Does place quality matter for innovation districts? Determining the essential place characteristics from Brisbane’s knowledge precincts

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.016

Land Use Policy

Volume 79, December 2018, Pages 734-747

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.016 Get rights and content

Highlights

•
Reveals the significance of place quality for innovation districts’ performance.
•
Determines the generic place characteristics of innovation districts.
•
Expands our understanding on the place quality issues of innovation clusters.
•
Develops a framework for investigating place characteristics in innovation districts.
•
Evaluates Brisbane’s knowledge precincts in terms of their place characteristics.

Abstract

The emergence of knowledge economy has prompted many cities across the globe to provide special zones for concentrated knowledge and innovative activities. These zones require specific place characteristics to foster, attract and retain talent and investment and inconsequence accelerate their socioeconomic performance. Our understanding on such characteristics of these zones—so-called innovation districts—, however, still remains limited. This paper aims to identify the essential place characteristics of innovation districts. The methodological approach includes mixed methods—qualitative and quantitative—to analyse data from three case studies that are designated as innovation districts in Brisbane, Australia. The results reveal a list of essential place characteristics and specific strengths and weaknesses of the investigated case innovation districts in fostering, attracting and retaining talent and investment. The findings of the study inform policymakers, urban and economic development planners, architects and urban designers in their decisions on various aspects of innovation districts.

Introduction

Creativity, digital disruption and knowledge-based activities have increasingly characterised contemporary global markets (Lee et al., 2014; Cooke, 2017). In a knowledge economy, productivity is mostly characterised by intangible and symbolic values (Boddy, 1999; Meijer and Thaens, 2018). Those values include the capacity of knowledge generation, institutional networks, knowledge flows, and quality of scientific, high-tech, and artistic outputs (Cooke, 2004; Carrillo et al., 2014). Productivity is mainly related to innovative ideas generated by educated and talented workforces, who are being considered as a key asset of stimulating economic growth (Clifton, 2008; Pancholi et al., 2017b). Consequently, investments to foster, attract and retain human asset have become a key priority in knowledge economy (Glaeser, 2005; Pancholi et al., 2018a).

Urban development strategies play a prominent role on economic transition (Benneworth and Hospers, 2007; Yigitcanlar and Velibeyoglu, 2008). At first, it was assumed knowledge workers and industries could locate wherever they would like due to advancements in information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Hall, 1996). However, real-world experiences, such as Silicon Valley, Cambridge Science Park and Sophia Antipolis along with other examples, revealed the opposite (Carvalho and Van Winden, 2017). Knowledge-based industries clustered with universities and research institutes around specific locations to share knowledge, workforce and facilities (Sohn and Kenney, 2007; Youtie and Shapira, 2008). Place and lifestyle were recognised as significant factors to foster, attract and retain knowledge workers (Wolfe, 1999; Storper and Venables, 2004). Global cities, as well, embraced knowledge-based urban development (KBUD) strategies to thrive their local economies (Metaxiotis et al., 2010; Yigitcanlar et al., 2012).

KBUD not only targets infrastructural, institutional and financial requirements of industries, but also considers socio-spatial desires of workers (Sarimin and Yigitcanlar, 2012). This development paradigm encourages clustering of creative and knowledge-based activities (Benneworth and Ratinho, 2014). Clustering empowers firms to increase their innovative capacity by sharing ideas, products, services and workforces (Reve et al., 2015). Simultaneously, it gathers communities of creative and knowledge workers, who are the architects of economic growth (Martin et al., 2015). These clusters represent neighbourhood-scale places, such as innovation districts, knowledge precincts, creative hubs, technology parks and the like (Yigitcanlar and Bulu, 2015). Economic growth is accelerated by many urban elements at urban and regional scales. However, the cluster-scale is recognised as specifically important as it is the scale where the tangible place is designed and day-to-day activities take place (Trip, 2007; Durmaz, 2015).

The academic literature clearly underlines the importance of clustering for economic growth. However, our understanding on the role that place plays at the cluster-scale along with the essential place characteristics are still limited. This paper aims to identify the essential place characteristics of innovation districts that can support a flourishing knowledge economy performance. The paper attempts to address two research questions. Firstly, whether place quality matters for innovation districts; and if yes, secondly, what the essential place characteristics of innovation districts are. In order to tackle these issues, the research undertakes an empirical study, analysing three innovation districts from Brisbane, Australia—i.e., Kelvin Grove Urban Village (KGUV), Diamantina Knowledge Precinct (DKP), Brisbane Technology Park (BTP).

Section snippets

Literature review

Innovation districts, also referred to as knowledge precincts particularly in the context of Australia, are local industrial specialisations that are generally clustered around universities, research institutions, and knowledge-based industries with a high internal and external networking and knowledge sharing capabilities (Clark et al., 2010; Millar and Ju-Choi, 2010). Innovation districts require knowledge workers, who are in theory no longer attracted to locations solely by employment

Methodology

This research follows a case study approach to highlight the essential place characteristics of innovation districts that attract and retain talent and investment that subsequently accelerate their socioeconomic performance. The study relies on multiple sources of evidence, and follows (Eisenhardt, 1989) approach that is an inductive approach with pre-planned structure. The paper proposes an analytical framework—derived from the works of Esmaeilpoorarabi et al., 2018a, Esmaeilpoorarabi et al.,

Qualitative analysis

In consensus all interviewees responded to the question of whether place quality matters for the socioeconomic success of innovation districts. Most remarkably, Interviewee#3 stated, “Quality of place is utmost importance while planning and developing knowledge precincts as without high standards it’s not possible to compete with other overseas locations, particularly the emerging economy precincts”. Likewise, Interviewee#4 noted, “Making space and place for the knowledge economy activities

Discussion and conclusion

This study confirms, in line with the literature, that knowledge economy growth is facilitated by combination of both hard and soft factors (Darchen and Tremblay, 2010; Scott, 2010). It highlights the predominance of hard factors for attracting workers and industries—e.g., job opportunities, infrastructure, commuting time, cost of living and running a business. On the other hand, soft factors also strongly contribute to the sense of place and attachment, which help in retaining workers and

References (71)

P. Benneworth et al.
Urban competitiveness in the knowledge economy
Prog. Plann.
(2007)
B. Bereitschaft et al.
Neighborhood diversity and the creative class in Chicago
Appl. Geogr.
(2015)
M. Bontje et al.
Creative industries, creative class and competitiveness
Geoforum
(2009)
M. D’Mello et al.
I am kind of a nomad where I have to go places and places
Inf. Organ.
(2007)
S. Darchen et al.
What attracts and retains knowledge workers/students
Cities
(2010)
N. Esmaeilpoorarabi et al.
Place quality in innovation clusters
Cities
(2018)
N. Esmaeilpoorarabi et al.
Evaluating place quality in innovation districts
Land Use Policy
(2018)
A. Frenkel et al.
Residential location choice of knowledge-workers
Cities
(2013)
E. Glaeser
Review of Richard Florida’s the rise of the creative class
Reg. Sci. Urban Econ.
(2005)
J. Lee et al.
Towards an effective framework for building smart cities
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
(2014)

S. Pancholi et al.

Societal integration that matters

City Cult. Soc.

(2018)

D. Sohn et al.

Universities, clusters, and innovation systems

World Dev.

(2007)

J. Youtie et al.

Building an innovation hub

Res. Policy

(2008)

C. Alfken et al.

Factors explaining the spatial agglomeration of the creative class

Eur. Plann. Stud.

(2015)

S. Baum et al.

The implications of creative industries for regional outcomes

Int. J. Foresight Innov. Policy

(2009)

P. Benneworth et al.

Reframing the role of knowledge parks and science cities in knoledge-based urban development

Environ. Plann.

(2014)

M. Boddy

Geographical economics and urban competitiveness

Urban Stud.

(1999)

T. Boren et al.

Getting creative with the creative city?

Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.

(2013)

J. Brown et al.

Locational choices of creative knowledge workers

Built Environ.

(2009)

J. Carrillo et al.

Knowledge and the City

(2014)

L. Carvalho et al.

Planned knowledge locations in cities

Int. J. Knowl. Based Dev.

(2017)

G. Charnock et al.

City of rents

Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.

(2014)

J. Clark et al.

A typology of innovation districts

Cambridge J. Reg. Econ. Soc.

(2010)

N. Clifton

The creative class in the UK

Geogr. Ann.

(2008)

N. Clifton et al.

Creative knowledge workers and location in Europe and North America

Creat. Ind. J.

(2009)

P. Cooke

The role of research in regional innovation systems

Int. J. Technol. Manag.

(2004)

P. Cooke

Complex spaces

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.

(2017)

S. Durmaz

Analyzing the quality of place

J. Urban Des.

(2015)

K.M. Eisenhardt

Building theories from case study research

Acad. Manag. Rev.

(1989)

N. Esmaeilpoorarabi et al.

Place quality and urban competitiveness symbiosis?

Int. J. Knowl. Dev.

(2016)

N. Esmaeilpoorarabi et al.

Towards an urban quality framework

Int. J. Knowl. Dev.

(2016)

R. Florida

Cities and the Creative Class

(2005)

T. Gabe et al.

The creative class and the crisis

Cambridge J. Reg. Econ. Soc.

(2013)

J. Grant et al.

Precarious creativity

Cambridge J. Reg. Econ. Soc.

(2013)

P. Hall

Revisiting the non-place urban realm

Int. Plan. Stud.

(1996)

Cited by (46)

Unlocking the potential of knowledge economy for rural resilience: The role of digital platforms
2023, Journal of Rural Studies
Due to urban-centric development paradigms, actors in the rural business ecosystem and related interaction spaces have become adrift, resulting in the fragility of the rural knowledge economy (K. E.) and rural decline. Diverse organizations, including not-for-profits, civil societies, private agencies, and cooperatives, have taken cognizance of this significant issue and have promoted platform-based enterprises. While the literature emphasizes the role of digital platforms in strengthening rural resilience, it does not elaborate on the underlying mechanism. Consequently, the relationship between the K. E. spaces topologically mapped on the platform, contributing to increased actor interaction and rural resilience, remains underexplored. This motivates us to pose a fundamental question: Can digital platforms operating in rural areas function as K.E. spaces and foster actor interactions to strengthen rural resilience? Theoretically grounded in network externality theory, the triple-helix model, and the Resilience Assessment Benchmarking and Impact Toolkit framework, this study adopts a multiple case study approach utilizing literature synthesis, archival sources, and primary data from key informants of selected platform organizations operational in rural areas. The findings show that K. E. spaces enrich the rural knowledge economy by onboarding missing actors and augmenting proximity. This leads to increased actor interactions and enhanced rural resilience. This study proposes an emergent framework expositing a nexus between digital platforms, K. E. spaces, and rural resilience attributes and contributes to the growing body of rural resilience literature.
Mission-Oriented Innovation Districts: Towards challenge-led, place-based urban innovation
2023, Journal of Cleaner Production
In recent years, there has been rapidly growing interest in Innovation Districts (ID) in urban policy and practice. IDs are touted as catalysts for innovation and economic development involving a wide range of stakeholders often in under-performing neighbourhoods or precincts. Despite the appeal, critique is forming around their linear understanding of innovation, the narrow focus of economic goals and lack of directionality in addressing grand societal challenges. This paper proposes the concept of Mission-Oriented Innovation Districts (MOID). MOID are thought to help design, shape and drive transformative change from a place-based perspective. Methodologically, this paper conceptually reviews antecedents of and draws on a structured search and scoping review of the two popular but disjointed literatures on ID and Mission-Oriented Innovation (MOI). Drawing on an analysis of 99 journal articles, this paper seeks to provide a better understanding about differences and common grounds of the two strands of literature. Five analytical categories are developed and applied to assess and interpret insights from existing publications: (1) understandings, definitions, and objectives; (2) theoretical-conceptual underpinnings; (3) analytical and methodological approaches; (4) evaluation; and (5) governance. We find that there is ample opportunity for cross-fertilization of insights across these two literatures. Based on this in-depth analysis, the contours of a new concept of MOID are outlined through a formal definition of MOID and insights from the analysis are translated into future research questions to inform a transformative agenda for innovation policy.
Socio-spatial integration in innovation districts: Singapore's mixed-use experiment
2023, Cities
Innovation districts have become an increasingly popular type of development in recent years due to their ability to generate economic growth. They have been critiqued, however, because they tend to attract younger and higher-income groups that may lead to socio-spatial segregation. Ironically, studies have shown the success of an innovation district is positively related to social diversity because the knowledge workforce who conducts innovation activates is attracted to the vibrant social environments that are fostered in socially integrated urban settings. This study aims to understand how mixed-used design can promote social integration in innovation districts. To do this, we develop a quantitative methodology for measuring socio-spatial integration and applied to two innovation districts in Singapore, One-north and Kent Ridge. Different mixed-use design strategies from these two innovative districts were compared to see which promoted socioeconomic and activity-based social integration. The study found that mixed-use design strategies are generally advantageous for activity-based integration, since they attract a variety of activity communities to an innovation district to work, learn, live, and play. It also finds that smaller development parcels, dispersed spatial arrangements, and a variety of land uses result in better socioeconomic integration because they provide more opportunities for interaction between different income groups. The study thus contributes methodologically to the study of socio-spatial integration and of innovation districts, while providing planners with a set of guidelines for promoting social integration.
Classifying innovation districts: Delphi validation of a multidimensional framework
2021, Land Use Policy
Establishing innovation districts is a highly popular urban policy due to the economic, social and spatial benefits they offer to the host city. Investing on innovation districts is a risky business as there is no one-size-fit-all innovation district type. Besides, there only exists limited understanding on the varying features, functions and spatial and contextual characteristics of this new land use type. This study aims to contribute to the efforts in classifying innovation districts holistically through a multidimensional framework. The study builds on a conceptual framework developed by the authors and expands it into an operational framework that consists of numerous attributes—i.e., four dimensions (context, form, feature, function), 16 indicators and 48 measures. The framework and its attributes are subjected to validation by a panel of 32 experts through an international Delphi survey. This paper reports the process of framework development and validation. The resulting multidimensional innovation classification framework is first of its kind. It is useful in determining the key characteristics of existing innovation districts, helps in understanding what works in certain locations and what does not, and informs decisions of policymakers in investing the type of innovation districts suitable for the local context.
On innovation capitalization: Empirical evidence from Guangzhou, China
2021, Habitat International
Citation Excerpt :
The discourse of innovation exerts a fundamental impact on the direction of urban space reconfiguration. Existing innovation geography scholarship and gentrification studies have confirmed the theoretical and empirical relationship between innovation and higher-quality urban space (Esmaeilpoorarabi et al., 2018; Esmaeilpoorarabi et al., 2018a; Stehlin, 2016). However, these studies have not considered and quantified the spatial value of innovation.
With the innovation-oriented transformation of the global economy, innovation and the knowledge-based economy have become two of the most distinguishing features of urbanization. The relationship between innovation and urban space has attracted considerable attention in existing theoretical research. However, little is known about the capitalization of innovation. Based on the capitalization hypothesis and hedonic price theory, we develop the concept of innovation capitalization and elaborate its mechanism. Based on housing data of 1668 communities in Guangzhou, a combination of the spatial regression model and the geodetector method were applied to confirm that innovation has a capitalization effect. This research is among the first attempts to quantitatively test the capitalization effect of innovation. The spatial regression results indicate that the innovation has significant positive impact on housing prices. The geodetector results indicate that innovation has an important impact on the spatial heterogeneity of housing prices. This research has critical theoretical and empirical value. We argue that from the innovation capitalization perspective, our understanding of the relationship between innovation and urban space can be deepened and that the impact of innovation on urban space development can be quantified, which can further help us understand the important role that innovation plays in urbanization and urban space development.
Innovation District Planning: Concept, Framework, Practice
2024, Innovation District Planning: Concept, Framework, Practice

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Does place quality matter for innovation districts? Determining the essential place characteristics from Brisbane’s knowledge precincts

Highlights

Abstract

Introduction

Section snippets

Literature review

Methodology

Qualitative analysis

Discussion and conclusion

Prog. Plann.

Appl. Geogr.

Geoforum

Inf. Organ.

Cities

Cities

Land Use Policy

Cities

Reg. Sci. Urban Econ.

Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change

City Cult. Soc.

World Dev.

Res. Policy

Factors explaining the spatial agglomeration of the creative class

Eur. Plann. Stud.

The implications of creative industries for regional outcomes

Int. J. Foresight Innov. Policy

Reframing the role of knowledge parks and science cities in knoledge-based urban development

Environ. Plann.

Geographical economics and urban competitiveness

Urban Stud.

Getting creative with the creative city?

Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.

Locational choices of creative knowledge workers

Built Environ.

Knowledge and the City

Planned knowledge locations in cities

Int. J. Knowl. Based Dev.

City of rents

Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.

A typology of innovation districts

Cambridge J. Reg. Econ. Soc.

The creative class in the UK

Geogr. Ann.

Creative knowledge workers and location in Europe and North America

Creat. Ind. J.

The role of research in regional innovation systems

Int. J. Technol. Manag.

Complex spaces

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.

Analyzing the quality of place

J. Urban Des.

Building theories from case study research

Acad. Manag. Rev.

Place quality and urban competitiveness symbiosis?

Int. J. Knowl. Dev.

Towards an urban quality framework

Int. J. Knowl. Dev.

Cities and the Creative Class

The creative class and the crisis

Cambridge J. Reg. Econ. Soc.

Precarious creativity

Cambridge J. Reg. Econ. Soc.

Revisiting the non-place urban realm

Int. Plan. Stud.