Toward a Framework to Advance the Knowledge on Science Park Contribution: An Analysis of Science Park Heterogeneity

Part of the Palgrave Advances in the Economics of Innovation and Technology book series (PAEIT)


We present an integrative framework of science park contribution allowing for deeper insights into its relevancy, and suggesting new approaches to assess science park contribution, while highlighting the need to study mechanisms and conditions by which science parks provide benefits for tenants. Additionally, we underscore the importance of considering conditions in science park studies by demonstrating that science parks largely vary in terms of characteristics and discussing why these heterogeneous characteristics may influence science park contribution. We do so by comparing key characteristics (such as ownership structure, management, services offered) of 42 science parks in three European countries.


  1. Albahari, A. 2015. Science and Technology Parks: Does One Size Fit All? In Making 21st Century Knowledge Complexes: Technopoles of the World Revisited, ed. J.T. Miao, P. Benneworth, and N.A. Phelps, 191–207. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albahari, A., A. Barge-Gil, S. Pérez-Canto, and A. Modrego. 2018. The Influence of Science and Technology Park Characteristics on firms’ Innovation Results. Papers in Regional Science 97 (2): 253–279.Google Scholar
  3. Amason, A.C., and H.J. Sapienza. 1997. The Effects of Top Management Team Size and Interaction Norms on Cognitive and Affective Conflict. Journal of Management 23 (4): 495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amezcua, A.S., M.G. Grimes, S.W. Bradley, and J. Wiklund. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Annerstedt, J. 2006. Science Parks and High-Tech Clustering. In International Handbook on Industrial Policy, ed. P. Bianchi, 279–296. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Anttiroiko, A.V. 2004. Global Competition of High-Tech Centres. International Journal of Technology Management 28 (3–6): 289–323.Google Scholar
  7. Arthur, W.B. 1990. ‘Silicon Valley’ Locational Clusters: When Do Increasing Returns Imply Monopoly? Mathematical Social Sciences 19 (3): 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Battelle Technology Partnership Practice. 2013. Driving Regional Innovation and Growth: The 2012 Survey of North American University Research Parks. Columbus. Retrieved on October 10, 2017 from
  9. Benneworth, P., and T. Ratinho. 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
  10. Bigliardi, B., A.I. Dormio, A. Nosella, and G. Petroni. 2006. Assessing Science Parks’ Performances: Directions from Selected Italian Case Studies. Technovation 26 (4): 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cabral, R. 1998. The Cabral-Dahab Science Park Management Paradigm: An Introduction. International Journal of Technology Management 16 (8): 721–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan, K.-Y.Y.A., L.A.G. Oerlemans, and M.W. Pretorius. 2010. Knowledge Exchange Behaviours of Science Park Firm: The Innovation Hub Case. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22 (2): 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang, Y.-S., T.R. Lin, H.-C. Yu, and S.-C. Chang. 2009. The CEOs of Hsinchu Science Park. Research Technology Management 52 (6): 12–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, W., and D. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Colombo, M.G., and M. Delmastro. 2002. How Effective Are Technology Incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Research Policy 31 (7): 1103–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daft, R.L., and R.H. Lengel. 1986. Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design. Management Science 32 (5): 554–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dettwiler, P., P. Lindelöf, and H. Löfsten. 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: 506–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Díez-Vial, I., and M. Fernández-Olmos. 2015. Knowledge Spillovers in Science and Technology Parks: How Can Firms Benefit Most? The Journal of Technology Transfer 40 (1): 70–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission. 2017. European Statistics Eurostat Database. Retrieved on June 24, 2019 from
  20. ———. 2018. European Innovation Scoreboard 2018. Brussels: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission. Retrieved on June 24, 2019 from:
  21. Felsenstein, D. 1994. University-Related Science Parks – “Seedbeds” or “Enclaves” of Innovation? Technovation 14 (2): 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferguson, R., and C. Olofsson. 2004. Science Parks and the Development of NTBFs – Location, Survival and Growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer 29 (1): 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Gans, J., and S. Stern. 2003. The Product Market and the Market for “Ideas”: Commercialization Strategies for Technology Entrepreneurs. Research Policy 32 (2): 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glaeser, E., H.D. Kallal, J.A. Sheinkman, and A. Shleifer. 1992. Growth in Cities. Journal of Political Economy 100: 1126–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Good, M., M. Knockaert, B. Soppe, and M. Wright. 2018. The Technology Transfer Ecosystem in Academia. An Organizational Design Perspective. Technovation. Scholar
  27. Greenwood, R., and D. Miller. 2010. Tackling Design Anew: Getting Back to the Heart of Organizational Theory. Academy of Management Perspectives 24 (4): 78–88.Google Scholar
  28. Guy, I. 1996. A Look at Aston Science Park. Technovation 16 (5): 217–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gwebu, K.L., J. Sohl, and J. Wang. 2019. Differential Performance of Science Park Firms: An Integrative Model. Small Business Economics 52 (1): 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hagedoorn, J., and M. Cloodt. 2003. Measuring Innovative Performance: Is There an Advantage in Using Multiple Indicators? Research Policy 32 (8): 1365–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howells, J. 2006. Intermediation and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation. Research Policy 35 (5): 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huang, K.-F., C.-M.J. Yu, and D.-H. Seetoo. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Jourdan, J., and I. Kivleniece. 2017. Too Much of a Good Thing? The Dual Effect of Public Sponsorship on Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Journal 60: 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koçak, Ö., and Ö. Can. 2013. Determinants of Inter-Firm Networks among Tenants of Science Technology Parks. Industrial and Corporate Change 23 (2): 467–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koh, F.C.C., W.T.H. Koh, and F.T. Tschang. 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
  38. Lamperti, F., R. Mavilia, and S. Castellini. 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
  39. Lecluyse, L. (2019). Opening Up the Black Box of Science Park Effectiveness. Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
  40. Lecluyse, L., M. Knockaert, and A. Spithoven. 2019. The Contribution of Science Parks: A Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. The Journal of Technology Transfer 44 (2): 559–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liberati, D., M. Marinucci, and G.M. Tanzi. 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
  42. Lindelöf, P., and H. Löfsten. 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
  43. ———. 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
  44. ———. 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
  45. Löfsten, H., and P. Lindelöf. 2001. Science Parks in Sweden – Industrial Renewal and Development? R&D Management 31 (3): 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. ———. 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
  47. ———. 2003. Determinants for an Entrepreneurial Milieu: Science Parks and Business Policy in Growing Firms. Technovation 23 (1): 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Malairaja, C., and G. Zawdie. 2008. Science Parks and University–Industry Collaboration in Malaysia. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 20 (6): 727–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Massey, D., and D. Wield. 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
  50. McEvily, B., and A. Zaheer. 1999. Bridging Ties: A Source of Firm Heterogeneity in Competitive Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20 (12): 1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mian, S., W. Lamine, and A. Fayolle. 2016. Technology Business Incubation: An Overview of the State of Knowledge. Technovation 50: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miao, J.T., and P. Hall. 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
  53. Monck, C.S., R.B. Porter, P. Quintas, and D.J. Storey. 1988. Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  54. Montoro-Sánchez, A., M. Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, and E.M. Mora-Valentín. 2011. Effects of Knowledge Spillovers on Innovation and Collaboration in Science and Technology Parks. Journal of Knowledge Management 15 (6): 948–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nauwelaers, C., A. Kleibrink, and K. Stancova. 2014. The Role of Science Parks in Smart Specialisation Strategies. Seville: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  56. Ng, W.K.B., R. Appel-Meulenbroek, M. Cloodt, and T. Arentze. 2019. Towards a Segmentation of Science Parks: A Typology Study on Science Parks in Europe. Research Policy 48 (3): 719–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Ratinho, T., and E. Henriques. 2010. The Role of Science Parks and Business Incubators in Converging Countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation 30: 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. Schwartz, M., and C. Hornych. 2010. Cooperation Patterns of Incubator Firms and the Impact of Incubator Specialization: Empirical Evidence from Germany. Technovation 30 (9): 485–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shane, S., and T. Stuart. 2002. Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-ups. Management Science 48 (1): 154–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shearmur, R., and D. Doloreux. 2000. Science Parks: Actors or Reactors? Canadian Science Parks in Their Urban Context. Environment and Planning A 32 (6): 1065–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Siegel, D.S., P. Westhead, and M. Wright. 2003. 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
  65. Sofouli, E., and N.S. Vonortas. 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
  66. 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
  67. ———. 2009. Science Parks: Seedbeds of Innovation? A Duration Analysis of Firms’ Patenting Activity. Small Business Economics 32 (2): 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Vandecandelaere, S., and A. Spithoven. 2009. Kennisuitwisseling en technologieoverdracht tussen het bedrijfsleven en de onderzoekswereld. Brussels: Centrale Raad voor het Bedrijfsleven.Google Scholar
  70. Vásquez-Urriago, Á.R., A. Barge-Gil, A.M. Rico, and E. Paraskevopoulou. 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
  71. Vásquez-Urriago, Á.R., A. Barge-Gil, and A.M. Rico. 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
  72. ———. 2016. Science and Technology Parks and Cooperation for Innovation: Empirical Evidence from Spain. Research Policy 45 (1): 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Westhead, P. 1997. R&D Inputs and Outputs of Technology-Based Firms Located On and Off Science Parks. R&D Management 27 (1): 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Westhead, P., and S. Batstone. 1998. Independent Technology-Based Firms: The Perceived Benefits of a Science Park Location. Urban Studies 35 (12): 2197–2219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. ———. 1999. Perceived Benefits of a Managed Science Park Location. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 11 (2): 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wong, P.K., Y.P. Ho, and E. Autio. 2005. Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth: Evidence from GEM Data. Small Business Economics 24 (3): 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yang, D.Y.-R., J.-Y. Hsu, and C.-H. Ching. 2009. 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

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Belgian Science Policy OfficeBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations