IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i7p5761-d1107520.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Informal Communication Space Quality on Innovation in Innovation Districts

Author

Listed:
  • Youwei Tan

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518000, China)

  • Qinglan Qian

    (College of Geography and Remote Sensing, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510000, China)

  • Xiaolan Chen

    (College of Geography and Remote Sensing, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510000, China)

Abstract

Innovation and creativity have become the driving force of a new round of urban development. Innovation districts have increasingly attracted the attention of domestic and foreign governments and scholars. An informal communication space is the main place for knowledge spillover, innovation communication, and transmission in innovation districts, and its spatial quality plays a vital role in the cultivation and development of innovation districts. The existing quality evaluation of informal communication spaces is less innovative. Based on the perspective of innovation, this paper selects the spatial characteristics of parks, squares, and pedestrian streets from three dimensions of morphology, function, and image, and establishes a preliminary evaluation index system. On the other hand, this paper combs the influence theory of knowledge spillover on innovation and summarizes the communication atmosphere, communication frequency, communication object and communication quality as the dependent variables of innovation. Through correlation analysis and multiple linear regression analysis, innovative informal communication space features are screened out, and the spatial quality evaluation index systems of parks, squares, and pedestrian streets are constructed, respectively. In the empirical study, 24 samples of Gaoxin South District (GXSD) are selected for spatial quality evaluation. Subjective evaluation and objective evaluation are used to obtain the advantages and disadvantages of different spaces to stimulate innovation. This study is helpful for urban designers and planners to better carry out space design to promote innovation through evaluating space status.

Suggested Citation

  • Youwei Tan & Qinglan Qian & Xiaolan Chen, 2023. "Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Informal Communication Space Quality on Innovation in Innovation Districts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:7:p:5761-:d:1107520
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5761/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5761/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Storper & Anthony J. Venables, 2004. "Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 351-370, August.
    2. Josep-Maria Arauzo-Carod, 2021. "Location determinants of high-tech firms: an intra-urban approach," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(10), pages 1225-1248, November.
    3. Willem van Winden & Luis Carvalho, 2016. "Urbanize or Perish? Assessing the Urbanization of Knowledge Locations in Europe," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 53-70, January.
    4. Evers, Hans-Dieter, 2008. "Knowledge hubs and knowledge clusters: Designing a knowledge architecture for development," MPRA Paper 8778, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Juliana Martins, 2015. "The Extended Workplace in a Creative Cluster: Exploring Space(s) of Digital Work in Silicon Roundabout," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 125-145, February.
    6. Aaron Chatterji & Edward Glaeser & William Kerr, 2014. "Clusters of Entrepreneurship and Innovation," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(1), pages 129-166.
    7. Niusha Esmaeilpoorarabi & Tan Yigitcanlar & Mirko Guaralda, 2016. "Towards an urban quality framework: determining critical measures for different geographical scales to attract and retain talent in cities," International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(3), pages 290-312.
    8. Fu, Wenying & Revilla Diez, Javier & Schiller, Daniel, 2013. "Interactive learning, informal networks and innovation: Evidence from electronics firm survey in the Pearl River Delta, China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 635-646.
    9. Robert Kloosterman & Jan Trip, 2011. "Planning for Quality? Assessing the Role of Quality of Place in Current Dutch Planning Practice," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(04), pages 455-470.
    10. Philip McCann, 2007. "Sketching Out a Model of Innovation, Face-to-face Interaction and Economic Geography," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 117-134.
    11. Esmaeilpoorarabi, Niusha & Yigitcanlar, Tan & Guaralda, Mirko & Kamruzzaman, Md., 2018. "Does place quality matter for innovation districts? Determining the essential place characteristics from Brisbane’s knowledge precincts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 734-747.
    12. Henk W. Volberda & Nicolai J. Foss & Marjorie A. Lyles, 2010. "PERSPECTIVE---Absorbing the Concept of Absorptive Capacity: How to Realize Its Potential in the Organization Field," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 931-951, August.
    13. Surabhi Pancholi & Tan Yigitcanlar & Mirko Guaralda, 2018. "Attributes of successful place-making in knowledge and innovation spaces: evidence from Brisbane’s Diamantina knowledge precinct," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(5), pages 693-711, September.
    14. Pancholi, Surabhi & Yigitcanlar, Tan & Guaralda, Mirko, 2019. "Place making for innovation and knowledge-intensive activities: The Australian experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 616-625.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adu-McVie, Rosemary & Yigitcanlar, Tan & Erol, Isil & Xia, Bo, 2021. "Classifying innovation districts: Delphi validation of a multidimensional framework," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Yigitcanlar, Tan & Adu-McVie, Rosemary & Erol, Isil, 2020. "How can contemporary innovation districts be classified? A systematic review of the literature," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. JinHyo Joseph Yun & Xiaofei Zhao & Tan Yigitcanlar & DooSeok Lee & HeungJu Ahn, 2018. "Architectural Design and Open Innovation Symbiosis: Insights from Research Campuses, Manufacturing Systems, and Innovation Districts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Yue Wu & Yue Yang & Weishun Xu & Qiuxiao Chen, 2020. "The Influence of Innovation Resources in Higher Education Institutions on the Development of Sci-Tech Parks’ Enterprises in the Urban Innovative Districts at the Stage of Urbanization Transformation," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-36, October.
    5. Li, Xiaoying & Tan, Ying, 2020. "University R&D activities and firm innovations," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    6. Nathan, Max, 2022. "Does light touch cluster policy work? Evaluating the tech city programme," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(9).
    7. Benoit, Florence & Belderbos, René, 2024. "International connection, local disconnection: The (heterogeneous) role of global cities in local and global innovation networks," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3).
    8. Sverre J. Herstad, 2018. "Beyond ‘related variety’: how inflows of skills shape innovativeness in different industries," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 396-420, February.
    9. Charlie Karlsson & Börje Johansson & Kiyoshi Kobayashi & Roger R. Stough, 2014. "Knowledge, innovation and space: introduction," Chapters, in: Charlie Karlsson & Börje Johansson & Kiyoshi Kobayashi & Roger R. Stough (ed.), Knowledge, Innovation and Space, chapter 1, pages 1-26, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. William R. Kerr & Frederic Robert-Nicoud, 2020. "Tech Clusters," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(3), pages 50-76, Summer.
    11. Ssu-Chi Pan & Peilei Fan & Tai-Shan Hu & Han-Yu Li & 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, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-22, May.
    12. Ning, Lutao & Wang, Fan & Li, Jian, 2016. "Urban innovation, regional externalities of foreign direct investment and industrial agglomeration: Evidence from Chinese cities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 830-843.
    13. Tom Kemeny & Maryann Feldman & Frank Ethridge & Ted Zoller, 2016. "The economic value of local social networks," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(5), pages 1101-1122.
    14. Ma, Liya & Niu, Dongxiao & Sun, Weizeng, 2021. "Transportation infrastructure and entrepreneurship: Evidence from high-speed railway in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    15. Jaakko Simonen & Philip McCann, 2010. "Knowledge transfers and innovation: The role of labour markets and R&D co‐operation between agents and institutions," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 89(2), pages 295-309, June.
    16. Yue Wu & Xiangyi Li & Yue Yang & Weishun Xu, 2022. "Correlation between Urban Commercial Nodes and the Development of Sci-Tech Enterprises in Hangzhou West High-Tech Corridor, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-28, November.
    17. Jili Xu & Fiona Fan Yang & Desheng Xue, 2019. "The Geography of Knowledge Sourcing, Personal Networks, and Innovation Effects: Evidence from the Biomedical Firms in Guangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-18, June.
    18. Jiwu Wang & Chengyu Tong & Xuewei Hu, 2021. "Policy Zoning Method for Innovation Districts to Sustainably Develop the Knowledge-Economy: A Case Study in Hangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, March.
    19. Emma Folmer & Robert C Kloosterman, 2017. "Emerging intra-urban geographies of the cognitive-cultural economy: Evidence from residential neighbourhoods in Dutch cities," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(4), pages 801-818, April.
    20. Christoph Stich & Emmanouil Tranos & Max Nathan, 2023. "Modeling clusters from the ground up: A web data approach," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(1), pages 244-267, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:7:p:5761-:d:1107520. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.