Talk:Science park/Archives/2016

Untitled

Science Parks will I think soon be rebreanded Living Labs

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Living_lab

although not the same I think the overlap is very strong. So some good writing for an expert on these 2 would be good. I am sure this needs to happen as I am writing an article showing the difference for publication. But I don't have the more backward American perspective as here in Europe and China too seem more advanced re the Labs v Parks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.246.214.67 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of this information is blatantly copied from the Battelle report, available at [1], which is why the language sounds inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.213.252.73 (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Battelle report mentioned can not be found. It is mentioned as "soon-to be-released". This means that the information can not be verified at this point. This backfires and down grades the value of the work at Battelle. Several of the science parks mentioned have been studied or evaluated from a Cabral-Dahab perspective. These references should be entered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.242.80 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The new editions appear to be advertisement for a particular science park, Centennial Campus at North Carolina State University. The strategically planned mixed-use campus expansions are not at all new. In fact many science parks have this. Maybe this information should be placed in a page about the Centennial Campus. THere is also no reference to the new information.

. An act of vandalism was carried out by user 86.3.34.116. The page was reverted to its earlier version.

Yes, I think they should be merged. They all seem to be the same thing with a few minor differences. We need someone who can explain the differences if there are any between research parks, technology parks, science parks, biomedical parks, etc. Is the term "research park" a category in which all the others fit? Do universities have authority or influence over some of these parks? How are these parks formed and is zoning involved? Who or what controls these parks? These are questions that should be answered in the article with any references that you can find. Also, the categories: Category:Technology parks and Category:Research parks should be intertwined or split depending on the results of the previous questions. I don't know that much about them, so I can't do much. --TinMan 22:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

The categories parks, technology parks, science parks, biomedical parks, business parks, etc, are technically speaking different. But as some of these entities have had funding problems, they have expanded their field of actions and a blurring of boundaires have occured. For instance, the 'Cabral Dahab Science Park Paradigm' has been used to evaluate all these categories, as well as incubators. The key issue for planners and managers is what "sell" better in their local setting. If they can attract more funding by calling it Science Park, they will do it. If it is biomedical park, they will do it. But the bluring of identity can create problems. A biomedical parks hould not have a software company that develop 3-d games in its premisses, for instance. In general terms, one expect a "research park" to have predominantly research units of companies or research firms. A science park, a technology park etc, may have this, but the key aim is product development. None of these parks should "technically speaking" have large production units. An industrial park is a place for this. Regis Cabral

I believe merging the term technopolis with science parks is a bit problematic since there is a science park operator in Finland by the name of Technopolis PLC. In fact, it is by far the largest in Finland, and by the number of companies in its facilities (800 companies) also one of the largest in Europe and it has aspirations to become more and more international. --Karri Oikarinen 11:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• [Following comment is copied from Research park discussion.] I'm in favour of common terminology and against a merger. That's because the three existing articles seem to have three separate functions: science park is the main text; research park is a list; and technopolis needs to be disambiguation. At least one of the relevant international organisations, International Association of Science Parks [2], confirms the usage that Science Park/Technology Park/Research Park/Technopole are interchangeable. So I suggest we redirect the synonyms to the existing Science Park article. Similarly I'd suggest moving articles into the main Category:Science parks until it's clearer whether different categories for articles would be distinct enough to add value. --Mereda 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Barge-Gil's comment on this article

Dr. Barge-Gil has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I think that the article is very nice. Perhaps I would add something about the recent studies aiming to evaluate the impact of science and technology parks

A review of results from these studies (along with a new one) can be found:

Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., Rico, A. M., & Paraskevopoulou, E. (2014). The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ product innovation: empirical evidence from Spain. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(4), 835-873.

Other interesting reference is this book about science and technology parks in emerging countries:

Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Hardy, D. (2014). Technology and industrial parks in emerging countries: Panacea or pipedream?. Springer.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Barge-Gil has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Vasquez-Urriago, Angela & Barge-Gil, Andres & Modrego, Aurelia, 2014. "Which firms benefit more from being located in a Science and Technology Park? Empirical evidence for Spain," MPRA Paper 55130, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)