IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i3p396-d92431.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Study of RI Clusters Based on Symbiosis Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Wenchao Xu

    (School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China
    National Center for Materials Service Safety, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Yanmei Xu

    (School of Economics and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China)

  • Junfeng Li

    (National Center for Materials Service Safety, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

Research infrastructure (RI) refers to a large and complex science research facility or system that conducts top-level science activities. In recent years, there has been a tendency toward geographical concentration of RIs and formation of RI clusters. Some of these RI clusters have become engines for regional social and economic development. It turns out that RI clusters present a new stage for RI sustainable development. The present paper tries to study RI clusters based on symbiosis theory in order to build an analytical framework for policy makers’ comprehensive understanding of RI clusters. Following the analytical framework, we study the symbiosis system and the symbiosis structures of an RI cluster by analyzing its major characteristics. In order to achieve a balanced symbiotic situation, a competitive model and a symbiosis model are proposed based on the Logistic Model. The analysis is grounded in the samples of China’s typical RI clusters and other cases in the world to give a vivid and convincing illustration. During the analysis process, an RI cluster is regarded as a complex ecological system and the organization and management of units in the cluster is the focus of the study. The authors hope that the paper will supplement the existing literature, which mainly focuses on the technological problems and the evaluation of RI’s socioeconomic effects, in the sense of a systematical analysis of the management problem of RI.

Suggested Citation

  • Wenchao Xu & Yanmei Xu & Junfeng Li, 2017. "A Study of RI Clusters Based on Symbiosis Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:3:p:396-:d:92431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/3/396/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/3/396/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Evans, Lyn, 2016. "Particle accelerators at CERN: From the early days to the LHC and beyond," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 4-12.
    2. Battistoni, Giuseppe & Genco, Mario & Marsilio, Marta & Pancotti, Chiara & Rossi, Sandro & Vignetti, Silvia, 2016. "Cost–benefit analysis of applied research infrastructure. Evidence from health care," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 79-91.
    3. D. Rachel Lombardi & Peter Laybourn, 2012. "Redefining Industrial Symbiosis," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(1), pages 28-37, February.
    4. Richard Heidler & Olof Hallonsten, 2015. "Qualifying the performance evaluation of Big Science beyond productivity, impact and costs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 295-312, July.
    5. Florio, Massimo & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2016. "Social benefits and costs of large scale research infrastructures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 65-78.
    6. Merle Jacob & Olof Hallonsten, 2012. "The persistence of big science and megascience in research and innovation policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(4), pages 411-415, July.
    7. Del Bo, Chiara F., 2016. "The rate of return to investment in R&D: The case of research infrastructures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 26-37.
    8. Olof Hallonsten, 2014. "How expensive is Big Science? Consequences of using simple publication counts in performance assessment of large scientific facilities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 483-496, August.
    9. Jian Zhang & Michael S. Vogeley & Chaomei Chen, 2011. "Scientometrics of big science: a case study of research in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 1-14, January.
    10. Olof Hallonsten, 2013. "Introducing ‘facilitymetrics’: a first review and analysis of commonly used measures of scientific leadership among synchrotron radiation facilities worldwide," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(2), pages 497-513, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaoxing Zhang & Changyuan Gao & Shuchen Zhang, 2021. "Research on the Knowledge-Sharing Incentive of the Cross-Boundary Alliance Symbiotic System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-20, September.

    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. D’Ippolito, Beatrice & Rüling, Charles-Clemens, 2019. "Research collaboration in Large Scale Research Infrastructures: Collaboration types and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1282-1296.
    2. Xiyi Yang & Xiaoyu Zhou & Cong Cao, 2024. "Beamtimes and knowledge production times: how big-science research infrastructures shape nations’ domestic and international science production," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    3. Pan, Xiongfeng & Guo, Shucen & Li, Mengna & Song, Jinbo, 2021. "The effect of technology infrastructure investment on technological innovation ——A study based on spatial durbin model," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Qiao, Lili & Mu, Rongping & Chen, Kaihua, 2016. "Scientific effects of large research infrastructures in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 102-112.
    5. Richard Heidler & Olof Hallonsten, 2015. "Qualifying the performance evaluation of Big Science beyond productivity, impact and costs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 295-312, July.
    6. Massimo FLORIO & Francesco GIFFONI, 2019. "L’impatto sociale della produzione di scienza su larga scala: come governarlo?," Departmental Working Papers 2019-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    7. Morretta, Valentina & Vurchio, Davide & Carrazza, Stefano, 2022. "The socio-economic value of scientific publications: The case of Earth Observation satellites," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    8. Morretta, Valentina & Florio, Massimo & Landoni, Matteo, 2023. "The social value of Earth observation: A new evaluation framework for public high-tech infrastructures," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 407-419.
    9. Massimo FLORIO & Andrea BASTIANIN & Paolo CASTELNOVO, 2017. "The Socio–Economic Impact of a Breakthrough in the Particle Accelerators’ Technology: A Research Agenda," Departmental Working Papers 2017-18, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    10. Andrea, Bastianin & Chiara F., Del Bo, 2019. "Procurement in Big Science Centres: politics or technology? Evidence from CERN," Working Papers 410, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised 21 May 2019.
    11. Abad Chabbi & Henry W. Loescher, 2017. "The Lack of Alignment among Environmental Research Infrastructures May Impede Scientific Opportunities," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-8, July.
    12. Landoni, Matteo, 2020. "Knowledge creation in state-owned enterprises," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 77-85.
    13. Wu, Yunna & Yong, Xingkai & Tao, Yao & Zhou, Jianli & He, Jiaming & Chen, Wenjun & Yang, Yingying, 2023. "Investment monitoring key points identification model of big science research infrastructures -- Fuzzy BWM-entropy-PROMETHEE Ⅱ method," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    14. Andrea Bastianin & Paolo Castelnovo & Massimo Florio & Anna Giunta, 2022. "Big science and innovation: gestation lag from procurement to patents for CERN suppliers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 531-555, April.
    15. Olof Hallonsten, 2014. "How expensive is Big Science? Consequences of using simple publication counts in performance assessment of large scientific facilities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 483-496, August.
    16. Elisa D?Adamo, 2018. "La Cost-Benefit Analysis delle grandi infrastrutture: un riesame del Large Hadron Collider (LHC) del CERN," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(1-2), pages 97-108.
    17. Daniel Alonso-Martínez & Nuria González-Álvarez & Mariano Nieto, 2021. "Does international patent collaboration have an effect on entrepreneurship?," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 539-559, December.
    18. Andrea, Bastianin & Paolo, Castelnuovo & Massimo, Florio & Anna, Giunta, 2019. "Technological Learning and Innovation Gestation Lags at the Frontier of Science: from CERN Procurement to Patents," Working Papers 405, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Apr 2019.
    19. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Gelsomina Catalano, 2020. "Should governments fund basic science? Evidence from a willingness-to-pay experiment in five universities," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-33, January.
    20. Patrick S. Roberts & Jon Schmid, 2022. "Government‐led innovation acceleration: Case studies of US federal government innovation and technology acceleration organizations," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(3), pages 353-378, May.

    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:9:y:2017:i:3:p:396-:d:92431. 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.