Understanding the geographical distribution of innovation in England: density, accessibility and spillover effects

REFERENCES

• Aarstad, J., Kvitastein, O. A., & Jakobsen, S. E. (2016). Local buzz, global pipelines, or simply too much buzz? A critical study. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences, 75, 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.07.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1992). Real effects of academic research – A comment. American Economic Review, 82(1), 363–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, J. D. (1990). Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98(4), 673–702. https://doi.org/10.1086/261702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, J. D. (1993). Science, R&D and invention potential recharge: US evidence. American Economic Journal, 83(2), 458–462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal, A., Galasso, A., & Oettl, A. (2017). Roads and innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 99(3), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00619
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alcacer, J., & Chung, W. (2007). Location strategies and knowledge spillovers. Management Science, 53(5), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alcacer, J., & Chung, W. (2010). Location strategies for agglomeration economies (Working Paper No. 10-071:06-144). Harvard Business School Strategy Unit.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson, M., & Karlsson, C. (2004). The role of accessibility for regional innovation systems. In Karlsson, C., Flensburg, P., & Hortes, A. (Eds.), Knowledge spillovers and knowledge management (pp. 283–310). Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422–448. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1997.2032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (2000). Geographic and sectoral characteristics of academic knowledge externalities. Papers in Regional Science, 79(4), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00011486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arentze, T., van den Berg, P., & Timmermans, H. (2012). Modeling social networks in geographic space: Approach and empirical application. Environment and Planning A – Economy and Space, 44(5), 1101–1120. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arundel, A. M., & Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(6), 559–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043859092000234311
   Google Scholar
• Asheim, B., Coenen, L., & Vang, J. (2007). Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases: Sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(5), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0648
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Journal, 86(3), 630–640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bivand, R. S., & Wong, D. W. S. (2018). Comparing implementations of global and local indicators of spatial association. TEST, 27(3), 716–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11749-018-0599-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlino, G. A., Chatterjee, S., & Hunt, R. M. (2007). Urban density and the rate of invention. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(3), 389–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlino, G., & Kerr, W. R. (2015). Agglomeration and innovation. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 5, 349–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59517-1.00006-4
   Google Scholar
• Caschili, S., De Montis, A., & Trogu, D. (2015). Accessibility and rurality indicators for regional development. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 49, 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.05.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatman, D. G., & Noland, R. B. (2011). Do public transport improvements increase agglomeration economies? A review of literature and an agenda for research. Transport Reviews, 31(6), 725–742. doi:10.1080/01441647.2011.587908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatterji, A., Glaeser, E., & Kerr, W. (2014). Clusters of entrepreneurship and innovation. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 14(1), 129–166. https://doi.org/10.1086/674023
   Google Scholar
• Cheshire, P., Hilber, C., Montebruno, P., & Sanchis-Guarner, R., (2017). Using micro-geography data to identify town centre space in Great Britain (Spatial Economics Research Centre Discussion Papers No. 0213). Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
   Google Scholar
• Cloke, P. J. (1977). Index of rurality for England and Wales. Regional Studies, 11(1), 31-46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copus, A. K., Psaltopuulos, D., Skuras, D., Terluin, I., & Weingarten, P. (2008). Approaches to rural typology in the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Cornish, S. L. (1997). Product innovation and the spatial dynamics of market intelligence: Does proximity to markets matter? Economic Geography, 73(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.2307/144445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cosh, A., & Hughes, A. (1996). The changing state of British enterprise: Growth innovation and competitive advantage in small and medium sized firms 1986–95. University of Cambridge ESRC Centre for Business Research.
   Google Scholar
• Currie, C., Stone, S., Pearce, M., Landes, D., & Durham, J. (2022). Urgent dental care use in the North East and Cumbria: Predicting repeat attendance. British Dental Journal, 232(3), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-3886-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkstra, L., & Poelman, H. (2008). Remote rural regions: How proximity to a city influences the performance of rural regions (DG Regional Policy Paper: Regional Focus). European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Eder, J., & Trippl, M. (2019). Innovation in the periphery: Compensation and exploitation strategies. Growth and Change, 50(4), 1511–1531. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esposito, C. R., & Rigby, D. L. (2019). Buzz and pipelines: The costs and benefits of local and nonlocal interaction. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(3), 753–773. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lby039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fertner, C. (2012). Downscaling European urban–rural typologies. Geografisk Tidsskrift – Danish Journal of Geography, 112(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2012.707805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, M. M., & Varga, A. (2003). Spatial knowledge spillovers and university research: Evidence from Austria. The Annals of Regional Science, 37(2), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001680200115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furkova, A. (2019). Spatial spillovers and European Union regional innovation activities. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 27(3), 815–834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-018-0581-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandini, A., & Cossu, A. (2019). The third wave of coworking: ‘Neo-corporate’ model versus ‘resilient’ practice. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 24(2), 430–447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamidi, S., Zandiatashbar, A., & Bonakdar, A. (2019). The relationship between regional compactness and regional innovation capacity (RIC): empirical evidence from a national study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 394–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handy, S. (2020). Is accessibility an idea whose time has finally come? Transportation Research Part D – Transport and Environment, 83, 102319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrington, V., & O’Donoghue, D. (1998). Rurality in England and Wales 1991: A replication and extension of the 1981 rurality index. Sociologia Ruralis, 38(2), 178. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedlund, M. (2016). Mapping the socioeconomic landscape of rural Sweden: Towards a typology of rural areas. Regional Studies, 50(3), 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.924618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjaltadottir, R. E., Makkonen, T., & Mitze, T. (2020). Inter-regional innovation cooperation and structural heterogeneity: Does being a rural, or border region, or both, make a difference? Journal of Rural Studies, 74, 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaffe, A. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Journal, 79(5), 957–970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeble, D., & Tyler, P. (1995). Enterprising behaviour and the urban–rural shift. Urban Studies, 32(6), 975–997. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989550012753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeble, D., & Wilkinson, F. (1999). Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional clusters of high technology SMEs in Europe. Regional Studies, 33(4), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409950081167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovacs, G., Kopacsi, S., Haidegger, G., & Michelini, R. (2006). Ambient intelligence in product life-cycle management. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 19(8), 953–965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2006.01.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, C., & Lorenz, E. (1999). Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies, 33(4), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/713693555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, J. J., Feng, C. M., & Lee, Y. N. (2007). Influence of accessibility on innovation – Empirical study of electronics industry in northern Taiwan. Transportation Research Record, 1994, 74–79.
   Google Scholar
• Mahroum, S., Atterton, J., Ward, N., Williams, A. M., Naylor, R., Hindle, R., & Rowe, F. (2007). Rural innovation (Exploration No. 01). National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA).
   Google Scholar
• Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovation: Sources, characteristics and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/2109992
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinovic, M., & Ratkaj, I. (2015). Sustainable rural development in Serbia: Towards a quantitative typology of rural areas. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 10(3), 37-48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massard, N., & Mehier, C. (2009). Proximity and innovation through an ‘accessibility to knowledge’ lens. Regional Studies, 43(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701808881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendonca, S., Pereira, T. S., & Godinho, M. M. (2004). Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change. Research Policy, 33(9), 1385–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moretti, E. (2004). Workers’ education, spillovers, and productivity: Evidence from plant-level production functions. American Economic Review, 94(3), 656–690. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041464623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray, E. T., Nicholas, O., Norman, P., & Jivraj, S. (2021). Life course neighborhood deprivation effects on body mass index: Quantifying the importance of selective migration. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8339. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• North, D., & Smallbone, D. (2000). The innovativeness and growth of rural SMEs during the 1990s. Regional Studies, 34(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400050006069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1994). Creating rural indicators for shaping territorial policy. OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Papa, E., Silva, C., te Brommelstroet, M., & Hull, A. (2016). Accessibility instruments for planning practice: A review of European experiences. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 9, 57–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillipson, J., Tiwasing, P., Gorton, M., Maioli, S., Newbery, R., & Turner, R. (2019). Shining a spotlight on small rural businesses: How does their performance compare with urban? Journal of Rural Studies, 68, 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.09.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rammer, C., Kinne, J., & Blind, K. (2020). Knowledge proximity and firm innovation: A microgeographic analysis for Berlin. Urban Studies, 57(5), 996–1014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018820241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao, K. U., & Kishore, V. V. N. (2010). A review of technology diffusion models with special reference to renewable energy technologies. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(3), 1070–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roche, M. P. (2020). Taking innovation to the streets: Microgeography, physical structure, and innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(5), 912–928. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00866
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roper, S., & Love, J. H. (2018). Knowledge context, learning and innovation: An integrating framework. Industry and Innovation, 25(4), 339–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1414744
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roper, S., Love, J. H., & Bonner, K. (2015). Benchmarking local innovation – The innovation geography of the UK. Warwick Business School/Aston Business School.
   Google Scholar
• Roper, S., Vahter, P., & Love, J. H. (2013). Externalities of openness in innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1544–1554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, A. J., & Storper, M. (2015). The nature of cities: The scope and limits of urban theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smailes, P. J., Argent, N., & Griffin, T. L. C. (2002). Rural population density: Its impact on social and demographic aspects of rural communities. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(4), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00033-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, T., Noble, M., Noble, S. M., Wright, G., McLennan;, D., & Plunkett, E. (2015). The English indices of deprivation 2015 – Research report. Department for Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: The economic force of the city. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlecg/lbh027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tinguely, X. (2013) The new geography of innovation: Clusters, competitiveness and theory. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Trippl, M., Todtling, F., & Lengauer, L. (2009). Knowledge sourcing beyond buzz and pipelines: Evidence from the Vienna software sector. Economic Geography, 85(4), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01047.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Berg, P., Kemperman, A., & Timmermans, H. (2014). Social interaction location choice: A latent class modeling approach. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(5), 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.924726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Eupen, M., Metzger, M. J., Perez-Soba, M., Verburg, P. N., van Doorn, A., & Bunce, R. G. H. (2012). A rural typology for strategic European policies. Land Use Policy, 29(3), 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser, E. J., & Boschma, R. (2004). Learning in districts: Novelty and lock-in in a regional context. European Planning Studies, 12(6), 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431042000251864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wachs, M., & Kumagai, T. G. (1973). Physical accessibility As A social indicator. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 7(5), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(73)90041-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weir, R. (2019). Using geographically weighted regression to explore neighborhood-level predictors of domestic abuse in the UK. Transactions in GIS, 23(6), 1232–1250. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12570
   Google Scholar
• Wu, D., Wu, X. B., Zhou, H. J., & Kang, M. G. (2020). Interfirm networks and search-transfer problem: The role of geographic proximity. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 120(5), 923–940. doi:10.1108/IMDS-07-2019-0384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar