Influence of Science, Technology and Innovation on Urban Sustainability

  • William H. Alfonso PiñaEmail author
  • Clara Inés Pardo Martínez


Cities are the centre of productive activity, which can be driven by investment in science, technology and innovation (STI) to improve growth, sustainable development, well-being and quality of life. This chapter seeks to describe the main trends in STI in some cities in Latin America and determine their relationship with economic performance. This chapter analyses three Latin American cities (Santiago de Chile, Mexico City and Bogotá); these cities have been recognized for their STI processes and economic performance in the region. The results indicate that cities with greater intensity of STI have greater economic growth, which also improves some social processes and increases benefits to the population. The scientific activities that articulate universities, the production sector and public research institutions converge with the better appropriation and use of technologies, which contribute to improving the performance of the city in general. In this context, it is important to promote policies based on STI requirements that allow for the promotion of smart cities and knowledge societies in the region as key elements of sustainable development, economic growth and social welfare based on the third and fourth helix approaches, which are successful models in developed countries, adapted to regional problems.


Science Technology and innovation Urban sustainability Economic and STI variables Latin American cities 


  1. Advertisement Feature. (2017). Measuring the Growth of Science and Technology Innovation in Shanghai. Retrieved from
  2. Aguila, M. V., Garrido Yserte, R., & Gallo Rivera, M. T. (2010). Los sistemas regionales de innovación: una caracterización para el caso de Chile. International Meeting on Regional Science – AECR, 1–32.Google Scholar
  3. Alfonso, W. (2014). Urbanization: Concepts, Trends and Analysis in Three Latin American Cities. Miscellanea Geographica – Regional Studies on Development, 18(3), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aritenang, A. F. (2013). The Role of Technology in Regional Development: TFP and Econometrics Analysis. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, 28(1), 149–158.Google Scholar
  5. Bogotá Government. (2016). Preliminary Project of Development Plan 2016–2019. Retrieved from
  6. Braconier, H. (2000). Do Higher Per Capita Incomes Lead to More R&D Expenditure? Review of Development Economics, 4(3), 244–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronzini, R., & Piselli, P. (2009). Determinants of Long-run Regional Productivity with Geographical Spillovers: The Role of R&D, Human Capital and Public Infrastructure. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 29, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caicedo Aspril, H. (2011). El papel de los sistemas regionales de innovación en ciudades región globales. Cuadernos de Administración, 27(45), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camagni, R. (2003). Incertidumbre, capital social y desarrollo local: enseñanzas para una gobernabilidad sostenible del territorio. Investigaciones Regionales, 2, 31–57.Google Scholar
  10. Capdevielle, M., & Dutrénit, G. (2012). Políticas para el Desarrollo productivo y la innovación: desafío y oportunidad para la economía mexicana. In J. Calva (Ed.), Nueva estrategia de industrialización. Análisis estratégico para el desarrollo (Vol. 7, pp. 153–185). Mexico City: Consejo Nacional Universitario.Google Scholar
  11. Cartajena, Y. (2016). Smart Cities in Latin América. United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Retrieved from
  12. Chadha, V. (2007). An Assessment of the Regional R&D Effort in India: An Inter-State Analysis of Selected Industrially Advanced States. Studies in Regional Science, 37(2), 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cimoli, M., Carlos, F. J., & Annalisa, P. (2005). Science and Technology Policies in in Open Economies: The Case of Latin America and the Caribbean (Vol. 165). Santiago de Chile: CEPAL – Serie desarrollo productivo.Google Scholar
  14. Coe, D., Helpman, E., & Hoffmaister, A. (1997). North-south Spillovers. Economic Journal, 107, 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, B. (2014a). Smart City Index Master Indicators Survey (2014).Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, B. (2014b). The 8 Smartest Cities in Latin America. Retrieved from
  17. Collazos Rodríguez, J., & Londoño Martínez, H. (2014). Escalafón global de ciudades para la atracción de inversión industrial en la cuenca del Pacífico latinoamericano. Estudios Gerenciales, 30(131), 103–114.Google Scholar
  18. Cooke, P., & Memedovic, O. (2003). Strategies for Regional Innovation Systems: Learning Transfer and Application. Policy Papers. Wien: UNIDO.Google Scholar
  19. Crescenzi, R., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Regional Knowledge Creation in China, India and the US. Lessons for European Regions. In R. Capello & C. Lenzi (Eds.), Territorial Patterns of Innovation: An Inquiry on the Knowledge Economy in European Regions (pp. 263–298). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Crescenzi, R., & Jaax, A. (2017). Innovation in Russia: The Territorial Dimension. Economic Geography, 93(1), 66–88.Google Scholar
  21. Dettori, B., Marrocu, E., & Paci, R. (2012). Total Factor Productivity, Intangible Assets and Spatial Dependence in the European Regions. Regional Studies, 46(10), 1401–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ECLAC. (2016). Science, Technology and Innovation in the Digital Economy. Retrieved from
  23. Gordon, J., & McCann, P. (2005). Clusters, Innovation and Regional Development: An Analysis of Current Theories and Evidence. In C. Karlsson, B. Johansson, & R. Stough (Eds.), Industrial Clusters and Inter-firm Networks (pp. 29–57). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Goschin, Z. (2014). R&D as an Engine of Regional Economic Growth in Romania. Romanian Journal of Regional Science, 8(1), 24–37.Google Scholar
  25. Hudson, R. (1999). The Learning Economy, the Learning Firm and the Learning Region: A Sympathetic Critique of the Limits to Learning. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krugman, P. (1979). A Model of Innovation, Technology Transfer and the World Distribution of Income. Journal of Political Economy, 87, 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ligenzowska, J. (2015). The Impact of Innovation on the Development of the Małopolska Region. Research Papers of Wrocław University of Economics (No. 394), pp. 64–71.Google Scholar
  28. Méndez, R., García Palomares, J., & Michelini, J. (2007). La construcción de ciudades innovadoras: transformaciones económicas recientes y desarrollo local en Getafe. Estudios Geográficos, 68(262), 173–203.Google Scholar
  29. Mexico City Government. (2016). Mexico City in the 2016 Smart Cities List! Retrieved from
  30. Mukim, M. (2012). Does Agglomeration Boost Innovation? An Econometric Evaluation. Spatial Economic Analysis, 7(3), 357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Noronha Vaz, E., Noronha Vaz, T., & Nijkamp, P. (2013). The Spatial-Institutional Architecture of Firms’ Innovative Behaviour. In K. Kourtit, P. Nijkamp, & B. Stimson (Eds.), Applied Modelling of Regional Growth and Innovation Systems (Tentative Title). Berlin: Springer Verlag. (in print).Google Scholar
  32. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). (2006). State of the English Cities – A Research Study (Vol. 1). London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Google Scholar
  33. OMPI. (2015, 17 de Septiembre de). Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual. Obtenido de Índice Mundial de Innovación 2015: Suiza, Reino Unido, Suecia, Países Bajos y EE.UU., en cabeza de lista. Retrieved from
  34. Porter, M. (2000). Sobre competitividad. Boston: Harvard Business Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Posner, M. (1961). International Trade and the Technical Change. Oxford Economic Papers, 13, 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramirez J., J. C., & Parra-Peña S., R. I. (2010). Escalafón de la competitividad de los departamentos en Colombia. Bogotá: CEPAL – Serie Estudios y Perspectivas.Google Scholar
  37. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Villareal Peralta, E. M. (2015). Innovation and Regional Growth in Mexico: 2000–2010. Growth and Change, 46(2), 172–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. SEDECO. (2016). Connectivity Plan Mexico City GCDMX. Retrieved from
  39. Solow, R. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.Google Scholar
  40. UNCTAD. (2013). Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Cities and Peri-urban Communities. Retrieved from
  41. Usai, S. (2011). The Geography of Inventive Activities in OECD Regions. Regional Studies, 45(6), 711–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Valdez-Lafarga, C., & León-Balderrama, J. I. (2015). Hacia una taxonomía de los sistemas regionales de innovación en México. Economía, Sociedad y Territorio, 15(48), 517–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wood, P. (2009). Service Competitiveness and Urban Innovation Policies in the UK: The Implications of the ‘London Paradox’. Regional Studies, 43(8), 1047–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • William H. Alfonso Piña
    • 1
    Email author
  • Clara Inés Pardo Martínez
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidad del RosarioBogotáColombia
  2. 2.School of ManagementUniversidad del RosarioBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations