IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v45y2020i4d10.1007_s10961-019-09744-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived benefits of science park attributes among park tenants in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Keat Benny Ng

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

  • Robin Junker

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

  • Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

  • Myriam Cloodt

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

  • Theo Arentze

    (Eindhoven University of Technology)

Abstract

Science parks as area developments have existed for decades and captivated the attention of academia and policy-makers for their potential impact on firms and regions. Only limited attention is given to the needs of science park firms regarding what science parks offer. Therefore, this study focused on science park facilities and services and how firms perceive the benefits associated with these attributes. An online survey distributed among tenants on seven science parks in the Netherlands yielded 103 respondents. An a priori list of science park attributes was presented in order to gain insight in how the respondents associated these facilities and services with potential benefits. The benefits considered were derived from proximity and innovation literature within the science park context. In general, science park attributes were associated with either proximity benefits or benefits related to the SP real estate. Based on a cluster analysis of organisational characteristics three tenant types were identified. The three tenant types sought different benefits through different attributes. Commercially-orientated firms associated science park attributes as ways for being near customers. Mature science-based firms associated attributes with a wider range of benefits, such as image benefits, being near customers and other firms. Young technology-based firms were more cost-driven and focused on image benefits. The associations between various types of facilities and the benefits that tenant types seek, provide insights for practitioners in terms of the design and management of science parks and add to the body of knowledge of science parks within the context of innovation management.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Keat Benny Ng & Robin Junker & Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek & Myriam Cloodt & Theo Arentze, 2020. "Perceived benefits of science park attributes among park tenants in the Netherlands," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 1196-1227, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:45:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10961-019-09744-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-019-09744-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10961-019-09744-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-019-09744-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marko Sarstedt & Erik Mooi, 2014. "The Market Research Process," Springer Texts in Business and Economics, in: A Concise Guide to Market Research, edition 2, chapter 2, pages 11-23, Springer.
    2. Kelsi G. Hobbs & Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2017. "Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 957-976, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Yang, Chih-Hai & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Chen, Jong-Rong, 2009. "Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative?: Evidence from Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 77-85, February.
    5. Roberta Capello & Andrea Morrison, 2009. "Science Parks and Local Knowledge Creation: A Conceptual Approach and an Empirical Analysis in Two Italian Realities," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Charlie Karlsson & Ake E. Andersson & Paul C. Cheshire & Roger R. Stough (ed.), New Directions in Regional Economic Development, chapter 0, pages 221-245, Springer.
    6. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & van den Oord, Ad, 2008. "Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1717-1731, December.
    7. Jaffe, Adam B, 1989. "Real Effects of Academic Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957-970, December.
    8. Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & Arentze, Theo & Horeni, Oliver & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2017. "Deriving attribute utilities from mental representations of complex decisions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 24-38.
    9. Özgecan Koçak & Özge Can, 2014. "Determinants of inter-firm networks among tenants of science technology parks," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 23(2), pages 467-492.
    10. Fukugawa, Nobuya, 2006. "Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 381-400, March.
    11. M. Ferrara & F. Lamperti & R. Mavilia, 2016. "Looking for best performers: a pilot study towards the evaluation of science parks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 717-750, February.
    12. Armstrong, J. Scott & Overton, Terry S., 1977. "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys," MPRA Paper 81694, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Zoltán J. Ács & Pontus Braunerhjelm & David B. Audretsch & Bo Carlsson, 2015. "The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship," Chapters, in: Global Entrepreneurship, Institutions and Incentives, chapter 7, pages 129-144, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Paul Westhead & Stephen Batstone, 1999. "Perceived benefits of a managed science park location," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 129-154, April.
    15. Theo A. Arentze & Benedict G. C. Dellaert & Caspar G. Chorus, 2015. "Incorporating Mental Representations in Discrete Choice Models of Travel Behavior: Modeling Approach and Empirical Application," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 577-590, August.
    16. Eva-María Mora-Valentín & Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado & Juan-José Nájera-Sánchez, 2018. "Mapping the conceptual structure of science and technology parks," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1410-1435, October.
    17. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Landoni, Paolo, 2010. "Science and Technology Parks impacts on tenant organisations: a review of literature," MPRA Paper 41914, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Danilo Liberati & Marco Marinucci & Giulia Martina Tanzi, 2016. "Science and technology parks in Italy: main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 694-729, August.
    19. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2003. "U.S. science parks: the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1323-1356, November.
    20. Henny Romijn & Mike Albu, 2002. "Innovation, Networking and Proximity: Lessons from Small High Technology Firms in the UK," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 81-86.
    21. Fernando Ubeda & Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado & Eva-María Mora-Valentín, 2019. "Do firms located in science and technology parks enhance innovation performance? The effect of absorptive capacity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 21-48, February.
    22. Lori Rosenkopf & Paul Almeida, 2003. "Overcoming Local Search Through Alliances and Mobility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 751-766, June.
    23. Appold, Stephen J., 2004. "Research parks and the location of industrial research laboratories: an analysis of the effectiveness of a policy intervention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 225-243, March.
    24. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    25. Charlie Karlsson & Ake E. Andersson & Paul C. Cheshire & Roger R. Stough (ed.), 2009. "New Directions in Regional Economic Development," Advances in Spatial Science, Springer, number 978-3-642-01017-0.
    26. Marko Sarstedt & Erik Mooi, 2014. "A Concise Guide to Market Research," Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer, edition 2, number 978-3-642-53965-7, December.
    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. Alberto Albahari & Andrés Barge-Gil & Salvador Pérez-Canto & Paolo Landoni, 2023. "The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: a literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1489-1531, August.
    2. Martin R. W. Hiebl & David I. Pielsticker, 2023. "Automation, organizational ambidexterity and the stability of employee relations: new tensions arising between corporate entrepreneurship, innovation management and stakeholder management," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1978-2006, December.
    3. Sirirat Sae Lim & Hong Ngoc Nguyen & Chia-Li Lin, 2022. "Exploring the Development Strategies of Science Parks Using the Hybrid MCDM Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-29, April.
    4. Vidit Mohan & Rohan Chinchwadkar, 2022. "Technology Business Incubation: A Literature Review and Gaps," International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 53-63, June.
    5. Taiane Quaresma Leite & André Luis Silva & Joaquim Ramos Silva & Sérgio Evangelista Silva, 2023. "A Multilevel Analysis of the Interaction Between Science Parks and External Agents: a Study in Brazil and Portugal," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(2), pages 1790-1829, June.

    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. Ng, Wei Keat Benny & Appel-Meulenbroek, Rianne & Cloodt, Myriam & Arentze, Theo, 2021. "Perceptual measures of science parks: Tenant firms’ associations between science park attributes and benefits," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    2. Alberto Albahari & Andrés Barge-Gil & Salvador Pérez-Canto & Paolo Landoni, 2023. "The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: a literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1489-1531, August.
    3. Ng, Wei Keat Benny & Appel-Meulenbroek, Rianne & Cloodt, Myriam & Arentze, Theo, 2022. "Exploring science park location choice: A stated choice experiment among Dutch technology-based firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    4. T. Theeranattapong & D. Pickernell & C. Simms, 2021. "Systematic literature review paper: the regional innovation system-university-science park nexus," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 2017-2050, December.
    5. Laura Lecluyse & Mirjam Knockaert & André Spithoven, 2019. "The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 559-595, April.
    6. Ng, Wei Keat Benny & Appel-Meulenbroek, Rianne & Cloodt, Myriam & Arentze, Theo, 2019. "Towards a segmentation of science parks: A typology study on science parks in Europe," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 719-732.
    7. Taiane Quaresma Leite & André Luis Silva & Joaquim Ramos Silva & Sérgio Evangelista Silva, 2023. "A Multilevel Analysis of the Interaction Between Science Parks and External Agents: a Study in Brazil and Portugal," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(2), pages 1790-1829, June.
    8. Alberto Albahari & Magnus Klofsten & Juan Carlos Rubio-Romero, 2019. "Science and Technology Parks: a study of value creation for park tenants," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1256-1272, August.
    9. Laspia, Alessandro & Sansone, Giuliano & Landoni, Paolo & Racanelli, Domenico & Bartezzaghi, Emilio, 2021. "The organization of innovation services in science and technology parks: Evidence from a multi-case study analysis in Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    10. Fernando Ubeda & Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado & Eva-María Mora-Valentín, 2019. "Do firms located in science and technology parks enhance innovation performance? The effect of absorptive capacity," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 21-48, February.
    11. Marina van Geenhuizen & Danny P. Soetanto & Victor Scholten, 2012. "Science Parks: Changing Roles and Changing Approaches in their Evaluation," Chapters, in: Marina van Geenhuizen & Peter Nijkamp (ed.), Creative Knowledge Cities, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Good, Matthew & Knockaert, Mirjam & Soppe, Birthe & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The technology transfer ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 35-50.
    13. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Barge-Gil, Andrés & Modrego, Aurelia, 2017. "Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 13-28.
    14. Ángela Vásquez-Urriago & Andrés Barge-Gil & Aurelia Rico & Evita Paraskevopoulou, 2014. "The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ product innovation: empirical evidence from Spain," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 835-873, September.
    15. Kelsi G. Hobbs & Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2017. "Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 957-976, August.
    16. Alberto Albahari & Andrés Barge‐Gil & Salvador Pérez‐Canto & Aurelia Modrego, 2018. "The influence of science and technology park characteristics on firms' innovation results," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 97(2), pages 253-279, June.
    17. Link, Albert & Scott, John, 2018. "Geographic Proximity and Science Parks," UNCG Economics Working Papers 18-4, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    18. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2011. "Research, Science, and Technology Parks: Vehicles for Technology Transfer," UNCG Economics Working Papers 11-22, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    19. Corrocher, Nicoletta & Lamperti, Francesco & Mavilia, Roberto, 2019. "Do science parks sustain or trigger innovation? Empirical evidence from Italy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 140-151.
    20. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Landoni, Paolo, 2010. "Science and Technology Parks impacts on tenant organisations: a review of literature," MPRA Paper 41914, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Science parks; Perceived benefits; Facilities and services; Real estate;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:jtecht:v:45:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10961-019-09744-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.