A New Strategic Approach to Science Cities: Towards the Achievement of Sustainable and Balanced Spatial Development

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter addresses the new challenges facing the internationalisation of science city projects. It is predicated upon an assumption that such projects are underpinned by a desire to overcome and address the real or potential consequences of uneven spatial development. A further assumption underlying the arguments in this chapter acknowledges that technology and its development do not inevitably lead to a series of foregone or determined impacts. Rather the applications and uses of technology are mediated via social structures and influences, including spatial planning (Borja and Castells 1997). Spatial policies can shape and be shaped by the various ways in which the emergence of a knowledge economy might be mediated through specific localities and territorial characteristics. These specific characteristics of localities and the spatial outcomes of general policy ideas become elements for debate in any assessment seeking to understand such complex interactions. The chapter constructs a critical perspective of science cities in light of future scenarios generated by globalisation and sustainable development. These scenarios will frame future successful economic development and desires to increase prosperity and the quality of life in all cities and regions. Experiences and practices, largely from Europe, are examined with respect to the extent to which common approaches situated in markedly different socio-economic localities are also able to manage the transition from, initially, an industrial to post-industrial economic order, and currently, onwards to a knowledge-based regional economy. The chapter argues that a new strategic approach is required in order for science city projects to contribute to sustainable development in the future. A form of development that will create difficult trade-offs between economic, environmental and equity goals, based on new forms of indigenous development and territorial governance, and a new approach to the social construction and reproduction of innovation and learning. Such a new strategic approach finds expression in the practices of polycentric urban development, multi-level governance and integrated spatial planning. The chapter begins with an account of the project-based development of science parks and associated developments, such as business and innovation centres and technology parks, through to the development of more strategic approaches to encouraging innovative milieu, such as the technopolis policy, science cities, regional innovation systems and ‘smart’ cities. This account is followed by an assessment of the regional development models and analyses that have underpinned the ideas and practice, an assessment that provides insights into the future role that such approaches and public policy might play in the future, and the limits to this in a new global order seeking greater sustainability. The final section begins to map out and give articulation to what a new strategic approach to science cities might entail.

Keywords

Europe Marketing Agglomeration Percolate 

References

  1. Acs, Z. (2002). Innovation and the growth of cities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borja, J., & Castells, M. (1997). Local and global: Management of cities in the information age. London: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Castells, M. (1989). The informational city. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the world: The making of 21st century industrial complexes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1997). The associational economy: Firms, regions and innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Davoudi, S. (2003). Polycentricity in European spatial planning: From an analytical tool to a normative agenda. European Planning Studies, 11(8), 979–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EC. (1994). Regional technology plans guide book. Brussels: European Commission DGXVI/DGXII.Google Scholar
  8. Echenique, M., & Saint, A. (Eds.). (2001). Cities for the new millennium. London: Spon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Florida, R. (2001). Foreward in Acs, Z. (2002). Innovation and the growth of cities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  10. Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (1996). Telecommunications and the city. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldstein, H., & Luger, M. (1992). Theory and practice in high-tech economic development. In R. Bingham, et al. (Eds.), Theories of local economic development. CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Gualini, E. (2004). Multi-level governance and institutional change. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  13. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Harvey, D. (1998). The urban experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Hassink, R. (1993). Regional innovation policies compared. Urban Studies, 30(6), 326–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. HMG. (2005). Securing the future: Government’s sustainable development strategy. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  17. Jenks, M., & Dempsey, N. (Eds.). (2005). Future forms and design for sustainable cities. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  18. Komninos, N. (1997). After technopoles: Diffused strategies for innovation and technology transfer. In J. Simmie (Ed.), Innovation, networks and learning regions (pp. 181–195). London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  19. Komninos, N. (2002). Intelligent cities: Innovation, knowledge systems and digital spaces. London: Spon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Landabaso, M. (1999). EU policy on innovation and regional development. In F. Boekema, K. Morgan, S. Bakkers & R. Rutten (Eds.), Knowledge, innovation and economic growth: The theory and practice of learning regions. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  21. Masser, I. (1990). Technology and regional development policy: A review of Japan’s technopolis programme. Regional Studies, 24(1), 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Massey, D., & Wield, D. (1992). Science parks: A concept in science, society and space. Environmernt and Planning D: Society and Space, 10, 411–422.Google Scholar
  23. Massey, D., Quintas, P., & wierld, D. (1992). High tech fantasies: Science parks in society, science and space. London: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Monck, C., Quintas, P., Porter, R., Storey, D., & Wynarczyk, P. (1998). Science parks and the growth of high technology firms. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  25. Morgan, K. (1997). The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 31, 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oh, D. S., & Masser, I. (1995). High-tech centres and regional innovation: Some case studies in the UK, Gerrmany, Japan and Korea. In C. Betugila et al. (Eds.), Technological change, economic development and space. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Oh, D. S. (2005). Development strategies of WTA in global context. UNESCO-WTA Cooperative Workshop, 1–7 November 2005.Google Scholar
  28. Park, S.-C. (1997). The Japanese technopolis strategy. In J. Simmie (Ed.), Innovation, networks and learning regions (pp. 137–158). London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  29. Parr, J. (2004). The polycentric urban region: A closer inspection. Regional Studies, 38(3), 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Porter, M. (2003). The economic performance of regions. Regional Studies, 37(6/7), 549–578.Google Scholar
  31. Sassen, S. (1997). Electronic space and power. Journal of Urban Technology, 4(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simmie, J. (Ed.). (1997). Innovation, networks and learning regions. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  33. Sternberg, R. (1997). New industrial spaces and national technology policies: The case of Kyushu and the Japanese ‘technopolis strategy’. In J. Simmie (Ed.), Innovation, networks and learning regions (pp. 159–188). London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  34. Van Den Berg, L., & Van Winden, W. (2002). Information and communications technology as potential catalyst for sustainable urban development. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional Studies, Research Exchange for the Social Sciences, Department of Town and Regional PlanningUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations