: Denmark. Retrieved August 1, 2018, from http://www.oecd.org/education/Denmark-EAG2014-Country-Note.pdf
Pareja-Eastaway, M., & Pique, J. M. (2011). Urban Regeneration and the Creative Knowledge Economy: The Case of 22@ in Barcelona. Journal of Urban Regeneration & Renewal, 4(4), 319–327.
Park, S. C., & Lee, S. K. (2005). The National and Regional Innovation Systems in Finland: From the Path Dependency to the Path Creation Approach. AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, 19(2), 180–195.
Roos, G., Fernstrom, L., & Gupta, O. (2005). National Innovation Systems: Finland, Sweden and Australia Compared. Sydney: Australian Business Foundation.
Schienstock, G. (2004). Embracing the Knowledge Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2017). Changes in Population. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from http://stat.seoul.go.kr/octagonweb/jsp/WWS7/WWSDS7100.jsp
The Economist. (2018). The Geography of Technology: A Victim of Its Own Success. The Economist. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/09/01/silicon-valley-is-changing-and-its-lead-over-other-tech-hubs-narrowing
The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2017). Global Liveability Ranking and Report 2017. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Liveability-Ranking-Free-Summary-Report-August-2017.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=Liveability17
United States Census Bureau. (2010). American FactFinder. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
United States Census Bureau. (2017). QuickFacts: Emeryville City, California. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/emeryvillecitycalifornia/INC110215
Wikimedia Commons. (2017). Venture Capital Investment Silicon Valley. Retrieved October 4, 2018, from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Silicon_Vally_Venture_Capital_investment.png
Wong, K. W., & Bunnell, T. (2006). ‘New Economy’ Discourse and Spaces in Singapore: A Case Study of One-north. Environment and Planning A, 38, 69–83.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blakely, E.J., Hu, R. (2019). Global Innovative Places. In: Crafting Innovative Places for Australia’s Knowledge Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3618-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3618-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3617-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3618-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)