Articlehybrid2019

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

Wei Keat Benny Ng · Rianne Appel‐Meulenbroek · Myriam Cloodt · Theo Arentze

33 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of Technology Transfer

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

University-Industry-Government Innovation Models Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences Facilities and Workplace Management

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

References

1990Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation 1977Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys 1977Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys 2005Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment 1999The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits 1989Real Effects of Academic Research 2004Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy 2008Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges

Cited by

2020Perceptual measures of science parks: Tenant firms’ associations between science park attributes and benefits 2021A dynamic business model for Turkish techno parks: looking through the lenses of service perspective and stakeholder theory 2022Exploring science park location choice: A stated choice experiment among Dutch technology-based firms 2023Entrepreneurs: Gender and gendered institutions' effects in open innovation 2024Science and technology parks and their effects on the quality of tenants’ patents

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.