IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 138

138 Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 5, Nos. 1/2, 2005

111
2 The science park phenomenon: development,
3 evolution and typology
4
5
6
7 Yuehua Zhang
8 Department of Marketing and International Management,
9 Waikato Management School, The University of Waikato,
1011 Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand
1 E-mail: jzhang@mngt.waikato.ac.nz, yuehua_zhang_8@hotmail.com
2
3 Abstract: The world has seen an increasing number of science parks since the
1980s, but still lacks systematised accumulated knowledge about science parks.
4 The current study probes the terms and definitions of science park schemes, and
5 analyses the half-a-century development and evaluation of the science park
6 phenomenon. It exposes the increasing functions that science parks have been
7 expected to perform due to the change of major promoters from being universities
8 to governments. It also depicts science park typology, namely park/campus style,
centre/incubator style and city/region style. Findings concerned are helpful for
9 science park developers and managers, particularly latecomers.
2011
1 Keywords: industrial cluster; innovation centre; science/technology park;
2 technology incubator; technopole; technopolis.
3 Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Zhang, Y. (2005)
4 ‘The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology’, Int.
5 J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 5, Nos. 1/2, pp.138–154.
6
7 Biographical notes: Yuehua Zhang received her PhD from the Department of
Management, Faculty of Commerce, The University of Wollongong, Australia in
8 2002. Currently she works as a Lecturer of international management at Waikato
9 Management School, The University of Waikato, New Zealand. Her research
30 interests include industrial clusters, science/technology park management,
1 national competitiveness and development towards a knowledge-based
economy. She has publications in various international conference proceedings,
2 and international journals i.e. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management,
3 Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, and Int. J. Technology, Policy and
4 Management.
5
6
7
8 1 Introduction
9
40 Science parks, as we know today, originated in the USA in the early 1950s (Grayson,
1 1993; Hennebery, 1984; Macdonald, 1987; Xue, 1987). The Stanford Research Park in
2 Palo Alto, California, founded in 1951 (Carter, 1989; Hennebery, 1984; LaValle, 1982;
3 Macdonald, 1987; McQueen and Haxton, 1998; Xue, 1997), is believed to be the first one
4 in the world (Danilov, 1971; Kung, 1995).1 The next schemes of note are the Research
5 Triangle Park established in 1959 and the Cummings Research Park, in 1962. Both are in
6 the USA (McQueen and Haxton, 1998).2 There were only about 21 science park schemes
711 by the end of the 1960s and about 39 by the end of the 1970s. The real introduction and
8

Copyright © 2005 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 139

The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology 139

111 growth of the science park phenomenon began in the 1980s. By 1990, over 270 parks
2 could be found worldwide. By 2000, the figure was nearly 900 (Haxton, 2000; McQueen
3 and Haxton, 1998). Policy makers’ enthusiasm has been playing an important role in the
4 quick spread of the science park phenomenon.
5 With knowledge being increasingly realised as an important contributor to the
6 competitiveness of both countries and firms through the late 20th century (Cole, 1998;
7 OECD, 1999; Teece, 1998), both developed and less developed countries have been
8 encouraging the development of knowledge–intensive industries either directly or
9 indirectly (Goldstein and Luger, 1993). The economic booms through the 1970s of some
1011 science parks, such as the Stanford Research Park and the Research Triangle Park, and
1 spontaneous high technology industrial clusters such as Silicon Valley, Route 128 and
2 the Cambridge Phenomenon, suggested a mechanism for their efforts.3 This led to the
3 establishment of an increasing number of planned industrial clusters with strong
4 government or quasi-government initiatives aimed at recreating the dynamics found in
5 these models in order to boost the economies of their respective areas (Bass, 1998; Luger
6 and Goldstein, 1991; OECD, 1987; Van Dierdonck et al., 1985).
7 Those planned schemes present various geographical scales. These include entire
8 regions, cities or smaller property developments. Examples covering regions or cities are
9 Japan’s ‘technopolis’ projects and large-scale urban developments known as science
2011 cities. Smaller property developments of this nature are usually referred to as research
1 parks, science parks, or technology parks (Bass, 1998). In some situations, all those
2 planned schemes are regarded as science parks (DITC, 1989; Grayson, 1993; Porter,
3 1989; Sunman, 1989). This partly contributes to the prolificacy of science park schemes.
4 In parallel with the quick spread of the science park phenomenon is the lack of
5 systematised accumulated knowledge about science parks and a theoretical framework
6 permitting concrete and flexible recommendations to managers (Cabrae, 1998). Given the
7 huge investment that a science park may incur, the high expectations that people put
8 on them, and the high failure rates that have already caused some concern (see Browne,
9 1966; Danilov, 1967; Luger and Goldstein, 1991; Joseph, 1989; Miller and Cole, 1987;
30 Minshall, 1983; NSF, 1982; Schamp, 1987; Van Dierdonck and Debackere, 1990; Van
1 Dierdonck et al., 1991), comprehensively studying science parks in order to maximise the
2 benefits of such investments has become an urgent need.
3 The current paper presents a study on the science park phenomenon through tracing a
4 broad range of literature.4 It probes the terms and definitions of science park schemes,
5 and analyses the half-a-century of development and evaluation of the science park
6 phenomenon. It exposes the increasing functions that science parks have been expected
7 to perform, and depicts science park typology. Findings are helpful for science park
8 developers and managers, particularly those latecomers.
9
40
1 2 Terms and definitions of science park schemes
2
3 The term, ‘science park’, has been used to refer to schemes under various similar
4 names such as ‘research park’, ‘technology park’, ‘science and technology industrial
5 park’, ‘high technology development’, ‘innovation centre’, and ‘technology incubator’
6 (see AURRP, 1998; Grayson, 1993; Hennebery, 1984; IASP, 1998; Kung, 1995;
711 McQueen and Haxton, 1998; Xue, 1997). Among all these names, ‘science park’,
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 140

140 Y. Zhang

111 ‘research park’, and ‘technology park’ are more frequently used (DITC, 1989; Joseph,
2 1989a; MacDonald, 1987; OECD, 1987). ‘Research park’ is popular in the USA; ‘science
3 park’, in the UK; and ‘technology park’, in Australia (DITC, 1989; Joseph, 1994).5
4 The International Association of Science Parks (IASP) (2001) defines: ‘A
5 science/technology park is a property-based initiative which
6  Has operational links with universities, research centres and other institutions of
7 higher education.
8  Is designed to encourage the formation and growth of knowledge-based industries or
9
high value-added tertiary firms, normally resident on site.
1011
1  Has a steady management team actively engaged in fostering the transfer of
2 technology and business to tenant organisations’.6
3 The Association of University Related Research Parks (AURRP) defines a university
4 related research park or technology incubator as ‘a property-based venture which has:
5  Existing or planned land and buildings designed primarily for private and public
6 research and development facilities, high technology and science based companies
7 and support services.
8  A contractual and/or formal ownership or operational relationship with one or more
9
universities or other institutions of higher education, and science research.
2011
1  A role in promoting research and development by the university in partnership with
2 industry, assisting in the growth of new ventures, and promoting economic
3 development.
4  A role in aiding the transfer of technology and business skills between the university
5 and industry tenants’ (AURRP, 2000).
6 Although using different names, definitions provided by IASP and AURRP share similar
7 opinion in the following key aspects about science parks7:
8
What? Property-based schemes.
9
30 For whom? Knowledge-based firms and technology-intensive activities.
1 For what? Assisting the growth of knowledge-based firms & technology transfers.
2 Intentions trying to distinguish various names of related property schemes appeared since
3 the 1980s. As per research park, science park and technology park, Lowe (1985) suggests:
4
“The ‘purest’ form is a research park which will usually be close to or on the
5 campus of a university. The key area of activity here is academic/industry
6 liaison in leading edge technologies. Usually this is maintained by the
7 university having a key role in the management of the park with scientific
8 advance being more important than rental income from tenants. The term
9 science park is more accurately used for a similar sort of situation but where
40 developmental work is as important as research and where prototype production
1 facilities may exist. A technology park is usually a development to
2 accommodate companies engaged in the commercial application of high
technology. Academic involvement may be low or non-existent and some
3
production, sales and servicing may be allowed”. (Lowe, 1985)
4
5 Grayson (1993) presents a similar opinion:
6 “Research park – the ‘pure’ form in which the principal form of activity is
711 academic/industrial liaison in leading edge technologies. The academic institution
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 141

The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology 141

111 normally takes the lead in such initiatives, and the prime motivation is likely to be the
2 advance of scientific and technological knowledge rather than the acquisition of rental
3 income.
4 Science park – similar to the research park in that it is usually located on, or very near
5 to, the university campus. However, developmental work is likely to be as important as
6 pure research, and some prototype production facilities may exist. Formal research links
7 between the university and tenant companies may, in practice, be relatively slight
8 although the informal relationships engendered by physical proximity can be significant.
9 Technology park – usually designed to accommodate firms engaged in the commercial
1011 application of advanced technologies. Academic involvement is likely to be minimal, and
1 some full scale production, sales and servicing may be permitted.”
2 The study of the Australian Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce
3 (DITC) (1989) through synthesising Debenham and Chinnocks (1983), Queensland
4 Premier’s Department (1984) and Maruyama (1985) tends to support the above distinction.
5 It suggests that a research park implies a high quality and low density physical
6 environment in a park-like environment; interaction between academics, researchers and
7 commercial organisations and entrepreneurs; and an environment for research and product
8 development, with conventional production and office activities excluded. A science park
9 can include light industrial production relating to scientific research and appropriate
2011 ancillary services (In addition to this, the above IASP’s definition is used). A technology
1 park is a collection of high-technology industrial companies concerned with both research
2 and manufacturing located in attractive, well landscaped surroundings and situated within
3 a reasonable catchment area of a scientific university or major research institute.
4 Only Porter’s perception towards a research park is quite different. According to him,
5 science parks are on landscaped sites adjacent to a higher education institution suitable for
6 both new and established knowledge-based enterprises. Research parks are often similar to
7 science parks, but may have a greater range of manufacturing activities with less obvious
8 connections to educational establishments. Technology parks (or technopoles) are large
9 areas where knowledge-based activities are concentrated and where technology transfer
30 links with higher education institutions are often tenuous (Porter, 1989).8
1 Minshall (1983), although does not take research park into the consideration, defines
2 ‘science park’ and ‘technology park’ in the similar way as the above. A science park
3 houses such activities as research, engineering, proto-type activities, and certain types of
4 office and administrative activities. No light manufacturing, distribution and business
5 services are accepted. Professional and technical employees dominate the potential
6 workforce. A technology park is a quality development that is suited for a wide range of
7 activities such as research and development (R&D), high technology and light
8 manufacturing activities, office and administrative functions and a wide range of services.
9 White-collar professionals, clerical and highly skilled production personnel such as
40 craftsmen are to be found there in addition to large numbers of scientists, engineers and
1 technicians (Minshall, 1983).
2 Luger and Goldstein (1991) does not encourage using the word ‘pure’ to distinguish
3 science or research parks as they often include some service-orientated businesses such
4 as hotels, restaurants, banks, law offices, accounting firms and child care centres as well
5 as some businesses primarily engaged in production rather than R&D. They do agree that
6 industrial parks, office parks and business incubators are less technology-intensive
711 compared with science or research parks. In their opinion, manufacturing is the primary
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 142

142 Y. Zhang

111 focus of industrial parks. Administration or sales are the main functions of office parks.
2 Business incubators provide space in multi-tenant buildings for new and small businesses.
3 This is in agreement with Minshall (1983), which suggests that an office park is a
4 development for general category of office/mixed use. It provides locations not only for
5 R&D, but also a wide range of office, light manufacturing and business supporting
6 services. An industrial park is clearly orientated towards the production, service, and
7 distribution of traditional industries. It combines office and research functions, and tends
8 toward traditional production and distribution. It may not be well suited for a wide range
9 of high technology activities (Minshall, 1983).
1011 The above elaboration reflects that science park schemes, which may appear with
1 different names, are essentially property initiatives engaging in leasing land lots and/or
2 building spaces to knowledge-intensive activities such as research, development and
3 knowledge/technology commercialisation. There has been a tendency to distinguish
4 schemes named ‘research park’, ‘science park’, and ‘technology park’ based on their major
5 in-house activities. It generally suggests that research parks have more activities
6 concerning knowledge creation; technology parks involve more knowledge application
7 and commercialisation; and science parks in between. However, no clear-cut boundaries
8 have been found between them. Comparatively speaking, office parks, business parks and
9 industrial parks have a significant lower lever of knowledge-intensive activities. They can
2011 be regarded as non-science park schemes.
1
2
3 3 Development and evolution of the science park phenomenon
4
5 Literature reflects that science parks worldwide are mostly within the organisation of either
6 universities or governments. University parks are the pioneers in both North America and
7 Europe (see Aley, 1997; Allesch and Fiedler, 1984; Carter, 1980; Grayson, 1993;
8 Kenward, 1991; La Valle, 1982; Lowe, 1985; Monck et al., 1988; Weshead and Barstone,
9 1998); government parks, in the other regions (AURRP, 1998; IASP, 1998). Science parks
30 in the USA were historically established by universities. They were expected to perform as
1 a means of complementing academic programmes and raising income (La Valle, 1982),
2 better exploiting academic enterprise and research (Lowe, 1985), and capitalising on
3 land resources and encouraging greater academic entrepreneurship (Grayson, 1993). The
4 770-acre land of the Stanford Research Park was part of the University’s original
5 endowment, which could not be sold, therefore, the land was leased up to a maximum of
6 51 years. This arrangement raised several million dollars annually for the University. The
7 Research Triangle Park, on 5700 acres of rolling hills in North Carolina, was conceived as
8 a method for the universities of North Carolina to pool their intellectual and financial
9 resources in order to promote research (La Valle, 1982).
40
What encouraged the development of science parks is ‘the willingness of university
1
authorities to adjust a number of administrative policies and to create an environment
2
which allowed individual academics to develop their own commercial ventures whilst
3
continuing as members of the university’ (Lowe, 1985). Strong university-orientated
4
objectives still dominated science park schemes by the mid of the 1980s. These include:
5
6
711
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 143

The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology 143

111  To provide a mechanism whereby companies formed by academics can spin out or
2 off from the academic environment to form a focus for new enterprise development.
3  To create a structure within which technology/knowledge can be transferred at the
4
least cost between academics and business practitioners.
5
6  To be a means whereby academic research keeps in touch with commercial priorities.
7  To create a culture whereby academics and industrialists generate research and
8 enterprise synergy within their own groups (Lowe, 1985).
9
1011 There were very limited science parks in Europe before the 1980s. The pioneering ones
1 were in the UK, and were also established by universities. The first one was initiated by
2 Cambridge University. It was quickly followed by Heriot-Watt. Both were opened in
3 1972 (Allesch and Fiedler, 1985; Grayson, 1993; Monck et al., 1988). No other schemes
4 appeared in the UK until the early 1980s (Carter, 1989; Kenward, 1991; Westhead and
5 Barstone, 1998). Carter (1989) describes these two parks as speculative ventures of the
6 universities:
7 “The first generation of science parks were speculative ventures by Trinity
8 College, Cambridge, and Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, designed to
9 increase industry–university liaison. They did not, in the early years, include
2011 speculative building. Few, if any, universities can afford to develop a fully
1 fledged science park without external financial inputs”.
2 Post early 1980s saw an increasing number of science parks established by governments
3 to serve economy-orientated objectives. They tend to be part of either regional or national
4 government structure, belonging to a ministry or a government agency. What ignited the
5 interest of policy makers in establishing science parks has been the economic booms of
6 successful science parks and prosperous spontaneous high-tech industrial clusters in the
7 USA and the UK (Bass, 1998; Joseph, 1989a; Luger and Goldstein, 1991; MacDonald,
8 1998; OECD, 1987; Van Dierdonck et al., 1991).
9 In the 1970s, some early science parks such as the Stanford Research Park and the
30 Research Triangle Park started to show signs of success. The former had 70 tenants by
1 1982, and the latter had 28. Both had about 17,000 people working inside (La Valle,
2 1982). By the end of the 1980s, the Stanford Research Park had about 28,000 employees.
3 They made annually nearly $15 million in property tax, sales tax and net utility payments
4 to the city of Palo Alto, and generated nearly $5 million in income for the university. The
5 Research Triangle Park had about 50 R&D-orientated organisations with a combined
6 workforce of about 32,000. Their success, together with the economic boom around them,
7 led many officials in regions whose economies were disproportionately concentrated in
8 slow-growth or declining industries and hard hit by back-to-back recessions to attempt to
9 emulate them (Luger and Goldstein, 1991).
40 Models of spontaneous industrial clusters that have been often referred for policy
1 concern through the late 20th century include Silicon Valley and Boston’s Route 128 in the
2 USA and the Cambridge Phenomenon in the UK (Bass, 1998; Joseph, 1989a; MacDonald,
3 1998; Van Dierdonck et al., 1991). Silicon Valley is actually California’s Santa Clara
4 Valley next to Palo Alto, the home of Stanford University. Until the 1960s the Santa Clara
5 Valley was a home to prune, apricot and cherry orchards, and a world-class canning and
6 packing industry. Today the world knows it as Silicon Valley (Williams, 1998). It is the
711 birthplace of pocket calculators, video games, home computers, cordless telephones, laser
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 144

144 Y. Zhang

111 technology, microprocessors and digital watches. Creating about 40,000 jobs each year,
2 most related to information technology, Silicon Valley enabled the local economy to be the
3 fastest-growing and wealthiest in the USA by the mid 1980s (Rogers and Larsen, 1984).
4 The corridor along Route 128 circling Boston, Massachusetts, emerged in the 1960s
5 as a dynamic centre of invention and entrepreneurship in electronics (Jennings, 1995).
6 The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with both its research activities and graduates,
7 played an important role in the formation of the technology complex (Saxenian,
8 1994a,b). By 1975, it was employing close to 100,000 workers and was poised for
9 a decade of explosive growth. It helped to revitalise the Massachusetts economy.
1011 Massachusetts had the lowest unemployment rate of any industrial state in the union
1 in 1986 in contrast to its unemployment rate in the 1960s being well above that of the
2 rest of the USA. By 1988, one out of every three manufacturing jobs in Massachusetts
3 was high-tech (Herbig and Golden, 1993).
4 The Cambridge phenomenon refers to the growing number of advanced technology
5 companies established in and around the university and market town of Cambridge,
6 England. This enabled the rate of unemployment in that area to be significantly lower than
7 the national average (SQW, 1985). According to Lowe (1995), the phenomenon was
8 fuelled by a ready supply of entrepreneurs with inventive ideas, a growing labour force
9 attracted by the magnetism of Cambridge, proximity to London and a particularly
2011 innovative local banking team. These formed a synergy that led to a massive growth of
1 high tech industry in that area. The role of the science park of Cambridge University in
2 this growth tended to be a catalyst for bringing in these innovative companies who as
3 either direct spin-outs, or leaders of fashion, have been an important influence in creating
4 the growth of high tech in Cambridge.
5 “Those role models have led to attempts to imitate the emergence of
6 high-technology clusters. They convinced many regional development planners
7 that a scenario existed to create regional entrepreneurial technology clusters.
8 The local university would act as a growth pole, being a locus of high
9 technology information to established industrial firms and, at the same time,
being a source of new technology-based firms. Physical proximity would ease
30
the flow of scientific/technological information and the creation of a network of
1
collaborations among different science park tenants. Resident companies would
2 gain privileged access to highly specialised manpower in the form of graduate
3 students and university researchers. Thus, one of the fundamental premises in
4 the justification for the growing number of science parks is that high-technology
5 industry benefits from its location alongside a university because of
6 the enhanced information, collaboration and recruitment opportunities”.
7 (Van Dierdonck et al., 1991)
8
Bass (1998) presents a similar finding:
9
40 “The emergence of high technology centers such as Silicon Valley and Route
1 128 brought attention to the geographical basis of high technology development,
2 leading to various kinds of regional high technology (RHT) policies in countries
around the world. RHT policies attempt to recreate the dynamics found in
3
leading high technology regions by bringing together high technology industry
4
and research and development into specific locations”.
5
6 Those schemes created by policy makers may operate on various geographical scales,
711 including entire regions, cities or smaller property developments (Bass, 1998). Sometimes
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 145

The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology 145

111 all those planned schemes, no matter how large or small, are referred to as science parks
2 (DITC, 1989; Grayson, 1993; Porter, 1989; Sunman, 1989). This partly contributes to the
3 blossoming of science park schemes.
4 Strong government efforts in establishing science parks can be observed in various
5 parts of the world since the 1980s.9 In North America, science park development has been
6 in the USA, where over 135 parks could be found by the end of the last century (McQueen
7 and Haxton, 1998).10 The large majority of them have been created since 1982 (Luger and
8 Goldstein, 1991) by state and local governments, which took up science parks as a useful
9 element of policies designed to revitalise declining economies through the promotion of
1011 high tech industry (Grayson, 1993).
1 “The role of the federal government in subnational economic development
2 policy-making in general has waned since the early 1980s. State and local
3 governments have had to fill the void in policy-making responsibility. But they
4 also have had to bear a much larger portion of the fiscal responsibility for
5 economic development initiatives. As a result, many states have had to adopt
6 an entrepreneurial and strategic approach to economic development, unlike the
7 federal grants-based approach of the 1960s and 1970s. Research parks represent
8 both symbolic and substantive means of attempting to increase a region’s
9 ‘creativity’ and innovative capacity”. (Luger and Goldstein, 1991)
2011 The success of states in promoting their science park development in the USA has had a
1 significant impact in Europe. Interest in science parks at a pan-European level appeared
2 in the 1980s. The number of parks in the five West European countries increased from
3 ten in 1980 to 47 in 1985 (Marsh, 1996). In Northern Europe, Holland joined the
4 movement in the mid-1980s. Belgium increased her number of fully operational parks to
5 seven by the end of the 1980s. In Southern Europe, Italy had its first park in 1984, and
6 Spain, in the late 1980s (Porter, 1989). In Eastern Europe, Hungary set up her first science
7 park in 1988 (McQueen and Haxton, 1998).
8 Government involvement in science park development has been overt in Europe
9 (Grayson, 1993). Their common objective is to boost economic development through
30 promoting knowledge-intensive activities. This policy intention can be found in Porter’s
1 (1989) analysis of the European science park experience:
2
“The Science Park movement clearly reflects a general awareness of the
3 importance of new technology and knowledge based industry, particularly in a
4 period of final decline in many traditional industries in Europe. Technology
5 transfer and regional economic development provide the common themes
6 which link European Science Parks. But, while these two objectives are clearly
7 inter-related, the emphasis given to each can vary considerably. This, in turn, is
8 reflected in the extent to which close association with a university is fostered,
9 and where such associations are considered peripheral to job creation and
40 economic rejuvenation.”
1 France and Germany, the key members in the European science park community, are two
2 typical examples. In France, the central government has played a major role in the
3 creation and coordination of science parks (Luger and Goldstein, 1991). The country had
4 three science park schemes in the 1970s, 18 schemes by 1988 and 55 by 1998 (McQueen
5 and Haxton, 1998; Porter, 1989). They are usually part of a wider economic restructuring
6 process, and are expected to play an important role in regional transformation (Sunman,
711 1989).
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 146

146 Y. Zhang

111 Germany joined the science park movement in the early 1980s. Their science park
2 schemes are known as innovation centres (Allesch and Fiedler, 1985; Carter, 1989;
3 Fiedler, 1989; Porter, 1989; Sunman, 1989). The first scheme (the Berlin Centre of
4 Innovation and New Enterprises) started operation in November 1983 (Allesch and
5 Fiedler, 1985). Sixty eight innovation centres had been set up by the end of 1988 (Fiedler,
6 1989). Over 100 schemes could be found by the early 1990s. The main impetus of such
7 a quick development came from regional and local authorities, which regarded innovation
8 centres as a useful way of counteracting the effects of traditional economic decline
9 (Grayson, 1993). Their primary objective is to create new enterprises. Technology
1011 excellence or even job creation takes second place (Sunman, 1989).
1 In the Asia Pacific, nearly all science parks were established after the early 1980s
2 (AURRP, 1998; IASP, 1998). Most of them are government schemes characterised by
3 government support with seed money for park establishment and expansion in order to
4 stimulate the growth of technology (Gwynne, 1992). Japan, Australia, and China have
5 larger numbers of schemes. Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and Malaysia have a few.
6 More recently Thailand, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Brunei, Vietnam (McQueen
7 and Haxton, 1998), Indonesia, India and Sri Lanka (Shivaram, 1991) started to have their
8 parks. The real growth of science parks in the 1990s has been in Asia (McQueen and
9 Haxton, 1998).
2011 In Japan, science parks have become a chief component of regional high technology
1 policy (Akimoto and Oda, 1992). They were created to meet the
2 “urgent need for regional decentralisation in a country where spiralling
3 metropolitan land prices and the deterioration of urban living conditions have
4 become a threat to future economic growth. Thus policies to enhance
5 technology transfer and stimulate new high tech firms coincide with much wider
6 urban and regional planning objectives, and the resulting developments are on
7 a much larger scale than in most other parts of the world.” (Grayson, 1993)
8 Although the first park was opened in 1982 (Masuda, 1995), the science park boom took
9 off in the late 1980s, and produced over 100 schemes (Bass, 1998). Most of them are not
30 closely allied with universities. A 1990 survey found that only ten out of 103 parks were
1 ‘university related’, and none was initiated under university leadership (Masuda, 1995).
2 In Australia, policy attention in the early 1980s focused on Silicon Valley and the
3 means by which it might be recreated in Australian conditions. Science parks and related
4 initiatives were seen as a potentially fruitful response to the need to upgrade the scientific
5 and technological status of industry. State governments such as Western Australia, South
6 Australia and Queensland have played a particularly important role in the development
7 of science parks (Grayson, 1993). Following the first park launched in Adelaide in
8 November 1981, 20 parks were in operation by the end of the 1980s (Grayson, 1993).
9 In China, the first park (the Shenzhen Science and Industry Park) was established in
40 1985. In 1988, the Chinese government initiated the nationwide Torch Programme for
1 developing high and new technology industries. The programme has focused on the
2 development of 52 science parks around the country (McQueen and Haxton, 1998).
3 Most parks in other Asian countries were also established as a policy element for the
4 purpose of assisting economic development towards knowledge-intensiveness and/or
5 industrialisation (Lin, 1997; Mathews, 1997; Xue, 1997).
6 In accordance with policy-makers’ enthusiasm for science parks and the overwhelming
711 number of parks they have established, the more recent literature (appearing at/after the
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 147

The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology 147

111 end of the 1980s) reflects that the focus of science park objectives has been shifting from a
2 university–orientation to an economy–orientation (see Carter, 1989; Grayson, 1993; Luger
3 and Goldstein, 1991). Carter suggests that science parks are established
4 “to fulfil two main objectives: to encourage technology transfer by reducing
5 the time lag between innovation and production of new products in a research
6 and development environment; and to provide means of encouraging the
7 establishment and growth of high technology industry in an area in order to
8 generate wealth and employment.” (Carter, 1989)
9
Luger and Goldstein observe that
1011
1 “[r]esearch parks have become a prominent element in state and regional
2 development strategies in the USA, as well as in Western Europe, and Japan,
3 Australia and many other developed countries. Also referred to as ‘science
4 parks’ and ‘technology parks’, they generally are intended to serve as a
seedbed or catalyst for the development of a concentration of innovation- and
5
technology-oriented business enterprises in a region or a state.” (Luger and
6
Goldstein, 1991)
7
8 According to Grayson, the following three basic aims are commonly acknowledged for
9 science parks:
2011  “Economic development – to promote the formation and growth of commercial
1
operations based on technology so as to increase economic activity, wealth
2
generation and employment.
3
4  Property development – to establish a property base to accommodate such operations
5 which will facilitate their development, generate income and develop capital assets.
6  Technology transfer – to assist in the transfer of technology from academia to
7
industry through consultancy, research contracts, informal contacts and the formation
8
of spin-out companies” (Grayson, 1993).
9
30 The shift from a university-orientation to an economy-orientation of science park
1 objectives reflects new functions that science park schemes are expected to perform.
2 ‘Science park’ is no longer a tool used by only universities. It has been picked up by
3 governments for their macro objectives.
4
5
6 4 Science park typology
7
8 Science park schemes can be classified into three categories based on their physical
9 manifestations and subsequent attributes such as internal actors and organisational
40 features. These are park/campus style, centre/incubator style and city/region style. Their
1 major features are summarised in Table 1.
2 Park/campus-style schemes usually have a low density, a well-designed landscape
3 (Carter, 1989), and a park-like environment (DISUKL, 1982; Minshall, 1983; Porter, 1989).
4 The word ‘park’ is used to suggest pleasant, comfortable, even desirable surroundings
5 (Carter, 1989). Campus settings, aesthetics, and green space are their characteristics
6 (Minshall, 1983). They are usually adjacent to a higher education institution (DISUKL,
711 1982; Porter, 1989), and have the possibility of further land extension after the initial
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 148

148 Y. Zhang

111 Table 1 Attributes comparison of different park styles

2
Attribute Park/campus style Centre/incubator style City/region style
3
4 Size Medium Smallest Largest
5
Appearance Low density with High density with little A city or region either
6
well-designed landscape, landscaped areas for new or restructured
7 green field and aesthetic communal use
8 quality
9 Internal actors Tenant firms of various Start-up tenant firms Resident actors
1011 sizes and stages of (exiting/new)
1 development
2 Org. feature Have Have Have not
3
4 Note: Org=organisational.
5
6
7 phase of development (Carter, 1989). Schemes in this style are actually quite different in
8 size. US schemes are mostly over 200 acres, more akin to large, very high quality industrial
9 estates (Monck et al., 1988). British ones are less than 50 acres on average (Hennebery,
2011 1984). Those in Australia are much smaller (Joseph, 1989b). Tenants of parks in this style
1 can be firms of different sizes and stages of development. This style is what the original
2 science park schemes in the USA look like (DISUKL, 1982; Porter, 1989).
3 Centre/incubator-style schemes have a restricted space (Currie, 1985; Porter, 1989)
4 and a higher building density than that of park/campus-style schemes (Carter, 1989).
5 Landscaped areas for communal use scarcely exist. They are usually located in inner cites,
6
close to university departments, where land is tightly constrained (Carter, 1989). The
7
primary focus of such schemes is on assisting the growth of start-up firms by offering
8
accommodation and business support (Currie, 1985; DITC, 1989; McQueen and Haxton,
9
1998; Monck et al., 1988; Porter, 1989; Quince, 1985). Schemes in this style often appear
30
under the name of ‘innovation centre’ or ‘technology incubator’ (AURRP, 2000; Carter,
1
1989; DITC, 1989; McQueen and Haxton, 1998; Monck et al., 1988; Porter, 1989; Quince,
2
1985; Sunman, 1989; Westhead and Barstone, 1998). Allesch and Fiedler describe German
3
schemes, which are mainly in this style (IASP, 1998; Porter, 1989; Sunman, 1989), as
4
follows:
5
6 “An existing building is reshaped so that ten to 20 small units of enterprises will
7 fit in. Well furnished bureau and conference rooms will be established as a
8 common office centre equipped with skilled personnel who will look after all
9 secretarial, administrational and organisational tasks. Contract terms will be
40 relatively advantageous for tenants, e.g. short-term agreements or low rents. For
1 the central office services lump-sum shares of costs and individual rental fees
will be taken. The basic idea is to release the financial burden of enterprises by
2
means of cost sharing.” (Allesch and Fiedler, 1985)
3
4 City/region-style schemes can be either a city or a region in terms of geographical scale.
5 They include both Asian technopolises and European technopoles. Originating in Japan
6 in the early 1980s (DITC, 1989), technopolises are typical in Asian nations (Lin, 1997).
711 A technopolis presents ‘a healthy living environment with cultural amenities, combined
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 149

The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology 149

111 with high technology industries away from existing overcrowded industrial centres and
2 adapted to local characteristics’ (Maruyama, 1985). Such schemes are investments
3 especially by central governments which intend to create technology-orientated cities to
4 serve as engines of growth for their respective regions (Lin, 1997). Grayson maintains
5 that technopolis regions must have at least one existing university providing courses in
6 high technology, and have sufficient local enterprises to form a nucleus of entrepreneurial
7 skills and good communications links. The aim is to encourage development in areas that
8 are relatively lightly industrialised (Grayson, 1993). Technopoles are the typical schemes
9 in France (Grayson, 1993; Sunman, 1989). The word ‘technopole’ comes from the Greek,
1011 which means ‘a city of technology on which activities pivot’ (Voyer, 1998). Different
1 from those Asian technopolises, technopoles are generally based on an existing
2 agglomeration of research centres, and operate in fields closely related to the regional and
3 industrial specialisations created by the planification system (Grayson, 1993).
4
5
6 5 Conclusion
7
8 Science parks are properties engaging in leasing land lots and/or building spaces to
9 knowledge-intensive activities. Universities took the initiative in establishing science parks
2011 in the mid of the 20th century. Governments’ efforts have led to an increasing number
1 of parks established in various parts of the world since the 1980s. Through tracing the
2 half-a-century development and evolution of the science park phenomenon via reviewing
3 literature, the current paper demonstrates perceptions towards science park definitions,
4 major changing features of the science park phenomenon and science park typology. The
5 final section of the paper highlights the following points, which are directly relevant to
6 science park development and management.
7 Science parks were originally established by universities for university-orientated
8 objectives. These include strengthening the liaison with industries, encouraging spin-offs
9 and increasing income through commercialising research results and redundant land.
30 Some university science parks have resulted in significant economic benefits for
1 their regions after around two decades of operation. They have contributed to the
2 creation/development of industries, the creation of jobs and increased tax revenues. These
3 economic benefits (as well as those similar economic benefits that some spontaneous
4 high-tech industrial clusters demonstrated) ignited policy-makers’ interest and have been
5 motivating the establishment of government science parks in various parts of the world.
6 This indicates that part of the achievements (some appear to be the by-products) of some
7 university science parks become the ultimate objectives of government science parks.
8 Concerning this, the current paper suggests that government science park managers
9 consider when those government objectives can be achieved. It should be emphasised that
40 as per a science park, what is the most important is when the investment can carry out
1 what it intends to achieve rather than the availability of such a scheme in the region
2 concerned.
3 Science parks have been used as a mechanism to assist various activities, i.e. the
4 creation, application, or commercialisation of technologies, enterprise creation, job
5 creation, etc. The priority of any of them for an organisation, a region or a nation has been
6 moulded in the specific organisational, regional or national scenario. These lead jointly to
711 different science park manifestations. Science park schemes worldwide present a high
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 150

150 Y. Zhang

111 level of heterogeneity in various aspects. Not only can recent schemes be quite different
2 from earlier ones, but schemes of similar age can also be quite different. This suggests
3 that whichever science park style is appropriate for a country, a region or an organisation
4 depends on its own scenario as well as its expectations from a science park. Science park
5 founders and managers should direct their park development and management towards
6 meeting their own need. The need can serve as a clear target of the science park operation
7 and the target is the basis for the formulation of effective and efficient park management
8 strategies.
9 Judging from appearance, science park schemes can be easily mixed with other high
1011 quality properties such as office parks, business parks and industrial parks. In-park
1 activity is the prime dimension that can be used to distinguish science park schemes
2 and non-science-park schemes. Science park schemes normally house more activities
3 orientating to the higher end of the spectrum of knowledge-intensiveness, such as R&D
4 (see Figure 1, which is worked out by the author based on the findings presented in this
5 paper), and as a result, have more knowledge workers. Non-science-park schemes permit
6 more activities orientating to the lower end such as manufacturing and business
7 administration. Although there is no clear criterion in terms of the proportion of those
8 activities concerned so as to distinguish these two types of schemes, it is important that
9 science park founder(s) and manager(s) be aware where their park is located or is intended
2011 to be located along the spectrum of knowledge-intensiveness. This will assist the
1 operation of a science park and prevent it from sliding towards a non-science-park
2 scheme.
3
4 Figure 1 Science park schemes in knowledge-size quadrant
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 151

The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology 151

111 References
2
3 Akimoto, K. and Oda, K. (1992) ‘Wagakuni saiensu paaku no setsuritsu joukyou to chiiki sangyou
4 ni okeru yakuwari’ (The status of our country’s science park establishment and its role in
regional industry), Kenkyuu Kaihatsu Manejimento, Dec. 8–14.
5
Aley, J. (1997) ‘The heart of Silicon Valley’, Fortune, Vol. 136, No. 1, pp.66–74.
6
7 Allesch, J, and Fiedler, H. (Eds) (1985) Management of Science Parks and Innovation Centers,
Germany: Braum & Weidler.
8
AURRP (2000) ‘The association of university related research parks’ [Online]. Available:
9
http://www.aurrp.org/whatis.html [2000].
1011
AURRP (The Association of University Related Research Parks) (1998) Worldwide Research &
1 Science Park Directory 1998, The Association of University Related Research Parks, BPI
2 Communications.
3 Bass, S.J. (1998) ‘Japanese research parks: national policy and local development’, Regional
4 Studies, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp.391–403.
5 Broadhurst, T. (1988) ‘History of science park development and the existing patter’, in B. Worrall
6 (Ed.) Setting up a Science Park, The Proceedings of the UK Science Park Association’s
7 Seminar held at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology on 3/4th
8 November 1988, UK Science Park Association, pp.5–12.
9 Browne, T.B. (1966) ‘The changing research park’, Industrial Research, Vol. 8, p.42.
2011 Cabral, R. (1998) ‘Refining the Cabral-Dahab science park management paradigm’, Int.
1 J. Technology Management, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp.813–818.
2 Carter, N. (1989) Science Park Development and Management, London: The Estates Gazette Limited.
3 Castells and Hall (1994) Technopoles of the World, The Making of Twenty-first-Century Industry
Complexes, London and New York: Routledge.
4
5 Cole, R.E. (1998) ‘Introduction’, California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.15–21.
6 Currie, J. (1985) Science Parks in Britain: Their Role for the Late 1980s, CSP Economic Publications.
7 Danilov, V.J. (1967) ‘How successful are science parks?’ Industrial Research, May, pp.76–81.
8 Danilov, V.J. (1971) ‘Industry research’, Industry Research, May, pp.44–47.
9 Debenham, T. and Chinnocks (1983) High Tech Myths and Realities: A Review of Developments
30 for Knowledge Based Industries, London.
1 DISUKL (Department of Industry and Shell U.K. Limited) (1982) Helping Small Firms Start up
2 and Grow: Common Services and Technological Support, London: HMSO, pp.41–42.
3 DITC (the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce) (1989) Technology Park in Australia:
4 A Review of State Experiences, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
5 Fiedler, H. (1989) ‘Innovation center in the Federal Republic of Germany – present stage of
development’, in H. Sunman (Ed.) The Role of Science Park in the Promotion of Innovation
6 and the Transfer of Technology, UK Science Park Association, pp.9–18.
7
Franco, M.R. (1985) ‘Key success factors for university-affiliated research park: a comparative
8 analysis’, PhD Thesis, The University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
9 Giunta, F.J. (1996) ‘The emerging paradigm of new urbanism in science park development’,
40 Proceedings of V World Conference on Science Parks, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
1 Goldstein, H.A. and Luger, M.I. (1993) ‘Theory and practice in high-tech economic development’,
2 in R. Bingham and R. Mier (Eds) Theories of Local Economic Development, Newbury Park,
3 CA: Sage Publications, pp.147–174.
4 Grayson, L. (1993) Science Parks: An Experiment in High Technology Transfer, The British Library.
5 Gwynne, P. (1992) ‘Greenhouses for ideas’, Asian Business, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp.34–35.
6 Haxton, B.M. (2000) ‘Design analysis of United States technology incubators’, The Proceedings of
711 IASP Millennium Conference, The UK.
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 152

152 Y. Zhang

111 Hennebery, J.M. (1984) ‘British and American science parks: a comparison’, Property
2 Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.301–313.
3 Herbig, P.A. and Golden, J.E. (1993) ‘The rise of innovative hot sports: Silicon Valley and Route
4 128’, International Marketing Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.35–50.
5 IASP (2001) International Association of Science Parks [Online]. Available:
http://www.iaspworld.org [2001].
6
7 IASP (2004) International Association of Science Parks [Online]. Available:
http://www.iaspworld.org [27 July 2001].
8
IASP (International Association of Science Parks) (1998) Members of IASP – World-wide Directory,
9 Spain.
1011
Jennings, L. (1995) ‘A tale of two technopoles: Silicon Valley vs. Route 128’, Futurist, Vol. 29,
1 No. 1, pp.60–61.
2 Joseph, R.A. (1989a) ‘Silicon Valley myth and the origins of technology parks in Australia’,
3 Science and Policy, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp.353–365.
4 Joseph, R.A. (1989b) ‘Technology parks and their contribution to the development of
5 technology-oriented complexes in Australia’, Environment and Planning C: Government and
6 Policy, Vol. 7, pp.173–192.
7 Joseph, R.A. (1994) ‘New way to make technology parks more relevant’, Prometheus, Vol. 12,
8 No. 1, pp.46–61.
9 Kenward, M. (1991) ‘Where science has a home?, Director, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp.59–62.
2011 Larsen, J.K. and Rogers, E.M. (1988) ‘Silicon Valley: the rise and falling off of entrepreneurial
1 fever’, in R.W. Smilor, G. Kozmetsky and D.V. Gibson (Eds) Creating the Technopolis:
Linking Technology Commercialization and Economic Development Cambridge, MA:
2 Ballinger, pp.99–115.
3
LaValle, K.P. (1982) ‘High technology park – a marriage of higher education and industry’,
4 A Report by the Chairman of the New York State Senate Higher Education Committee.
5 Lin, C.-Y. (1997) ‘Technopolis development: an assessment of the Hsinchu experience’,
6 International Planning Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.257–272.
7 Lowe, J. (1985) ‘Science parks in the UK’, Lloyds Bank Review, Vol. 156, pp.31–42.
8 Luger, M.I. (1996) ‘Spontaneous technopolises and regional restructuring: the case of Research
9 Triangle, NC, Proceedings of The International Symposium on the Technopolis, its Vision and
30 Future, Taejon, Korea: World Technopolis Organizing Committee, pp.5–30.
1 Luger, M.I. and Goldstein, H.A. (1991) Technology in the Garden: Research Parks and Regional
2 Economic Development, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill & London.
3 Macdonald, S. (1987) ‘British science parks: reflections on the politics of high technology’, R&D
4 Management, 17 Jan., pp.25–37.
5 MacDonald, S.B. (1998) ‘Transparency in Thailand’s 1997 economic crisis: the significance of
6 disclosure’, Asian Survey, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp.688–703.
7 Marsh, P. (1996) ‘Commerce takes an interest in expanding world of science parks’, Financial
Time, June 3.
8
9 Maruyama, M. (1985) ‘Report on a new technological community: the making of a technopolis in
an international context’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 27, pp.75–98.
40
Masuda, S. (1995) ‘The results and prospects of SPs in Japan’, Snet Japan, Vol. 2, pp.1–2.
1
Mathews, J.A. (1997) ‘A Silicon Valley of the east: creating Taiwan’s semiconductor’, California
2
Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.26–54.
3
McQueen, J.D and Haxton, B.M. (1998) ‘Comparison of science park planning, economic policy,
4 and management techniques between science parks: worldwide’, Proceedings of IASP World
5 Conference on Science & Technology Parks, pp.484–512.
6 Miller, R. and Cote, M. (1987) Growing the Next Silicon Valley, A Guide for Successful Regional
711 Planning, Lexington Books.
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 153

The science park phenomenon: development, evolution and typology 153

111 Minshall, C.W. (1983) ‘An overview of trends in science and high technology parks’, Economic
2 and Policy Analysis, Occasional Paper Number 37, Battelle, Columbus Division.
3 Monck, C.S.P., Porter, R.B., Quintas, P., Storey, D.J. and Wynarczyk, P. (1988) Science Parks and
4 the Growth of High Technology Firms, Groom Helm.
5 NSF (National Science Foundation) (1982) ‘University-industry research relationships’, 14th
6 Annual Rapport of the National Science Board, Washington, DC.
7 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1987) Science Parks and
Technology Complexes in Relation to Regional Development, Paris.
8
9 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) (1999) Managing National
Innovation Systems.
1011
1 Orr, B.E. (1994) ‘Creation of a supportive environment for commercialization of industry relevant
research and development – Technology Park Adelaide’, in K. Gonda, F. Sakauchi and
2 T. Higgins (Eds) Proceedings of NISTEP, The International Workshop on Regional Science
3 and Technology Policy Research, Tokyo, pp.249–263.
4 Porter, R.B. (1989) ‘Science parks – the European dimension’, in H. Sunman (Ed.) The Role of
5 Science Park in the Promotion of Innovation and the Transfer of Technology, pp.19–24.
6 Queensland Premier’s Department (1984) Towards a Strategy for Technological Development in
7 Queensland, Queensland Premier’s Department.
8 Quince, R. (1985) ‘Very special situation’, Management Today, July, pp.xix–xxi.
9 Rogers, E.M. and Larsen, J.K. (1984) Silicon Valley Fever: Growth of High-Technology Culture,
2011 New York: Basic Books, Inc.
1 Saxenian, A. (1985) ‘The genesis of Silicon Valley’, in P. Hall and A. Markusen (Eds) Silicon
2 Landscapes, Boston: Allen & Unwin, pp.20–34.
3 Saxenian, A. (1994a) ‘Lessons from Silicon Valley’, Technology Review, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp.42–51.
4 Saxenian, A. (1994b) Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route
5 128, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Innovation Press.
6 Schamp, E.W. (1987) ‘Technology parks and interregional competition in the Federal Republic of
7 Germany’, in G.A. Van der Knaap and E. Wever (Eds) New Technology and Regional
8 Development, London: Groom Helm, pp.119–135.
9 Shivaram, M.N. (1991) ‘Tech-park profile: science parks and global perspective’, Technical
30 Monitor, May–June, p.20–22.
1 SQW (Segal Quince Wicksteed) (1985) The Cambridge Phenomenon: The Growth of High
2 Technology Industry in a University Town.
3 Sunman, H. (1989) ‘Introduction: a European theme’, in H. Sunman (Ed.) The Role of Science Park
4 in the Promotion of Innovation and the Transfer of Technology, pp.1–3.
5 Teece, D.J. (1998) ‘Research directions for knowledge management’, California Management
Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.288–292.
6
7 Van Dierdonck, D.K. and Rappa, M.A. (1991) ‘An assessment of science parks: towards a better
understanding of their role in the diffusion of technological knowledge’, R&D Management,
8 21 Feb., pp.109–123.
9
Van Dierdonck, R. and Debackere, K. (1990) ‘Science parks and technological innovation’,
40 Tijdschrift voor Economie en Management, Vol. XXXV, No. 3, pp.233–255.
1 Voyer, R. (1998) ‘Knowledge-based industrial clustering: international comparisons’, in J. Mothe
2 and G. Paquet (Eds) Local and Regional System of Innovation, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
3 pp.81–110.
4 Westhead, P. and Batstone, S. (1998) ‘Independent technology-based firms: the perceived benefits
5 of a science park location’, Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 12, pp.2197–2219.
6 Williams, J.C. (1998) ‘Frederick E. Terman and the rise of Silicon Valley’, Int. J. Technology
711 Management, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp.751–760.
8
IJEIM-1-Zhang 2/13/05 11:38 PM Page 154

154 Y. Zhang

111 Xue, L. (1997) ‘Promoting industrial R&D and high-tech development through science parks:
2 The Taiwan experience and its implications for developing countries’, Int. J. Technology
Management, Special Issue on R&D Management, Vol. 13, Nos. 7/8, pp.744–761.
3
4 Zhang, Y. (2004) ‘On clustering behaviour of industries: implications for the industrialization of
developing countries’, Int. J. of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 4, Nos. 2/3,
5 pp.290–304.
6
7
8 Notes
9
1011 1
The park was originally named the Stanford Industrial Park. The name was later changed to the
1 Stanford Research Park to more accurately reflect the park’s evolution as a site primarily housing
2 scientific research and corporate headquarters (Franco, 1985).
3 2
According to LaValle (1982), the Research Triangle Park was founded in 1958.
4 3
Disagreements exist concerning whether the ‘Silicon Valley’ is a spontaneous or planned
5 industrial cluster. Many studies cite it as an example of spontaneous industrial cluster (see
6 Allesch, 1985; Castells and Hall, 1994; Luger, 1996; Van Dierdonck et al., 1991). OECD (1987)
regards it as an industrial complex with a high degree of spontaneity. Saxenian (1985), Monck
7
et al. (1988), Larsen and Rogers (1988) and Broadhurst (1988) argue that it is the Stanford
8 Research Park, the planned development, that attracted entrepreneurs setting up companies and
9 R&D facilities, leading to the formation of the ‘Silicon Valley’. The author of the current paper
2011 defines an industrial cluster, based on a broad range of literature review, as an agglomeration or
1 a concentration of related companies and/or institutions in a certain area (Zhang, 2004). The
criterion distinguishing spontaneous and planned industrial clusters is whether a cluster formed
2 with or without planners and/or organisers other than those clustering actors. The author agrees
3 that the ‘Silicon Valley’ is a spontaneous cluster.
4 4
Nearly all the literature that the author has reviewed is in English. Information about science
5 parks that may be reflected by literature in other languages may not be included.
6 5
The current paper uses the term ‘science park’ for general discussion. However, where the
7 literature refers respectively to ‘research park’, ‘technology park’ or other names, these terms
8 are used interchangeably.
6
9 See IASP launched a new definition for science parks on 6 February 2002 (IASP, 2004). The author
of the current paper perceives that the previous definition provides a clearer idea than the new one.
30
7
1 IASP was established in 1984; AURRP, in 1985. The former is based in Spain; the latter, in the
USA. Both have member parks all over the world. IASP also has its member leadership from
2 different parts of the world, and has its divisions in Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and
3 North America (McQueen and Haxton, 1998). They work as a useful vehicle for professional
4 networking and cross fertilisation, and provide a forum for science park developers and
5 managers (Orr, 1994).
8
6 Science park schemes in France are called ‘technopoles’ (Sunman, 1989).
9
7 The following discussion focuses mainly on selected countries in North America, Europe and
8 the Asia Pacific. The author has identified too limited an amount of literature concerning other
regions to present the trend of the science park development there. One reason for this may be
9 that nearly all the literature that the author studied is in English.
40 10
Other countries have fewer parks. Canada had 18 schemes by 1995. Mexico had four (Giunta, 1996).
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8