Author
Listed:
- Robin Junker
- Wei Keat Benny Ng
- Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek
- Theo Arentze
Abstract
Science parks as area developments have existed for decades and have captivated the attention of academics and policy-makers for their supposedly positive impact on resident organisations and regions. To date there is mixed empirical evidence to indicate the performance enhancing effects of specific science park features on research & development, economic output or improved collaboration between users. Furthermore, limited attention is given to the demands and perceptions of science park users. This study focuses on one of the main features of science parks, namely the shared facilities and services on-site and how users perceive the benefits of these facilities.An online survey is distributed to 594 resident organisations on eight science parks in the Netherlands to which 112 participated. Within the questionnaire respondents are inquired on organisational characteristics in order to distinguish tenant types through clustering on aspects, such as R&D activity, organisation size, sector diversity. Then respondents indicate the benefits they perceive for specific presented shared facilities and services retrieved from science park literature based on their importance. Finally, respondents indicated meaningful associations between shared facilities and benefits. Results show that among resident organisations three distinguishable clusters emerge; ‘non-R&D organisations’, ‘R&D start-ups’, and ‘R&D small-medium enterprises’ with each cluster mentioning different benefits that they value . In general, knowledge sharing and on-site collaboration are most frequently mentioned as important science park benefits and are mostly associated to training programs and information access. Both ‘R&D start-ups’ and ‘non-R&D organisations’ value the opportunity to be near customers for different reasons, while ‘R&D small medium entrepreneurs’ perceive social events as a means to be close to the university or other higher educational institutions. The associations between various types of shared facilities and benefits that residents seek provide insights for practitioners in terms of the design and management of science parks and add to the body of knowledge of science park literature.
Suggested Citation
Robin Junker & Wei Keat Benny Ng & Rianne Appel-Meulenbroek & Theo Arentze, 2018.
"Firms’ perceived benefits of shared facilities on Dutch science parks: empirical evidence,"
ERES
eres2018_105, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
Handle:
RePEc:arz:wpaper:eres2018_105
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
Keywords
;
;
;
;
JEL classification:
- R3 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location
NEP fields
This paper has been announced in the following
NEP Reports:
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:arz:wpaper:eres2018_105. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Architexturez Imprints (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eressea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.