2. Theoretical background
2.1 Science and Technology Parks as designated seedbeds of innovation
2.1.2 Evolutionary development of STPs: From classical university research parks to
The development of STPs, which started in the 1960s, is linked to the success of high-technology agglomerations in Silicon Valley, Boston Route 128 and the Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. The first university-owned industrial park, founded by Stanford Uni-versity in 1951 (Stanford Industrial Park, which was renamed later Stanford Research Park), took an important role in the development of Silicon Valley in California (Anttiroiko, 2004).12
In the early 1970s, the first pilot university-driven research and science parks at Cambridge University and Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh were opened in the United Kingdom.
Additional British science parks, mostly with formal operational ties to universities, followed in the early 1990s. At about the same time, rather large-scale technopoles (e.g. Sophia-Antipolis) aimed to attract large high-technology firms and corporate R&D units, were de-veloped in France, whereas in particular small-scale and incubator-led business innovation centres and technology centres catering to NTBFs and without necessarily strong ties to HEI were set up in Germany (Anttiroiko, 2004).
Since the 1970s and 1980s, STPs have become a popular instrument of regional and na-tional economic development policies worldwide to serve as catalysts for industrial revitali-zation, high-technology growth and innovation. The growth of new high-technology indus-tries, such as ICT and biotechnology, in the 1980s and 1990s further advanced this con-nection (Hansson et al., 2005). Since the 1960s, however, STPs have undergone several evolutionary stages. Three generational types can be identified.
1st generation STPs (established before and during the 1980s) are characterized as often stand-alone, park-like campuses with good quality infrastructure and facilities. Most STPs of this kind were associated with one or multiple local universities and HEIs. Their primary goal was to promote the transfer of knowledge between co-located HEIs and on-park firms in order to commercialize university-based research findings. However, these kinds of in-teractive ties were rather limited (Mian et al., 2012; European Commission, 2013).
Anchor R&D centres and universities also characterize the next generation of STPs (estab-lished during the 1990s). However, 2nd generation STPs became more involved in regional
12 The first spatial agglomerations of high-technology industries observed in industrialized countries like the United Kingdom and the USA in the late 19th and early 20th century can be considered as the first seeds of STPs. Marshall (1920) coined this development in the concept of industrial districts (Anttiroiko, 2004).
economic development as their focus shifted to the assistance of NTBFs. In order to com-pensate for the NTBFs’ typically scarce resources and experiences in business develop-ment, STPs increasingly built business incubators and innovation centres. Moreover, they began to offer basic business services in terms of start-up support, entrepreneurship train-ing and access to finances themselves or through partnertrain-ing with other regional stakehold-ers (e.g. seed capital funds and business angel networks). At the same time, STPs also took a stronger nodal position in the regional innovation system (RIS) overall. Driven by their resident firms’ demands, STPs proactively built additional relations to regional univer-sities, research centres and technology organizations. These non-local networks aimed to enable on-park firms to access multi-faceted technology and knowledge resources and, in turn, to stimulate innovation-driven entrepreneurship (Mian et al., 2012; European Com-mission, 2013). Thus, during this evolutionary stage, STPs evolved to “networked commer-cialization enablers” (Mian et al., 2012: 237).
The key characteristics of 3rd generation STPs strongly correspond to the success criteria of successful 2nd generation STPs.13 In addition, these kinds of STPs emphasize the func-tion of physical collaborafunc-tion spaces and environments to stimulate interactive and collabo-rative processes of creativity and innovation. These collaboration spaces are made acces-sible to STP residents, but also to non-local knowledge sources such businesses, research organizations, suppliers and citizen in order to promote the transformation of knowledge into marketable outputs (i.e. products, services and processes) and to bring them to market (European Commission, 2013). Thus, science parks have recently evolved from merely infrastructure-providing physical locations in conjunction with basic management functions to service-oriented, permeable nodes within RIS, which primarily focus on innovation, commercialization and internationalization (Anttiroiko, 2004).
Thus, STPs are currently experiencing a revival because of their central function as organizational links and nodes in regional triple and quadruple helices. In today’s knowledge-based economy, STPs take over a substantial, pro-active boundary-spanning role enabling and steering direct and indirect links to a large variety of local and non-local knowledge sources and related networks. Consequently, it is argued that the evolutionary process of STPs must continue in the direction of becoming active knowledge-creating and knowledge-coordinating institutions (Hansson, 2007; Fukugawa, 2010). Figure 3
13 In 2006, about 30 internationally leading STPs and related experts gathered at a conference in Manchester and defined the criteria for 3rd generation STPs. The conference resulted in the development of multiple principles for modern STPs, for example, connectivity and networking at all levels of the STP itself and its resident organizations, as well as development of environments to promote interaction, creativity and inno-vation (Allen, 2007; European Commission, 2013).
rizes the distinct features of the different evolutionary steps of the STP model and its antic-ipated role in the future (see also Box 1).
Figure 3: Evolution of the STP model
Source: Author (based on European Commission (2013), Mian et al. (2012), Hansson (2007))
Box 1: The next evolutionary step? Areas of innovation and innovation districts14 Even more recently, areas of innovation incorporate an additional important evolutionary step in the development of STPs. In contrast to the concept of STPs, areas of innovation refer to extended geographical areas, such as entire city districts, cities and even regions.
Furthermore, areas of innovation combine the complex network of knowledge organiza-tions, specialized innovation infrastructures and public support institutions of the entire re-gional innovation system. Even STPs themselves are considered as just one element of areas of innovation. Additionally, distinct talent attraction and training programmes, innova-tion financing, as well as the integrainnova-tion of MNEs as potential partners for local start-ups, SMEs, HEIs and research institutions are underlined. As a result, areas of innovation aim to create an environment in which all different stages of the technology development chain, from idea generation through R&D, prototyping and demonstration, and finally to early commercialization, are concentrated and linked through multi-stakeholder platforms, col-laborative networks, virtual forums and specialized interfaces. Thus, the term area of
14 Multiple scholars have observed the global emergence of areas of innovation and innovation districts. They have been referred to as “creative, energy-laden ecosystems” (AIA, 2014: 2), “New Century City Develop-ments” (Jaroff et al., 2009: 6) and “urban knowledge parks” (Bugliarello, 2004: 388). Hutton (2004) has considered such industrial inner-city clusters to “constitute important aspects of the spatiality of the New Economy” (Hutton, 2004: 90).
vation is often used synonymously with such terms as smart city, living lab and urban lab (European Commission, 2013).15
Similarly, innovation districts refer to primarily U.S. based examples of new inner-city de-velopment projects built upon the imperatives of spatial clustering, cross-industry interac-tion and open innovainterac-tion systems of a broad set technology firms, R&D centres, universi-ties and networks in diverse knowledge-intensive services and manufacturing sectors, for example, creative industries and life sciences, in order to propel knowledge creation, the commercialization of new ideas and, in turn, high-technology-based economic prosperity.
Prominent examples are Cambridge’s Kendall Square near the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Boston’s South Waterfront Innovation District (Brookings, 2014;
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, 2015; AIA, 2014).16