94 Policy Options and Practical Instruments

___________________________________________________________________________

Box K4.4. Different definitions of science parks

According to the official definition of the International Association of Science Parks (IASP), which is a global network of science and technology parks, a science park is “an organization managed by specialized professionals, whose main aim is to increase the wealth of its community by promoting the culture of innovation and the competitiveness of its associated businesses and knowledge-based institutions. To enable these goals to be met, a science park stimulates and manages the flow of knowledge and technology amongst universities, R&D institutions, companies and markets; it facilitates the creation and growth of innovation-based companies through incubation and spin-off processes; and provides other value-added services together with high quality space and facilities.”

The Association of University Research Parks (AURP) based in the United States defines a university research park as “a property-based venture, which has:

•Master planned property and buildings designed primarily for private/public research and development facilities, high technology and science based companies, and support services.

•A contractual, formal or operational relationship with one or more science/research institutions of higher education.

•A role in promoting the university's research and development through industry partnerships, assisting in the growth of new ventures and promoting economic development.

•A role in aiding the transfer of technology and business skills between university and industry teams.

•A role in promoting technology-led economic development for the community or region.

The park may be a not-for-profit or for-profit entity owned wholly or partially by a university or a university related entity. Alternatively, the park may be owned by a non-university entity but have a contractual or other formal relationship with a university, including joint or cooperative ventures between a privately developed research park and a university.”

The United Kingdom Science Park Association (UKSPA) defines a science park as “a business support initiative whose main aim is to encourage and support the start-up and incubation of innovative, high-growth, technology-based businesses through the provision of: infrastructure and support services including collaborative links with economic development agencies; formal and operational links with centres of excellence such as universities, higher education institutes and research establishments; management support actively engaged in the transfer of technology and business skills to small and medium-sized enterprises.”

___________________________________________________________________________

Types of science parks

Some of the nuances in the definitions of different types of parks are related to the existence of a key stakeholder defining the mission and strategic objectives of the park. From this perspective, four main types of science parks can be distinguished and, accordingly, four science park models (Table 4.5.):

•Alliance-driven

•University-driven

•Company-driven

•Cluster-driven.

Source: Allen, John (2007), Third Generation Science Parks, published by Manchester Science Park.

96 Policy Options and Practical Instruments

___________________________________________________________________________

There are also other typologies of science and technology parks. An important classification parameter is their relation to specific policy action(s) or intervention(s). From this perspective one can distinguish between two main types of parks:

•Science and technology parks that are market-led and are a response to a clear market demand for the type of accommodation, business support services and access to technology and skills that science parks attempt to deliver.

•Policy-led science and technology parks. Usually these are developed in response to an interest by a local agent or partnership, which may include a university, the public sector and in some cases a business community that sees the need to respond to a market failure where no space is being developed that can accommodate SMEs, many of which are at a preor incubation phase.

The commercial risks for policy-led parks usually lie with the public sector (at national or regional level), while market-led parks are often supported by private funding.

What all science and technology parks have in common is that they are knowledge partnerships that foster innovation. Another common feature is that science and technology parks are regional formations that always build on local resources.

Main characteristics of science and technology parks

A survey conducted by the International Association of Science Parks (IASP) in 2007 among its members (including parks from all over the world) has identified the following main characteristics of science and technology parks: 41

•Location. Science and technology parks are mostly an urban (or semi urban) phenomenon, with 66% of the surveyed parks being within a city and 27% quite close to one (25 km or less). 36% of the parks are located on a University campus or adjacent to one.

•Size: surface occupied by the park. 45% of the parks have relatively small surfaces (less than 200,000 m2). On the other hand, 33% of the parks have more than 600,000 m2, of which 22% occupy over 1 million square meters.

•Size: built area. 17% of science and technology parks have reported less that 15,000 m2 of buildings, 45% - between 15,000 and 80,000 m2, and 38% of parks – more than 80,000 m2 of buildings.

41 Statistics available at http://www.iasp.ws/. The numbers presented here are calculated on the basis of the IASP statistics but refer to shares among the parks that have reported the corresponding parameter (not all survey firms have reported data on all surveyed parameters).

___________________________________________________________________________

•Size: number of resident companies. 58% of parks report having 100 resident companies or less; and 23% - more than 200 companies. Middle-size parks (those with 101 to 200 companies) represent 19% of the total number.

•Ownership. Public ownership (governments and public administrations of different levels: national, regional, local) of science and technology parks prevails: 54% of parks reported that they are owned exclusively by such public bodies. 16% of parks I are entirely private and 30% have reported mixed (public-private) ownership.

•Public support. Most science parks receive public financial support of some sort. The most widespread forms of such support are: grants (45.4% of parks); subsidies (40.3% of parks); tax incentives (27.3% of parks) and subsidized loans (20.8% of parks).

•Focus/specialization. 39% of the science and technology parks are “generalist” (parks that admit companies and activities from any technology sector); 17% of the parks are “specialist” (parks that have chosen to specialize in one sector (or in a limited number of sectors) and 43% are “semi-specialists” (parks that favour certain technology sectors over others, but will still admit companies operating in other technology sectors besides those of their preference).

•Incubation. 88% of the reporting parks have incubation facilities or programmes. 46% of the parks have one or more business incubators managed in-house, whilst 33% have incubators on their premises, albeit not depending on the park itself. 9% of parks declare that business incubation is their main activity.

A similar survey conducted by the Association of University Research Parks (AURP) among its members in North America (134 responses) provides the profile of a typical North American university research park (Table 4.6.).42

42 Note that the statistics in Table 4.6 refer to university research parks only (which are mostly “Universitydriven parks”, as per the classification in Table 4.5), whereas the IASP statistics cover all types of science and technology parks.