Areas of Innovation in cities: From inception to

maturity. The Case of 22@Barcelona

Josep Miquel Pique* and Francesc Miralles

La Salle – Ramon Llull University
Sant Joan de La Salle, 42 – 08022 Barcelona - Spain
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Jasmina Berbegal-Mirabent
Universitat Internacional de Catalunya
Immaculada, 22 - 08017 Barcelona - Spain
Email: [email protected]

Abstract: The knowledge based-economy provides the opportunity to create

Areas of Innovation in old industrial districts to revitalize urban areas. In this
context, Triple-Helix agents play complementary and co-evolutionary roles in
the urban, economic and social dimension. New strategies are therefore needed
to overcome the traditional science park perspective. The goal of this paper is
to better understand the evolution of Areas of Innovation, from inception to
maturity, and how, the role of the Triple-Helix agents change along their
lifecycle. To illustrate this evolution we examine the case of 22@Barcelona, an
Area of Innovation that transformed an old industrial district into a knowledge-
based one, integrating urban, economic and social development. The original
value of this work is that it proposes a new perspective for the theorization of
Areas of Innovation.

Keywords: Areas of Innovation; Science Parks; Triple Helix; Clusters of

Innovation; Innovation Districts; Knowledge Cities; Lifecycle; Co-evolution
22@Barcelona

Reference: This is a pre-print of an article published in the International

Journal of Knowledge-Based Development. The final authenticated version is
available online at:

Piqué, J.M.; Miralles, F.; Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2019). Areas of Innovation in

cities: The evolution of 22@Barcelona. International Journal of Knowledge-
Based Development, 10(1): 3-25.
https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJKBD.2019.098227

1 Introduction
Although the “triple helix” approach has been tested from different perspectives, scholars
are still searching for new frameworks that help to better understand how innovation
ecosystems evolve. Science Parks built in regenerated zones of inner cities have
generated important attention from a wide range of stakeholders, from policymakers to
researchers of innovation ecosystems. Their role has been deemed as crucial in the
evolution of the innovation ecosystems of cities in the Knowledge-based economy.
However, traditional Science Parks have to evolve in order to play a significant role in
the Knowledge Cities of the knowledge-based economy.

City planners can not avoid facing the challenge of playing a relevant role in the
Knowledge-based Economy where face-to-face interaction, networking and trade remains
vital (Landry, 2000). The tendency of urban planners is now to replace old manufacturers
and industrial metropolitan areas with Knowledge Cities, which emerge from the balance
between the production system and the urban cultural environment (Scott, 2006). Cities
that stimulate and rejuvenate various forms of knowledge serve as knowledge centres
(Knight, 1995) and attract a creative and highly skilled workforce (Florida, 2008). Unlike
traditional Science Parks, Knowledge Cities host significant concentrations of creative
industries, including high technology, artistic and cultural sectors, which are integrated in
a wider social context (Scott, 2000).

This research combines the benefits from many studies that have been developed around
cluster organizations (see e.g. Porter 1990, 1998) and the location of knowledge-based
clusters in the inner cities (see e.g. Porter, 1997; Leibovitz, 2004; Godospini, 2006). In
recent years, some scholars have also included the artistic, cultural and social approach in
this research field and have focused on analysing Creative Cities (see e.g. Scott, 2000,
2006; Lazzeretti and Nencioni, 2005), Industrial Districts (Becattini, 1986, 1990);
Knowledge Cities (see e.g. O’Mara, 2005) and Innovation Districts (Katz & Wagner,
2014).

By exploring conceptual frameworks like Triple Helix, Clusters of Innovation, Co-

evolutionary theory, learning region theory and lifecycle of a new venture, our aim is to
shed some new light on the process of the evolution of traditional Science Parks to Areas
of Innovation in Cities that want to have a role in the Knowledge-based Economy.
Although existing literature has focused on the evolution of traditional Science Parks,
there is a lack of research clarifying those factors that explain the evolution, either
organic or intended, from traditional suburban Science Parks to Areas of Innovation that
participate in creating Cities for the Knowledge-based Economy. The goal of this paper is
thus to propose a framework that assists in the understanding of the evolution of the
Areas of innovation in cities, from inception to maturity, and how the role of the Triple
Helix Agents (University, Industry and Government) changes along the lifecycle of an
Area of Innovation.

For the purpose of this study, we use a case-oriented research, specifically, the
22@Barcelona district, a case of a sound effort in building an Area of Innovation
promoted in the metropolitan area of Barcelona and that flourish from a traditional
Science Park regenerated from an inner district of the city. The 22@Barcelona district is
currently a model for ‘innovation districts’ in cities (Pareja-Eastaway and Pique, 2011;
Cohendet et al. 2011 and Casellas and Pallarès, 2010, among others), also international
stakeholders such as the International Association of Science Parks and Areas of
Innovation (IASP World Conference 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015) consider 22@Barcelona as
a reference source for policy transferability and experience-based knowledge. More than
354 delegations from all continents were visiting 22@Barcelona from 2011 until 2015
according to the data from the Barcelona City Council.
Areas of Innovation in cities: From the inception to maturity. The Case of 22@Barcelona

Complementary cases as the Boston’s Innovation District, Porto Digital in Recife,

Yachay in Ecuador, Skolkovo in Moscow, the Quartier de l’Innovation in Montreal and
Kendall Square in Cambridge (MA) have been used to complement the extracted
knowledge from the @22Barcelona Case. All these projects, are promoting Areas of
Innovation that develop the Knowledge-based economy and combine the locations for
working and living.

This research provides a new perspective for Areas of Innovation in cities, understanding
that along the evolution of the Area of Innovation, all Triple Helix agents play different
roles in the dimensions of the transformation (urban, economic, social and governance)
and co-evolve in the phases of lifecycle (inception, launching, growing and maturity).

2. Transformation of Cities: New Economy Metropolitan Clusters

In the last twenty years, many studies have analysed how cities are adapting to the global
economy. Ranging from general overviews of development and organization of inner
cities (Sassen, 1991, 1998, 2002; Knight, 1995; Gospodini, 2006) to more specific
subjects such as gentrification effects (Atkinson, 2004), sustainable development (Hall,
1997), urban environment and health (McMichael, 2000), urban regeneration policies
(Marcotullio, 2003; Atkinson, 2004; Thomson et al., 2006), and cities’ competitiveness
(Brotchie et al., 1995; Jensen-Butler et al., 1997; Lever, 1999; Strambach, 2002), among
others. Special attention has been paid to the development of the New Economy in the
inner cities (Hutton, 2000, 2004) and of Urban Knowledge Parks (Bugliarello, 2004) and
Creative and Knowledge Cities (Lever, 2002; Florida, 2005; Costa et al., 2008; Pratt,
2008).

New cities retain hardly any of their former traditional, local and static nature (Porter,
1995). In the inner cities, clusters of interlinked firms and organizations operate at world-
class levels of competitiveness (Porter, 1998). Companies take advantage of social
agglomeration factors such as critical masses of skills and relationships, access to
information, and the availability of specific infrastructure in a given field (Utterback and
Afuah, 1998; Hutton, 2004; Porter, 1995). As a result of agglomeration effects, New
Economy Metropolitan Clusters comprise not just isolated firms but rather substantial
ensembles of dynamic industries (Hutton, 2004) that have been transformed into Urban
Science Parks or Areas of Innovation (Luger and Goldstein, 1991; Massey et al, 1992).

Increasingly, knowledge-based and technology-intensive industries are taking the place

of old industrial—and, in some cases, even residential—districts in the large urban
agglomerations (Hutton, 2004). As clustering forces drive talented, innovative and
creative people to concentrate in the most knowledge-intensive cities and regions
(Florida, 2008), in the New Economy the tendency is to attract the talent by promoting
the creation of New Economy Metropolitan Clusters (Chica & Marmolejo, 2016) that set
up “new” versions of traditional Science Parks.
These new Science Parks combine technology, including computer graphics and imaging,
software design, multimedia industries and graphic design industries that have been
deeply influenced by technological development; culture represented by creative human
capital and design functions; and place more specifically the innovative milieu of the
inner city (Hutton, 2004).

3. From traditional Science Parks to Areas of Innovation in Cities

3.1. Growth and Failure of Science Parks

The evolution of Science Parks may be easily understood within the framework of the
learning region theory (Morgan, 1997). First, this theory supports that the evolution of the
development is based on an iterative process where policymakers act in a cycle of
defining and re-defining innovative projects. Second, the theory supports that in many
cases innovation is shaped by a variety of institutional routines and social conventions.

Furthermore, the Co-evolution Theory, explain the relation of Technology, Industrial

Structure, and Supporting Institutions (Nelson, 1994). On the one hand, this theory poses
that a new technology evolves along a relatively standard track from the time it is born to
its maturity, and that firm and industry structure ‘coevolve’ with the technology. On the
other hand, it is concerned with the development of institutions in response to changing
economic conditions, incentives, and pressures.

The first steps of the Science Park evolution started with the extraordinary success of
Silicon Valley. This healthy, resilient and sustainable innovation ecosystem arose
spontaneously (Saxenian, 1994), from the co-location of research universities,
investment capital, entrepreneurs and a talented workforce in an environment
offering a high quality of life (Munroe and Westwind, 2008). Following a co-
evolutionary approach, the success of this Cluster of Innovation (Engel and Del-
Palacio, 2009) was rapidly recognized, and many regions around the world tried to
reproduce it. However, by replicating the steps of the exemplary Silicon Valley
evolution, in most cases, these agglomerations of knowledge-based organizations
(Massey, Quintas and Wield, 1992) failed to become active Clusters of Innovation
(Engel and Del-Palacio, 2009). Most of these archetypal Science Parks failed in the
incubation stage or early stage, (Luger and Goldstein, 1991) and lacked a social
dimension (Massey, Quintas and Wield, 1992) that led to the abandonment and
disintegration of the archetypal Science Parks.

3.2. Flourishing of Areas of Innovation

The so-called Cities of Knowledge or Areas of Innovation are consciously planned
communities that are physical manifestations of a particular political and cultural moment
in history and shaped into new and influential high-tech urban environments (O’Mara,
2005). These metropolitan areas have a positive economic impact in their environment as
they put into play many dynamic and innovative institutions and attract educated and
skilled workers who consume cultural products of all kinds at an accelerating pace (Scott,
2000; Boix and Trullen, 2006). The goal is to promote a sustainable social and economic
Areas of Innovation in cities: From the inception to maturity. The Case of 22@Barcelona

reconstruction to reduce social polarization and renew the economy of the region
(Etzkowitz and Dzisah, 2008).

In this context, the International Association of Science Parks (IASP) added “Areas of
Innovation” to its name, and approved the definition of Area of Innovation as “places
designed and curated to attract entrepreneurial-minded people, skilled talent, knowledge-
intensive businesses and investments, by developing and combining a set of
infrastructural, institutional, scientific, technological, educational and social assets,
together with value added services, thus enhancing sustainable economic development
and prosperity with and for the community.”

4. Holistic Approach of Areas of Innovation in Urban, Economic and Social

Transformation

Areas of innovation create a model of dynamic innovation based on the concept of the
“triple helix” (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000) which enhances the confluence of
Public Administration, Universities and Companies in order to develop synergies
between these strategic agents. Collaborative relationships are on the basis of the
development of the triple helix. Besides, the different actors involved are supposed to
assume different roles than the traditional ones, providing therefore, the opportunity for
innovation.

Certain cities definitely offer a better set of attributes for businesses and economic
activity than others; these include simultaneously tangible assets in the form of physical
elements easily measurable (i.e. highways, airports) and more indefinite elements such as
image, the quality of governance and social and cultural features (Roberts & Sykes, 2000;
Begg, 2002). In the following sections, some of these attributes are described.

4.1. Infrastructures and urban development

The historical development of cities has a huge influence on their current situation. The
association of a city to a specific economic profile does not emerge immediately. To a
large extent, the past determines the present of cities. Consecutive economic
transformations inexorably leave their legacy in the territory.

The availability of good infrastructure and transport connections as well as centres of

higher education, the availability of capital and labour with the necessary qualifications,
together with an institutional context that favours the location of business through
programs and specific actions such as fiscal exemptions or land at a below market price
have been the factors traditionally considered as determinants of the economic location of
business.
4.2. Companies and economic development
Traditionally, special importance has been given to the advantages of agglomeration
economies, the economies of scale and clustering as promoters of economic growth.
Industrial clusters have been analysed and identified as playing a highly relevant role in
the analysis of innovation and the definition of political support of industrial activity
(Porter, 1990).

According to Porter (1998), clusters reflect a top-down approach to promote a certain

region, which basically consists of grouping different stakeholders (universities,
technology and research centres, business, management and financial resources both
private and public) interested in working together in an economic sector.

4.3. Talent and social development

Talent and social development underline the importance of particular equipment or urban
attributes that contribute to the creation of an attractive environment for people. Since
talent has become the engine of the new economy based on creativity and knowledge,
these aspects associated with the region have become more important than location
factors for economic activity (Florida, 2005).

Personal or professional networks, implicit or explicit, become the connectors between

stakeholders who participate in different parts of the economic activity. In fact, network
factors are an alternative formulation to the classical location factors, closely related to
the aspect of connectivity that offers a good provision of infrastructures. Besides, they
also involve those aspects which signpost the individual path of people and their
attachment with the territory (Pareja-Eastaway and Pique, 2010).

4.4. Governance
Areas of innovation are based on a model of dynamic governance of the “triple helix”
(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000) which enhances the confluence of public
administration, universities and companies in order to develop synergies between these
strategic partners to increase the competitiveness of the production system and assist in
the creation, growth and consolidation of employment. Collaborative relationships from
the basis of the development of the triple helix: this interaction results from the synergies
created in the territory among stakeholders rather than from a ‘prescription’ from the
authorities.

The different stakeholders involved assume different roles than the traditional ones,
providing the opportunity for innovation. Consequently, vertical (sectors) and horizontal
(transversal) governance are necessary to articulate clusters and the Areas of Innovation
(holistic approach). The incorporation of citizens’ needs and city challenges in the
quadruple helix (Leydesdorff, 2012) is another strategic decision to make when
developing a governance model.
Areas of Innovation in cities: From the inception to maturity. The Case of 22@Barcelona

5. 22@Barcelona Case

5.1 Overview
22@Barcelona began as a unique opportunity to partially transform Poblenou, a
neighbourhood with productive vocation that converted the old textile industrial district
of Barcelona, into a platform for innovation and knowledge economy at an international
level (Pareja-Eastaway and Pique, 2014).

In 1998, after a considerable political debate about how to regenerate the 200 Ha of
obsolete industrial area, Barcelona bet decisively and unequivocally to preserve the
production profile of this territory but also aiming at combining residential uses in the
area. The 22@Barcelona District looked for a long term urban transformation that
progressively regenerated industrial areas, both from the revaluation of its architectonic
environment as from improving the quality of his public space. Instead of the
conventional form of changing completely the urban space, this process was developed
establishing a balance between maintaining and renewing, which allowed the definition
of new urban images in a context of continuity with earlier forms.

The process started in 2000 with an initial phase of urban renovation and the provision of
high quality infrastructures. In 2004, 22@Barcelona approached a new era of intense
economic and social renewal: several strategies were developed aiming to create Urban
Clusters of Innovation focusing on various emergent sectors which Barcelona considered
should be represented in the city‘s economy. They were media, information and
communication technologies (ICT), medical technologies and energy. In some cases,
these sectors were clearly rooted in the territory like the media or ICT, in some others,
they were a clear bet for attracting and promoting them in the city. At a later date, in
2009, design was added to the first four. The process aspired to concentrating on the
territory businesses, public administration agencies and scientific and technological
centres of reference in these strategic sectors.

22@Barcelona agency was created to manage the district from the very beginning
looking for its economic promotion and the international projection of business and
academia (research, education and knowledge transfer). Up until now, this agency has led
all development projects to stimulate innovation in the district and has provided all
support services to companies.

According to the Report 22@Barcelona 2000-2015, renovation has achieved on

approximately 70% of the Poblenou industrial areas through 150 approved urban
transformation plans, of which 141 have been promoted by the private sector. The total
approved plans account for 3,029,106 m² of floor space. This is more than 140,000 m² of
land for facilities and nearly 1,600 housing units with some sort of public subsidy.

Regeneration of the district has led to the establishment of 10 universities with a total of
more than 25,000 students, 12 R&D and technology transfer centres, and the current
census of businesses in the 22@Barcelona area shows a continued growth.
According to the 22@Barcelona Business Census 2015, more than 8,223 companies are
located in 22@Barcelona, and more than 93,000 jobs are now in the district. The total
turnover of the companies of the district is the 10,300 million Euros, 32.3% are
Knowledge Based companies and the 27.4% are exporting companies. The 40.4% of the
companies are related with Clusters.

5.2. Infrastructures and Urban Development at 22@Barcelona

The objectives of the 22@Barcelona Plan were stated to renew the urban and economic
Poblenou (Pareja-Eastaway and Pique, 2011) suggesting a compact and diverse city with
a balanced and sustainable focus, instead of a model specialized on industrial land.
Therefore, the new economic activities coexist with research, training and technology
transfer, housing, equipment and trade, in one high quality environment, whose density
makes it compatible with a balanced allocation open space and equipment.

On the one hand, through a system of incentives for the real state, urban renewal
processes contribute to the redevelopment of all streets with the renewal of infrastructure,
improved quality and capacity of the urban services and of the new organization of the
urban mobility. In addition, free land was generated for the community from initial 100%
private land, with the transformation, 30% of the land will become public land-to create
new green zones, facilities and social housing. On the other hand, the so-called “@”
activities are favoured. These activities are those that use talent as a main productive
resource.

Thus, the progressive transformation of the industrial land solves historical deficits and
restores the social and business dynamism that has historically characterized the
Poblenou. Since the project’s inception in 2000 until now, the urban renewal project
involves the creation of a diverse and balanced environment where most innovative
companies coexist with research centres, training and technology transfer and with shops,
housing and green zones, that promote social and entrepreneurial dynamism.

5.3. Companies and Economic Development at 22@Barcelona

A cluster strategy was developed in the District in order to promote the Knowledge-based
Economy. In 2004, adding value at the physical transformation (urban and infrastructure),
22@Barcelona developed policies centred on emerging sectors with local assets and
international opportunities to grow: media, information technologies and communication
(ICT) medical technologies and energy. In 2008 began the design cluster as a new
strategic sector of Barcelona (Pareja-Eastaway and Pique, 2014).

Promoting urban clusters in the territory of 22@Barcelona, the district improved the
innovative capacity of the ecosystem of innovation. Each of the five clusters of
22@Barcelona was located in the district in different levels of maturity. The
methodology followed in all cases was on establishing a Cluster Program. 22@Barcelona
promoted the creation of sectorial centres of technology transfer as tools for better
connection between research (universities) and companies. 22@Barcelona was working
on consolidating these, as Barcelona Media Foundation in the sector audio-visual and
Barcelona Digital Foundation sector ICT. In 2009, support was given to BCD (Barcelona
Center of Design) and the consolidation of IREC (Institute for Energy Research
Catalonia) which together with b_TEC were leading Energy Cluster.
Areas of Innovation in cities: From the inception to maturity. The Case of 22@Barcelona

In 2008, with the strategic objective of strengthening the support to companies that
wanted to be located in the 22@Barcelona, the initiative 22@PLUS was promoted. The
22@ PLUS was conceived as a compact value proposition to companies looking at
possible relocation in the district and consisted of a catalogue of services that included
comprehensively all the elements of value added at 22@Barcelona. This initiative is now
the Business One-Stop Service (OAE) for companies wishing to settle down in the
district.

5.4. Talent and Social Development at 22@Barcelona

To develop a talent management strategy that supplied the raw material for the
Knowledge Economy, 22@Barcelona managed the implementation of university centres
in the district with the objective of locating talent in the district and installed critical mass
of talent and new generations of talent.

It was promoted in primary and secondary schools with the aim of influencing scientific
and technological vocations, entrepreneurship and understanding of global citizenship.
These actions connected schools with clusters developed in the District (CreaTalent
Program). As such, 22@Barcelona led to an approach of schools with businesses,
promoting career guidance (Porta 22) and workplace internships (Staying in Company)
and employability (Talent Marketplace 22@). Likewise, with the aim of developing a
community of professionals in the District, 22@Barcelona promoted events such as the
22 @ Update Breakfast which served to interrelate across profiles and create a sense of
belonging.

Universities and companies acted as true International magnet Talent. In this sense,
landing performances were promoted for the international community, ensuring a
comprehensive welcome. Publications such as "Welcome to Barcelona" which describes
international schools or practical processes of life in Barcelona facilitate the
implementation and integration of newcomers. In parallel, 22@Barcelona developed
social programs in order to involve the neighbourhood. Programs as Digital District have
included grandparents and parents in the process of the district by digital training
programs.

5.5. Governance at 22@Barcelona

The 22@Barcelona was driven by public initiative with a long-term vision (20 years). For
its development, it was necessary to share the vision and strategy with Investors,
companies, universities, civil society and other public authorities. The involvement of
agents in the process has been a key factor throughout the development. It has been
promoting different hybrid structures (University, Industry, and Public Administration)
that ensured alignment interaction and a collective project.

Vertically Triple Helix structures were promoted (Pareja-Eastaway and Pique, 2014) to
take responsibility for each of the clusters. Barcelona Media Foundation and Barcelona
Digital Foundation are good examples of governance. Horizontally it had promoted the
formation of the 22@Network, the Association of Business and Institutions of
22@Barcelona. This partnership with the body of trustees and the commissions on
Innovation, Talent, Sustainability and entrepreneurship acts transversely, bringing
together enterprises and professionals of the District. The horizontal and vertical
institutionalization served to strengthen the district beyond its initial impetus public,
creating a governance matrix. The annual agreement with the 22@Network has
facilitated the alienation and commitment to the development of the District.

6. Proposing a Lifecycle approach for Areas of Innovation

An Area of Innovation (AOI) needs urban, economic and social transformation, as a
result of the contribution of Government, Universities and Industry, from the inception
moment until the maturity.

Taking as a simile the life cycle of a new venture (Freeman and Engel, 2007) the
following section explores the different stages of development of an AOI: inception,
launch, growth and maturity (Table 1). Taking advantage of the stages, it would be easier
to better understand the role of every agent of the triple helix model (University, Industry,
Government) in each phase for the different dimensions (urban, economical and social).

At each stage, the need to align hard and also soft factors in order to contribute to the
mobility of the key resources of an innovation ecosystem–people, technology and
capital–is also examined (Engel and Del-Palacio, 2009). Implications are discussed in
terms of location decisions and the urban transformation of the region.

Table 1. Lifecycle of Areas of Innovation

Definition Launching Growth Maturity

Triple Helix
configuration*

Assignment of
leadership in Explicit leadership from
Government and Adding tractor
Key role business companies, talent and
Universities companies
associations and related networks
clusters
Talent and International networks
Communities and
social Promoters Managers of the AI
networks Local social networks
transformation
Involvement of Key Tractor Companies Attraction of Growth models
Institutions: companies
Location of research Decentralization and
Universities, and technology Creation of internationalization
Companies and Government and
economic centers companies Super clusters
Associations of
Areas of Innovation in cities: From the inception to maturity. The Case of 22@Barcelona

transformation Companies Incubation and Clusterization Megaregions

landing services Open innovation Network of networks of
Management research and innovation
Utilities Investors
Infrastructures Consulting Real estate Territorial growth
and urban Planning
transformation Real estate Developers Exporting the model
Developers
*
The blue circle denotes the government. In green, universities and research centers. In purple,
industry and firms.

6.1. Inception
From an institutional perspective, the enhancement of a specific area with the aim of
creating an urban innovation ecosystem requires identifying a local context that ensures
that talent, technology and capital will be able to loosely flow (Etzkowitz and
Leydesdorff, 2000). The location should also act as a space for interaction and residence.
Nevertheless, each region shows particular identity features, such as culture, a distinctive
educational system or a specific knowledge transfer policy, which shape the development
of the region and determine its own learning capabilities (Doloreux, 2002). The
transformation of the existing environment into an AOI is thus a complex issue.

In the definition stage, major strategic decisions on where to settle the innovation
ecosystem are taken. Once the location is chosen, a feasibility study of urban, economic
and social development is critical in order to evaluate the economic viability of the
project. Given the peculiarities of each region, the conceptualization of AOIs and the
form they might adopt differ from one case to another. Because of these differences, it is
difficult to converge on a homogenous policy design. Nevertheless, from the study of
current examples, it is possible to identify two opposed creation strategies. Differences lie
in the desire to create something from new or to exploit something already existing by
undertaking a formalization process. Accordingly, we distinguish between directed and
spontaneous planning strategies.

The directed planning strategy evidences a deliberate creation scheme for concentrating
innovative activities. Urban or metropolitan planned actions efforts are directed towards
bringing together highly valued activities through infrastructure planning, usually guided
by the intervention of industrial policy. In these circumstances, the underlying idea is to
create something from scratch in an attempt to provide the territory with a more dynamic
environment. The 22@ district in Barcelona, the Boston’s Innovation District, and Porto
Digital in Recife illustrate this strategy (Nikina and Pique, 2016). Powered by local
authorities, these districts were originally industrial areas that had traditionally been very
active, but over the years had been abandoned (brown field). Aiming at creating value-
added activities that boost the economic dynamism of the city, local authorities lead a
transformation process that entailed an entire re-make and reinvention of those
infrastructures and spaces that were underutilized, giving them a completely different
purpose and usage. Also in directed planning strategies we will find projects like Yachay
in Ecuador or Skolkovo in Moscow (Nikina and Pique, 2016), starting new developments
of AOI’s from green fields.

On the contrary, the spontaneous planning strategy is the result of an unplanned spatial
concentration of innovative activity originated by the sum of independent initiatives
coming from actors located in a particular area under the umbrella of anchor institutions.
In this case, the AOI is created as a result of institutionalizing an endogenous dynamic
environment that has emerged spontaneously. While at the beginning basic services are
provided for the coverage of the daily activities, as the movement of resources (people,
technology and capital) increases, there is a need for urbanizing the environment and
providing the place with the appropriate spaces and infrastructures that transform the area
into a living lab, including housing and real state opportunities, as well as recreation
services. Aiming at improving the externalities and the interrelations between the
different stakeholders located in the same geographical enclave, the AOI is then
formalized. The Silicon Valley and the Quartier de l’Innovation in Montreal are perhaps
the most iconic examples of this strategy

6.2. Launching
The planning of land and the development of basic infrastructure lay the foundations for
the installation of the first tenants. Anchor institutions such as universities, hospitals, or
major corporations adopt a leading role, acting as innovation catalysts, particularly, in the
launching stage. Anchor institutions are envisioned as important providers of knowledge
and expertise. As such, they cluster and connect with start-ups, business incubators, and
accelerators, in the pursuit of an innovation ecosystem that aligns research interests with
business needs and social welfare. A good example of an AOI that has been built around
anchor institutions is the Kendall Square in Cambridge (with the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology and the Mass General Hospital acting as anchor institutions)(Nikina and
Pique, 2016).

Anchor institutions are necessary but not sufficient. At this stage the innovation
community needs to make use of its own resources, leverage core competencies, interact
with similar communities, and experiment innovation by taking risk and a global
perspective. Such an agenda of intentions helps develop the behaviours that would create
value and enhance the innovation potential of the area. A top-down government and
institutional action combined with a bottom-up emergent performance of entrepreneurs
and investors can help in building the structures that enable such a culture of
collaboration.

Alongside with reference buildings and incubators, housing and the social dimension
must be considered to retain talent and attract investments. An Area of Innovation should
Areas of Innovation in cities: From the inception to maturity. The Case of 22@Barcelona

have a well-defined physical personality and a stimulant work and social environments.
Subject to the creation strategy of the AOI, the historical development of the city may
have a huge influence at this stage. The acceptance of a specific growth model neither
emerges nor is fully implemented immediately. Consecutive economic transformations
inexorably leave their legacy in the territory. Therefore, economic, social and institutional
path dependency hinders or boosts the development of an AOI.

6.3. Growth
This stage incorporates all the elements of the ecology of innovation, and mainly focuses
on attracting businesses and investors, creating new ventures, and promoting business
clustering and networking.

In this phase the AOI is well developed in urban planning and the infrastructures are
implemented. The challenge is to attract in one hand real estate investors that will build
buildings for allowing the landing of the future tenants, and in the other hand stimulate
companies to choose the AOI as the right place to be for growing.

In parallel, it is also paramount to create a new generation of start-ups, offering them

facilities and special programs to grow. Entrepreneurial competitions focused in the
AOI’s sectors, training programs, networking and specialized investment will be the
magnet for attracting young talent.

The cluster strategy will need appropriate governance. The establishment of public-
private-partnership (PPP) platforms aggregating universities, industry and government
working together in common projects and promoting the best synergies between big
corporations and new entrepreneurs and investors is a key step before the maturity
process. In the case of 22@Barcelona, a cluster strategy was developed, promoting the
clusters of IT, media, tech-media, clean energy and design. For each cluster, a PPP was
created in order to manage the vertical clusters.

Horizontal links are also necessary, connecting professionals and companies in a

transversal way and allowing a better integration of the international talent and the new
companies located there. Continuing with the example of the 22@Barcelona, the
22@Network was created to promote these interactions and foster the engagement of the
companies in the district with the project.

6.4. Maturity
This stage focuses all its efforts on the development of activities that maximize the
ecology of innovation and the connection with other international hubs of innovation.
The global connections will be the key expression of the maturity of the AOI.
Following the Global Networks of COI framework (Engel and Del-Palacio, 2009) the
adoption of a global perspective serves to enlarge the economies of scale. Mobility and
unbundled interactions with other AOIs contribute to cross-fertilization and give firms a
global advantage based on orchestrating diverse networks to exploit new opportunities
and gain access to international assets and resources. These connections are created by
mobile people and their personal relationships, which create linkages (weak ties, durable
bonds and covalent bonds) that allow for the formal and informal exchanges of value.
Because of these international connections, at this stage the AOI expands geographically
to neighbouring areas. It might also become an international reference model for other
areas.

In the social sphere, there is a clear focus on the integration of the international
community installed in the area. The AOI assumes the leadership in talent management,
particularly in attracting and retaining international talent combined with actions to
specifically create and develop local talent.

The mobility of technology, money and people inside an AOI and with other external
AOIs is exemplified with the case of the Israel/Silicon Valley Super Cluster of
Innovation (Engel and Del-Palacio, 2011).

7. Discussion

7.1. Archetypical Science Parks evolves to Urban Areas of Innovation

We have analysed how cities are rapidly changing in order to respond to the requirements
of New Economy activities. We have also shown why inner cities now are the place of
knowledge-based companies and how these industries are innovative industries that
require and attract a large number of skilled people.

We have contributed to the understanding of Areas of Innovation as successful

manifestations of archetypal Science Parks. We analysed the evolution of governments’
focus, from the promotion of archetypal Science Parks to the actual urban, economic and
social development plans. We also showed that one of the goals of the new sustainable
urban development is to promote the co-location and integration living areas in order to
attract a large number of skilled people and to create a high-quality environment.

We have studied the case of the 22@Barcelona as an example of Area of Innovation

development plan. This project aims to transform an old industrial neighbourhood of the
inner city into a new innovative district consisting of universities, research centres and
knowledge-based industries, as well as social and public facilities. Currently, the district
is transforming the landscape of the old industrial district to a new Area of Innovation.
The 22@Barcelona has a strategic location in the inner city, close and perfectly
Areas of Innovation in cities: From the inception to maturity. The Case of 22@Barcelona

connected to the city centre and other neighbourhoods and the region. The project entails
a sustainable urban, economic and social innovation. The urban transformation aims to
combine some old architectural elements with new creative and modern buildings.
Additionally, the few traditional economic activities still remaining in the neighbourhood
may be combined with knowledge-based industries, public facilities, social housing and
green spaces, among others. From an economic point of view, clusters have been
promoted, each represented by specialized research centers, universities, companies and
government institutions.

According to the Triple Helix Model, the co-location of these specialized agents
promotes synergies and collaborations among them. Additionally, as in an Industrial
District, the co-location of diverse industries provides the environment the opportunity to
“mix and match” and create new products (Pyke et al., 1990). Finally, from a social point
of view, and unlike traditional Science Park organizations, the 22@Barcelona entails an
important social development. More than four thousand housing units were planned for
the area, and several programs were developed to help integrate the residents with the
technology and economic development.

As in other urban redevelopment projects, 22@Barcelona project has caused some

controversy. The most significant problems have emerged as a result of the spontaneous
creation of independent and unregulated cultural and artistic movements in the area. In
order to offer an alternative venue for these cultural organizations, public spaces have
been designed for use by young artists and designers.

7.2. Holistic Transformation of Areas of Innovation

Areas of Innovation need urban, economic and social transformation. The role of every
agent of the triple helix (Government, Universities and Industry) is different depending
on the dimension of the transformation.

Governments could add and impact with projects in the same area mixing local, regional,
national, and in some cases international bodies (like the case of the European Union or
international organizations). The government plays key roles in urban planning,
infrastructures regulation and urban services. They attract companies and promote
entrepreneurship. Develop sectorial programs and invest in research, innovation,
entrepreneurship and sophisticated demand. Public-Private Partnerships are needed to
organize and add all public and private contributions. In the case of 22@Barcelona, the
City Council played a key role in public and private leadership.

Universities develop in Areas of Innovation all the functions of the Entrepreneurial

University. Provide Talent from Education, Technology from Research and Knowledge
Base Entrepreneurs from University Incubators. They are key pillars of the Knowledge-
Based Economy. Universities also transform urban dimension with their buildings in the
city, they are anchors and magnet of knowledge based companies and services
companies. They impact in the community providing fresh and young talent that will be
mixed with the neighbourhoods, transforming the life of the streets. In the case of
22@Barcelona, Universities are the lighthouses of urban, economic and social
transformation.

In the case of the Industry, companies are located in the Area of Innovation as they can
offer the professionals a good place for working and living. Companies can take
advantage of the outputs of the universities, hiring talent, using labs, absorbing
technology and interacting with the new Knowledge-Based start-ups. Also Companies
provide to universities experience, market technologies and focus on the real needs. They
can Cluster with other companies, start-ups and institutions. In the Urban dimension, they
are the tenants of the Building Owners, and pay the bill of the Investment of the Real
Estate Developers. 22@Barcelona developed a comprehensive cluster strategy, attracting
investors and promoting entrepreneurship.

Every member of the triple helix works in all the dimensions from different perspectives,
but all the members are needed in the urban transformation, economical transformation
and social transformation. Hybrid organizations are created for joining efforts and
activities, like the Clusters Programs or Public-Private-Platforms Partnerships.
Governance platforms are needed to organize and coordinate agents and functions. In the
case of 22@Barcelona, Horizontal (22@Network) and Vertical (Clusters) were used to
orchestrate the ecosystem of Innovation. Different models of Governance have been
applied at the different Areas of Innovation, but always including all the agents in order
to impact in all the dimensions.

7.3. Understanding the Lifecycle of an Area of Innovation

We have found the evidence, in the case of 22@Barcelona, that in each phase, each agent
works in a different way, and all the agents are necessary to fulfil all the phases.

A Co-evolution process is developed, interacting Government, Universities and Industry.

All agents need the others to evolve, and hybrid organizations as clusters are coordinating
expectations and actions.

In the Inception moment, a clear leadership of the Government is needed to create an

Area of Innovation (in some cases the Mayor of the City, in others Regional and National
Policies). The involvement of the Universities and Association of Companies are key
factors to generate the Vision and trust in the project. Without clear rules of the uses of
the land and clear vision of the kind of Area of Innovation will be difficult to advance in
all the transformation.

In the Launching moment, the Area of Innovation will need basic infrastructures for
starting, and the first buildings to settle the first users. Also, it will be necessary tractor
Areas of Innovation in cities: From the inception to maturity. The Case of 22@Barcelona

companies and universities for stimulating others to come. The Area of Innovation will
need full time managers for promoting the place and organizing the landing of
organizations and investors.

In the Growing process, investors will need clear pieces of land or buildings to invest or
build. A Cluster strategy should be developed in the district. The creation of start-ups will
be one of the sources of growing and innovation. Synergies will be needed among the
tenants in the district. In the Social dimension, international professionals will need
landing aid and the creation of communities and networks of people will generate
synergies and sense of belonging.

In the Maturity moment, the Area of Innovation must evaluate to expand the area
around the original District, or transferring the experience to other zones of the city. The
Area of Innovation should be a hub of innovation connecting with other Parks and Areas,
creating Superclusters of International Networks. In the Social dimensions, the Area of
Innovation will include the whole society being involved. In terms of Governance, the
leadership of the area should be in hands of the Associations of Companies and Social
Entities.

In each phase the roles of the triple helix agents, work for the next phase. The
Government, defining the use of the land, is allowing the universities and companies to
be in the Area of Innovation. Universities, developing studies of Engineering, are
providing key Talent at the Knowledge Based Companies. Universities, promoting
entrepreneurship, are generating new start-ups that government and investors can fund in
order to provide new innovations at the ecosystem. Big Corporation can buy start-ups as
a way to absorb innovation. We see how the horizontal value chain of the urban,
economic and social dimension is vertically connected with the governance of
universities, industry and government.

Ecosystems of Innovation evolve, and each Tripe Helix Agent co-evolve its roles when
others adopt new functions. In the case of Urban transformation, the first effort could
come from the Government, investing in infrastructures and the first buildings. In a
mature moment, the Real Estate Developers will invest in new building and the
Government should not need to invest again in buildings. In the economical dimension,
when the culture of entrepreneurship is needed, public programs are needed to finance
start-ups. In Mature stage, Business Angels and Venture Capital firms can lead the
investments. In the social dimension, in the inception moment, it will be necessary to
transform the mindset of the neighbourhood. In a Mature moment, the culture of
innovation and entrepreneurship in the schools will substitute some future public
activities.

Every agent of the Triple Helix has its internal agenda. Universities play a long term
vision, Government has the elections timeline in its agenda, and Industry pays salaries
every month and show the results in annuals basis. Aligning agendas at short, middle and
long term visions, is a key issue in the Governance performance, in order to evolve the
ecosystem in a synergic way.

References
Atkinson, R. (2004) ‘The evidence on impact of gentrification new lesson for urban
renaissance?’, European Journal of Housing Policy, 4(1), pp. 107-131

Becattini, G. (1986) ‘Small Firms and Industrial Districts: The Experience of Italy’,
Economia Internazionale, 39(2-3-4), pp. 98-103

Becattini, G. (1990) ‘The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion’, in:

F. Pyke, G. Becattini and W. Sengenberger (Eds) Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Co-
operation in Italy, pp. 37-51. Geneva: International Institute of Labour Studies

Begg, D. (2002) ‘Growth, integration, and macroeconomic policy design: Some lessons
for Latin America’, North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 13(3), pp. 279-
295

Boix, R. and Trullen, J. (2006) ‘Knowledge, networks of cities and growth in regional
urban systems’, Papers in Regional Science, 86(4), pp. 551-574

Brotchie, J.; Barry, M. ,Blakey, E., Hall, P. & Newton, P. (eds.) (1995) Cities in
Competition:Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21st Century. Melbourne:
Longman Australia.

Bugliarello, G. (2004) ‘Urban Knowledge Parks, Knowledge Cities and Urban

Sustainability’, International Journal of Technology Management, 28(3-6), pp. 338-394

Casellas, A. and Pallarès, M. (2010), ‘Public-sector intervention in embodying the new

economy in inner urban areas: The Barcelona experience’, Urban Studies, 46(5–6), pp.
1137–1155.

Chica, J.E. and Marmolejo, C. (2016) ‘Knowledge economy and metropolitan growth:
Barcelona and Helsinki metropolitan areas as case studies’, Int. J. Knowledge-Based
Development, 7(1), pp. 22–42
Cohendet, P., Grandadam, D. and Simon, L. (2011) ‘Rethinking urban creativity:
Lessons from Barcelona and Montreal’, City, Culture and Society, 2(3), pp. 151–158

Costa, P.; Magalhaes, M.; Vasconcelos, B. and Sugahara, G. (2008) ‘On “Creative
Cities” Governance Models: a Comparative Approach’, The Service Industries Journal,
28(3), pp. 393-413

Doloreux, D., (2002) ‘What we should know about regional systems of innovation’,
Technology in Society, 24(3), pp. 243-263

Engel, J. S. and Del-Palacio, I. (2009) ‘Global networks of clusters of innovation:

Areas of Innovation in cities: From the inception to maturity. The Case of 22@Barcelona

Accelerating the innovation process’, Business Horizons, 52(5), pp. 493–503

Engel, J. S. and Del-Palacio, I. (2011) ‘Global Clusters of Innovation: the case of Israel
and Silicon Valley’, California Management Review. 53(2), 27-49
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000) ‘The dynamics of innovation: from National
Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations’,
Research Policy, 29(2), pp. 109-123

Etzkowitz, H and Dzisah, J (2008) ‘Unity and Diversity High-Tech Growth and Renewal:
Learning from Boston and Silicon Valley’, European Planning Studies, 16(8), pp. 1009-
1024

Evans, D.R. (1994) ‘Enhancing quality of life in the population at large’, Social
Indicators Research, 33, pp. 47-88

Feldman, Ma.P. and Audretsch, D.B. (1999) ‘Innovation in cities: Science-based

diversity, specialization and localized competition’, European Economic Review, 43(2),
pp. 409-429

Florida, R (2005) The Raise of Creative Class – and How it’s Transforming Work,
Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.

Florida, R. (2008) Who’s your city? : how the creative economy is making where to live
the most important decision of your life. New York: Basic Books Basic Books.
Freeman, J. and Engel, J. S. (2007) ‘Models of Innovation: Startups and Mature
Corporations’, California Management Review. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los
Angeles, CA, 50(1), pp. 94–119
Godospini, A. (2006) ‘Portraying, Classifying and Understanding the Emerging
Landscape in the Post-Industrial City’, Cities, 23(5), pp. 311-330

Hall, P (1997) ‘The Future of the Metropolis and its Form’, Regional Studies, 31(3), pp.
211-220

Halstead, JM & Steven CD (1997) ‘Public infrastructure in economic development and

growth: Evidence from rural manufacturers’, Journal of the Community Development
Society, 28(2), pp. 149-169

Hart, S.L.; Denison, D.R. & Henderson, D.A. (1989) ‘A contingency approach to firm
location: The influence of industrial sector and level of technology’, Policy Studies
Journal, 17(3), pp. 599-623

Hutton, T.A. (2000) ‘Reconstructed Production Landscapes in the Postmodern City:

Applied Design and Creative Services in the Metropolitan Core’, Urban Geography, 21
(4), pp. 285-317

Hutton, T.A. (2004) ‘The New Economy of the Inner City’, Cities, 21(2), pp. 89-108

Jacobs, J. (1984) Cities and the wealth of nations. New York: Random House.
Jensen-Butler, C.; Shachar, A. and Van Weesep, J. (eds.) (1997) European Cities in
Competition.Aldershot: Ashgate.

Katz, B. and Wagner, J., 2014, ‘The rise of innovation districts: A new geography of
innovation in America’. Washington: Brookings Institution.

Knight, R. & Stanback, T.M. (1970) The Metropolitan Economy: The Process of
Employment Expansion. New York: Columbia University Press.

Knight, R. (1973) Employment Expansion and Metropolitan Trade. New York: Praeger.

Knight, R. (1995) ‘Knowledge-based Development: Policy and Planning Implications for

Cities’, Urban Studies. Sage PublicationsSage UK: London, England, 32(2), pp. 225-260.
Landry, C. (2000) The creative city: A toolkit for urban innovators. London: Earthscan.
Lazzeretti, L. and Nencioni, B. (2005) ‘Creative Industries in a ‘High Culture Local
System’. The Case of The Art City of Florence’, Regional Studies Association-Regional
Growth Agendas, University of Aalborg, Denmark

Leibovitz, J. (2004) ‘Embryonic, knowledge-based clusters and cities: the case of

biotechnology in Scotland’, Urban Studies, 41(5-6), pp. 1133-1155

Lever, W.F. (1999) ‘Competitive Cities in Europe’, Urban Studies, 36(5-6), pp. 1029-
1044

Lever, W.F. (2002) ‘Correlating the Knowledge-base of Cities with Economic Growth’,
Urban Studies, 39(5-6), pp. 859-87

Leydesdorff, L. (2012) ‘The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, and an n-tuple of helices:
Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy’, Journal of the
Knowledge Economy, 3(1): 25-35

Lucas, R.E. (1993) ‘Making the miracle’, Econometrica, 61(2), pp. 251-272

Luger, M. I. and Goldstein, H. A. (1991) Technology in the garden: Research parks and
regional economic development. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Lyne, J. (1988) ‘Quality-of-life factors dominate many facility location decisions’,
Industrial Development and Site Selection Handbook, 33, pp. 868-870

Malecki, E.J. (2000) ‘Knowledge and Regional Competitivenes’, Erdkunde, 54(4), pp.
334-351

Malecki, E.J. (2002) ‘Hard and Soft Networks for Urban Competitiviness’, Urban
Studies, 39(5-6), pp. 929-945

Marcotullio, PJ (2003) ‘Globalisation, Urban Form and Environmental Conditions in

Asia-Pacific Cities’, Urban Studies, 40(2), pp. 219-247

Massey, D., Quintas, P. and Wield, D. (1992) High-tech fantasies: Science parks in
Areas of Innovation in cities: From the inception to maturity. The Case of 22@Barcelona

society, science and space, High-Tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society, Science and
Space. London: Routledge.

McMichael, AJ (2000) ‘The Urban Environment and Health in a World of Increasing

Globalization: Issues for Developing Countries’, Bulletin of the World Health
Organization, 78 (9), pp. 1117-1126

Morgan, K. J. (1997) ‘The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and Regional

Renewal’, Regional Studies, 31(5), pp. 491–502

Munroe, T. and Westwind, M. (2008) Silicon Valley: the Ecology of Innovation. Malaga,
Spain: APTE

Nelson, R. R. (1994) ‘The Co-evolution of Technology, Industrial Structure, and

Supporting Institutions’, Industrial and Corporate Change. Oxford University Press,
3(1), pp. 47–63
Nikina, A. and Pique, J. M. (2016) Areas of Innovation in a Global World Concept and
Practice. Edited by A. Nikina, J. Pique, and L. Sanz. Malaga: IASP – International
Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation

O’Mara, M.P. (2005) Cities of Knowledge: Cold War Science and the Search for the Next
Silicon Valley, Princeton-New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Pareja-Eastaway, M. and Pique, J. M. (2010) ‘Identity of the territory in the knowledge

economy’, Paradigmes, 5, pp. 182–193

Pareja-Eastaway, M. and Pique, J.M. (2011). ‘Urban regeneration and the creative
knowledge economy: The case of 22@ in Barcelona’. Journal of Urban Regeneration
and Renewal, 4(4), pp. 319-327

Pareja-Eastaway, M. and Pique, J. M. (2014) Spain: Creating ecologies of innovation in

cities-the case of 22@barcelona, In: J.S. Engel (Ed.), Global Clusters of Innovation:
Entrepreneurial Engines of Economic Growth around the World, pp. 141-159.
Massachusetts: Edwar Elgar.

Porter, M. (1990) ‘The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

Porter, M. (1995) ‘The Competitive Advantage of the Inner City’. Harvard Business
Review, 73(3), pp. 55-71

Porter, M. (1997) ‘New Strategies for Inner-City Economic Development’, Economic

Development Quarterly, 11(1), pp. 11-27
Porter, ME (1998) ’Clusters and the New Economics of Competition’, Harvard Business
Review, 76(6), pp. 77-90

Pratt, A. C. (2008) ‘Creative cities: The cultural industries and the creative class’,
Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 90(2), pp. 107–117

Roberts, P., and Sykes, H. (2000). Urban Regeneration. London: Sage.

Sassen, S. (1991) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, Princeton-New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.

Sassen, S. (1998) Globalization and its Discountents. New York: New Press.

Sassen, S. (2002) Cities in the World Economy. New York: Routledge.

Saxenian, A. (1994) Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and
Route 128. Cambrigde, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scott, A.J. (2000) The Cultural Economy of Cities. London: Sage.
Scott, A. J. (2006) ‘Creative Cities: Conceptual Issues and Policy Questions’, Journal of
Urban Affairs, 28(1), pp. 1–17
Strambach, S. (2002) ‘Change in the Innovation Process: New Knowledge Production
and Competitive Cities –The Case of Stuttgart’, European Planning Studies, 10(2), pp.
215-231

Thomson, H., Atkinson, R., Petticrew, M. and Kearns, A. (2006) “Do Urban
Regeneration Programmes Improve Public Health and Reduce Health Inequalities? A
Synthesis of the Evidence from UK policy and practice (1980-2004) ’, Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, 60 (2), pp. 108-115

Utterback, JM and Afuah, AN (1998) ‘The Dynamic “Diamond”: a Technological

Innovation Perspective’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 6 (2-3), pp. 183-
199