Does urban form matter for innovation productivity? A national multi-level study of the association between neighbourhood innovation capacity and urban sprawl

Abstract

Geography of innovation, creative clustering, urban buzz and innovation districts are place-based concepts that have emerged as a result of the US economy’s transformation to knowledge-intensive economies. The notable built environment characteristics of these concepts are spatial clustering, walkability and proximity to urban amenities, diversity, regional connectivity and agglomeration. While several of these characteristics have been associated with urban sprawl in previous studies, there is a lack of direct evidence on how urban sprawl affects innovation productivity. This national study seeks to examine the relationship between urban sprawl, place-based characteristics and innovation productivity. We used Multilevel Modelling to account for built environment characteristics at both neighbourhood and regional levels. We found that innovative firms tend to locate more in census tracts that are less compact but offer spatial proximity to firms in related business sectors. This is likely due to the higher land and property value in compact areas, which could make it unaffordable for small businesses. We also found that the regional compactness positively and significantly affects the number of innovative firms. This is likely due to the role of compact regions in supporting public transit investments, enhancing social capital and reducing poverty and racial segregation.

The The impact of territorial policies on the distribution of the creative economy: tracking spatial patterns of innovation in Slovenia

“…This means that municipal centres that gained decision-making and administrative importance gradually also increased their innovation potential. The results are consistent with the outcomes of other authors who highlight the connection between reconfiguration of territorial innovation systems and transformation processes of corresponding political and planning systems (Kaiser, R. and Prange, H. 2004;Hamidi, S. and Zandiatashbar, A. 2018).…”

“…This was established also in other non-CEE countries: 77 per cent of all creative clusters are found in metropolitan regions (Boix, R. et al 2015). This concentration in large or capital cities could be explained by theories of agglomeration economies: co-location of firms and their spatial proximity, availability to specialised firms and services and access to knowledge spill-overs (Lorenzen, M. and Frederiksen, L. 2007;Hamidi, S. and Zandiatashbar, A. 2018).…”

“…The systems of innovation have been categorized into national innovation systems, regional innovation systems and sectoral innovation systems with the first two relying on a spatial dimension (Markatou, M. and Alexandrou, E. 2015). Their reconfiguration is closely connected to transformation processes of corresponding political and planning systems (Kaiser, R. and Prange, H. 2004;Hamidi, S. and Zandiatashbar, A. 2018).…”

“…On the other hand, little has been done to reflect the changing patterns of nationallevel urban hierarchy (Lu, L. and Huang, R. 2012). There is a lack of direct evidence on how dispersed forms of settlement affect innovation productivity (Hamidi, S. and Zandiatashbar, A. 2018).…”

Mapping Creative Spaces in Omaha, NE: Resident Perceptions versus Creative Firm Locations

“…This place-based amenity may be more valuable to arts/media/cultural industries than those in science and technology due to a heavier reliance on extended networks, "weak ties," and frequent exposure to new ideas to fuel more open-ended divergent thinking. These considerations, however, are one among many, and newer, smaller firms are likely to have quite different needs and preferences in terms of space and location than larger, established firms, regardless of the type of business [74].…”