An Anticipatory Practice for the Future of Science Parks: Understanding the Indices and Mechanisms on Different Spatial Scales of Regional Innovation Systems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Examine the functions and impacts of the conditions required for the evolution of science parks at different geographic scales from the perspective of the regional innovation system.
- Explore the current development status of the science parks and propose improvement plans as well as anticipatory practices for the future development of science parks.
2. Literature Analysis
2.1. The Regional Backgrounds and Innovation Theory for the Development of Science Parks
2.2. The Relationship between Science Parks and Regional Innovation Systems
2.3. The Functions of the Elements of Innovation Systems in Each Space Dimension
2.3.1. Region
2.3.2. City
2.3.3. Science Parks
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Questionnaire for Experts
3.2. Empirical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Empirical Analysis of the Questionnaires
4.1.1. Regional Perspective
4.1.2. City Perspective
4.1.3. Science Park Perspective
4.2. Analysis for Innovation Systems
4.2.1. The Level of Linkage for the Elements of Innovation Systems across the Regions
4.2.2. The Differences between Regional Innovative Activities and Knowledge Exchange
4.2.3. The Quality and Quantity of Knowledge-Based Infrastructure and Constitution of Living Environment and Functions
4.2.4. The Core and Spatial Proximity of Planning for Industrial Clusters in Science Parks
5. Discussion and Conclusions
- This study utilizes the concept of RISs and explores the indices and mechanisms that influence innovative efficiency in science parks. The synergy effect of the elements of innovation systems occurs across regions, reflecting the unique feature of the local environment at various geographic scales and emphasizing the importance of governance of science park development at different spatial scales.
- Among the development indices for encouraging the efficiency of science parks, this study considers the regional characteristics and needs and proposes three spatial scales, including regions, cities, and science parks. A questionnaire was distributed to experts and analyzed by the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) and the FAHP to establish an indicator system that would help promote the efficiency of science parks. Based on the results of the two-step questionnaire, the regional background is crucial in improving the efficacy of science parks. Through this study, we attempted to address the research gap related to the contribution of different geographical scales to the practice of innovation policy, and propose anticipatory practices for the future of science parks [77].
- From the questionnaire results in the second phase of this study, experts ranked the relative importance of each perspective as regional (0.3817), the city (0.3791), and science park (0.2392). The spatial heterogeneity of various RISs needs to be considered in terms of resource raising and making policies to meet the requirements of each science park. In other words, the establishment and regulation of science parks should not be separated from the background characteristics of the region and city where the science park is located. Policymakers must go beyond the scale of science parks, that is, construct science parks from a wider perspective (including regions and cities), to efficiently promote knowledge and information exchange among manufacturers in the science park.
- The empirical analysis of Hsinchu and Southern Taiwan Science Parks also revealed significant differences. The level of linkage for the elements of innovation systems across the regions, the differences between regional innovative activities and knowledge exchanges, the quality and quantity of knowledge-based infrastructure and constitution of the living environment and functions are different between Hsinchu and Southern Taiwan Science Parks, due to the regional characteristics and needs and the three spatial scales proposed by this study.
- The industrial and institutional environments are the most important indices at the regional level. Labor market (0.0658), enterprise condition (0.0650), and financial market (0.0518) have the highest weights in the industrial environment aspect. Policy integration and continuity (0.0383) and mechanism of industry and enterprise (0.0443) have a higher weight in the institutional environment aspect. Level of facilities is the most influential factor at the city level—infrastructure (0.0554), healthcare and educational institutes (0.0535), professional network/facility (0.0560) and transportation (0.0573) have a higher weight at this perspective. Finally, centrality2 (0.0510) is the most essential indicator in the location type of the science park.
- The development of high-tech industry triggers a variety of characteristics, functions, and requirements in an innovation system. The space economy of production in science parks is beginning to disperse. Single-input or focused investment in science or industrial parks is no longer the dominant investment model as in the past. The future development of science parks should benefit from spatial proximity, linking the surrounding resources and innovative components with the core of science parks. Altering the interactive layout of science parks, regions, and urban industrial space encourages spontaneous and small-scale interactions in the industry, develops flexible collaborations, and further leads to the transformation and upgrade of science parks by solid innovation systems.
- The analytical results also reveal significant differences in the opinions and cognition for the development of science parks among experts in different professional fields. Therefore, communication and collaboration among different levels of city managers, planners, and designers are important when planning for the future of science parks.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Aspect | Type | Index | Weight | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Item | Local Weight NW | Item | Local Weight NW | Overall Weight | Item | Local Weight NW | NW × NW × NW |
Region | 0.3817 | Physical Environment | 0.2136 | 0.0815 | Regional Structure | 0.3077 | 0.0254 |
City Image | 0.3205 | 0.0265 | |||||
Transportation | 0.3718 | 0.0307 | |||||
Industrial Environment | 0.4761 | 0.1817 | Labor Market | 0.3602 | 0.0658 | ||
Enterprise Condition | 0.3563 | 0.0650 | |||||
Financial Market | 0.2835 | 0.0518 | |||||
Institutional Environment | 0.3103 | 0.1185 | Policy Integration and Continuity | 0.3190 | 0.0383 | ||
Political Environment Stability | 0.3118 | 0.0375 | |||||
Mechanism of Industry and Enterprise | 0.3692 | 0.0443 | |||||
City | 0.3791 | Community Type | 0.1862 | 0.0706 | Spatial Structure | 0.2594 | 0.0183 |
Innovative Vibe | 0.2389 | 0.0169 | |||||
Diversity and Level of Openness | 0.2389 | 0.0169 | |||||
Service & Management | 0.2628 | 0.0186 | |||||
Facility | 0.5864 | 0.2223 | Infrastructure | 0.2493 | 0.0554 | ||
Healthcare and Educational Institutes | 0.2408 | 0.0535 | |||||
Professional Network/Facility | 0.2521 | 0.0560 | |||||
Transportation | 0.2578 | 0.0573 | |||||
Cultural Environment | 0.2274 | 0.0862 | Public Space | 0.3493 | 0.0301 | ||
Lifestyle | 0.3110 | 0.0268 | |||||
Environmental Safety | 0.3397 | 0.0293 | |||||
Science Park | 0.2392 | Location | 0.2133 | 0.0510 | Centrality | 1 | 0.0510 |
Environmental Design | 0.1412 | 0.0338 | Outer Space and Landscape | 0.5205 | 0.0176 | ||
Inner Space | 0.4795 | 0.0162 | |||||
Facility | 0.2115 | 0.0506 | Advanced Level | 0.5159 | 0.0261 | ||
Shareability | 0.4841 | 0.0245 | |||||
Service and Management | 0.1836 | 0.0439 | Transportation | 0.5263 | 0.0231 | ||
Software Service | 0.4737 | 0.0208 | |||||
Land Use | 0.1309 | 0.0313 | Development Plan | 1 | 0.0313 | ||
Recognition | 0.1195 | 0.0286 | Brand Reputation | 1 | 0.0286 |
References
- Hara, K.; Kuroda, M.; Nomaguchi, Y. How does research and development (R&D) strategy shift by adopting imaginary future generations?–Insights from future design practice in a water engineering company. Futures 2023, 152, 103221. [Google Scholar]
- Poonjan, A.; Tanner, A.N. The role of regional contextual factors for science and technology parks: A conceptual framework. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2020, 28, 400–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moulaert, F.; Sekia, F. Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Reg. Stud. 2003, 37, 289–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flanagan, K.; Uyarra, E.; Laranja, M. Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 702–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gkypali, A.; Kokkinos, V.; Bouras, C.; Tsekouras, K. Science parks and regional innovation performance in fiscal austerity era: Less is more? Small Bus. Econ. 2016, 47, 313–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soete, L.; Verspagen, B.; Ter Weel, B. Systems of innovation. In Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, 1st ed.; Hall, B.H., Rosenberg, N., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 1159–1180. [Google Scholar]
- Asheim, B.T.; Isaksen, A. Regional innovation systems: The integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. J. Technol. Transf. 2002, 27, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doloreux, D.; Porto Gomez, I. A review of (almost) 20 years of regional innovation systems research. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 25, 371–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heblich, S.; Slatchev, V. Parent Universities and the location of Academic Startups. Small Bus. Econ. 2014, 42, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etzkowitz, H.; Zhou, C. Innovation incommensurability and the science park. R D Manag. 2018, 48, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minguillo, D.; Tijssen, R.; Thelwall, M. Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK. Scientometrics 2015, 102, 701–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaponenko, N. In search of sectoral foresight methodology: Bridging foresight and sectoral system of innovation and production. Futures 2022, 135, 102859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etzkowitz, H.; Leydesdorff, L. The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Res. Policy 2000, 29, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luger, M. The Use of Cluster Analysis, in High Tech Industrial Park Planning. Symp. Ind. Park Plan. Dev. 2001, 8, 52–73. [Google Scholar]
- Giuliani, E. The Structure of Cluster Knowledge Networks Uneven, Not Pervasive and Collective; DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies: Frederiksberg, Danmark, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Muhammad, M.E.; Ghafoor, M.M.; Naseer, S. Organizational effectiveness: A case study of telecommunication and banking sector of Pakistan. Far East J. Psychol. Bus. 2011, 2, 37–48. [Google Scholar]
- Cooke, P. Introduction. Origins of the Concept. In Regional Innovation Systems, 1st ed.; Braczyk, H.-J., Cooke, P., Heidenreich, R., Eds.; UCL Press: London, UK, 2005; pp. 2–25. [Google Scholar]
- Todtling, F.; Trippl, M. One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 1203–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pan, S.-C.; Hu, T.-S.; You, J.-X.; Chang, S.-L. Characteristics and influencing factors of economic resilience in industrial parks. Heliyon 2023, 9, e14812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora-Valentín, E.M.; Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M.; Nájera-Sánchez, J.J. Mapping the conceptual structure of science and technology parks. J. Technol. Transf. 2018, 43, 1410–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batty, M.; Cole, S. Time and space: Geographic perspectives on the future. Futures 1997, 29, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, R.; Trippl, M. The evolution of the ICT cluster in southern Sweden–regional innovation systems, knowledge bases and policy actions. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2017, 99, 268–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassink, R. Regional resilience: A promising concept to explain differences in regional economic adaptability? Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boschma, R. Towards an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience. Reg. Stud. 2015, 49, 733–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isaksen, A.; Trippl, M. 4 Path Development in Different Regional Innovation Systems: A Conceptual Analysis. In Innovation Drivers and Regional Innovation Strategies; Parrilli, M.D., Fitjar, R.D., Rodriguez-Pose, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 82–100. [Google Scholar]
- Zukauskaite, E.; Trippl, M.; Plechero, M. Institutional thickness revisited. Econ. Geogr. 2017, 93, 325–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wasim, M.U. Factor for Science Park Planning. World Technopolis Rev. (WTR) 2014, 3, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsamis, A. Science and Technology Parks in the Less Favoured Regions of Europe: An Evaluation of Their Performance and the Parameters of Success. Ph.D. Thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Success Factors for Science Parks in the Developed World and Emerging Economies. Available online: https://www.warwicksciencepark.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/SuccessFactorsforScienceParks.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2022).
- Esmaeilpoorarabi, N.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Guaralda, M. Towards an urban quality framework: Determining critical measures for different geographical scales to attract and retain talent in cities. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Dev. 2016, 7, 290–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esmaeilpoorarabi, N.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Guaralda, M.; Kamruzzaman, M. Does place quality matter for innovation districts? Determining the essential place characteristics from Brisbane’s knowledge precincts. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 734–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Lee, K. Local–global interface as a key factor in the catching up of regional innovation systems: Fast versus slow catching up among Taipei, Shenzhen, and Penang in Asia. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 174, 121271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, H.H.; Hu, T.S.; Fan, P. Social sustainability of urban regeneration led by industrial land redevelopment in Taiwan. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 27, 1245–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Yang, L.; Lin, J.; Wu, J. How industrial landscape affects the regional industrial economy: A spatial heterogeneity framework. Habitat Int. 2020, 100, 102187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colombo, M.G.; Delmastro, M. How effective are technology incubators?: Evidence from Italy. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1103–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wonglimpiyarat, J. Commercialization strategies of technology: Lessons from Silicon Valley. J. Technol. Transf. 2010, 35, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albahari, A.; Barge-Gil, A.; Pérez-Canto, S.; Modrego, A. The influence of science and technology park characteristics on firms’ innovation results. Reg. Sci. 2018, 97, 253–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radosevic, S.; Myrzakhmet, M. Between vision and reality: Promoting innovation through technoparks in an emerging economy. Technovation 2009, 29, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, H.A.; Luger, M.I. University-based research parks as a rural development strategy. Policy Stud. J. 1992, 20, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaidyanathan, G. Technology parks in a developing country: The case of India. J. Technol. Transf. 2008, 33, 285–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phelps, N.A.; Dawood, S.R.S. Untangling the spaces of high technology in Malaysia. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2014, 32, 896–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Y.-S.; Hung, L.-C. Spontaneous vs. policy-driven: The origin and evolution of the biotechnology cluster. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2009, 76, 608–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díez-Vial, I.; Fernández-Olmos, M. The effect of science and technology parks on firms’ performance: How can firms benefit most under economic downturns? Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 29, 1153–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, S.L.; Lee, Y.H.; Lin, C.Y.; Hu, T.S. Consideration of proximity in selection of residential location by science and technology workers: Case study of Hsinchu, Taiwan. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2010, 18, 1317–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y. Critical factors for science park management: The North American and European experience. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 2004, 4, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mieg, H.A. Sustainability and innovation in urban development: Concept and case. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 20, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Winden, W.; Carvalho, L. Urbanize or Perish? Assessing the urbanization of knowledge locations in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 2016, 23, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckardt, F. The multidimensional role of science parks in attracting international knowledge migrants. Reg. Sci. 2017, 4, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.; Qiao, W.; Ji, Q.; Yu, C.; Sun, J.; Ma, Z. Intensive-use-oriented identification and optimization of industrial land readjustment during transformation and development: A case study of Huai’an, China. Habitat Int. 2021, 118, 102451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, M.; Pae, J.H. Authenticity or homogeneity? Contextualising the urban revitalisation of a post-industrial landscape through the Red Brick Landscape Preservation Project in Seoul. Habitat Int. 2022, 124, 102574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nahm, K.-B. The evolution of science parks and metropolitan development. Int. J. Urban Sci. 2000, 4, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fikirkoca, A.; Saritas, O. Foresight for science parks: The case of Ankara University. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2012, 24, 1071–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.; Zhao, J.; Zhu, D.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y. Land marketization and urban innovation capability: Evidence from China. Habitat Int. 2022, 122, 102540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koh, F.C.C.; Koh, W.T.H.; Tschang, F.T. An analytical framework for science parks and technology districts with an application to Singapore. J. Bus. Ventur. 2005, 20, 217–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miao, J.T.; Hall, P. Optical illusion? The growth and development of the optics valley of China. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2014, 32, 863–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annerstedt, J. Science parks and high-tech clustering. In International Handbook on Industrial Policy; Bianchi, P., Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2006; pp. 279–296. [Google Scholar]
- Bigliardi, B.; Dormio, A.I.; Nosella, A.; Petroni, G. Assessing science parks’ performances: Directions from selected Italian case studies. Technovation 2006, 26, 489–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Squicciarini, M. Science parks: Seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms’ patenting activity. Small Bus. Econ. 2009, 32, 169–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, M.S.-A.; Yeung, H.W. A place for R&D? The Singapore Science Park. Urban Stud. 2003, 40, 707–732. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.-J.; Wu, H.-L.; Lin, B.-W. Evaluating the development of high-tech industries: Taiwan’s science park. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2006, 73, 452–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sofouli, E.; Vonortas, N.S. S&T Parks and business incubators in middle-sized countries: The case of greece. J. Technol. Transf. 2007, 32, 525–544. [Google Scholar]
- 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. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6d073ecd-3cf6-4a98-a74b-45c6f31f56a8/language-en (accessed on 24 March 2022).
- Koçak, Ö.; Can, Ö. Determinants of inter-firm networks among tenants of science technology parks. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2014, 23, 467–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lecluyse, L.; Knockaert, M.; Spithoven, A. The contribution of science parks: A literature review and future research agenda. J. Technol. Transf. 2019, 44, 559–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walcott, S.M. Chinese industrial and science parks: Bridging the gap. Prof. Geogr. 2002, 54, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferguson, R.; Olofsson, C. Science parks and the development of NTBFs—Location, survival and growth. J. Technol. Transf. 2004, 29, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.F.; Lau, T. Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: The good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation 2005, 25, 1215–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvador, E. Are science parks and incubators good “brand names” for spin-offs? The case study of Turin. J. Technol. Transf. 2011, 36, 203–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilchrist, K.; Brown, C.; Montarzino, A. Workplace settings and wellbeing: Greenspace use and views contribute to employee wellbeing at peri-urban business sites. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 138, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colley, K.; Brown, C.; Montarzino, A. Restorative wildscapes at work: An investigation of the wellbeing benefits of greenspace at urban fringe business sites using “go-along” interviews. Landsc. Res. 2016, 41, 598–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, H.-N.; Chen, C.-M.; Wang, J.-Y.; Hu, T.-S. Knowledge-intensive business services as knowledge intermediaries in industrial regions: A Comparison of the Hsinchu and Tainan metropolitan areas. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2015, 23, 2253–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, K.C.; Hu, T.S.; Wang, J.Y.; Chen, K.C.; Lo, H.M. From fashion product industries to fashion: Upgrading trends in traditional industry in Taiwan. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2016, 24, 762–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, T.S.; Pan, S.C.; Lin, H.P. Development, Innovation, and Circular Stimulation for a Knowledge-Based City: Key Thoughts. Energies 2021, 14, 7999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, J.L.; Gebhardt, H. Space of creative industries: A case study of spatial characteristics of creative clusters in Shanghai. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2014, 22, 2351–2368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, E.; Fox-Rogers, L.; Redmond, D. Location Decision Making of “Creative” Industries: The Media and Computer Game Sectors in Dublin, Ireland. Growth Chang. 2015, 46, 97–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durmaz, S.B. Analyzing the quality of place: Creative clusters in Soho and Beyoğlu. J. Urban Des. 2015, 20, 93–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zofio, J.L.; Aparicio, J.; Barbero, J.; Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J.M. The influence of bottlenecks on innovation systems performance: Put the slowest climber first. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 193, 122607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Region | Sectors | Percentage |
---|---|---|
entry 1 | Fabricated Metal Products Manufacturing | 19% |
Electronic Parts and Components Manufacturing | 12% | |
Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing | 12% | |
Repair and Installation of Industrial Machinery and Equipment | 9% | |
Computers, Electronic, and Optical Products Manufacturing | 5% | |
entry 2 | Fabricated Metal Products Manufacturing | 37% |
Plastic Products Manufacturing | 22% | |
Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing | 19% | |
Manufacturing Not Elsewhere Classified | 12% | |
Printing and Reproduction of Recorded Media | 10% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pan, S.-C.; Fan, P.; Hu, T.-S.; Li, H.-Y.; Liu, W.-S. An Anticipatory Practice for the Future of Science Parks: Understanding the Indices and Mechanisms on Different Spatial Scales of Regional Innovation Systems. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114600
Pan S-C, Fan P, Hu T-S, Li H-Y, Liu W-S. An Anticipatory Practice for the Future of Science Parks: Understanding the Indices and Mechanisms on Different Spatial Scales of Regional Innovation Systems. Sustainability. 2024; 16(11):4600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114600
Chicago/Turabian StylePan, Ssu-Chi, Peilei Fan, Tai-Shan Hu, Han-Yu Li, and Wen-Shin Liu. 2024. "An Anticipatory Practice for the Future of Science Parks: Understanding the Indices and Mechanisms on Different Spatial Scales of Regional Innovation Systems" Sustainability 16, no. 11: 4600. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114600