Next Article in Journal
Influence of Green Roofs on the Design of a Public Stormwater Drainage System: A Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
A Comparison and Ranking Study of Monthly Average Rainfall Datasets with IMD Gridded Data in India
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/su15075761
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Informal Communication Space Quality on Innovation in Innovation Districts

by
Youwei Tan
1,
Qinglan Qian
2,* and
Xiaolan Chen
2
1
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518000, China
2
College of Geography and Remote Sensing, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(7), 5761; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075761
Submission received: 2 March 2023 / Revised: 13 March 2023 / Accepted: 21 March 2023 / Published: 25 March 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Innovation and creativity have become the driving force of a new round of urban development. Innovation districts have increasingly attracted the attention of domestic and foreign governments and scholars. An informal communication space is the main place for knowledge spillover, innovation communication, and transmission in innovation districts, and its spatial quality plays a vital role in the cultivation and development of innovation districts. The existing quality evaluation of informal communication spaces is less innovative. Based on the perspective of innovation, this paper selects the spatial characteristics of parks, squares, and pedestrian streets from three dimensions of morphology, function, and image, and establishes a preliminary evaluation index system. On the other hand, this paper combs the influence theory of knowledge spillover on innovation and summarizes the communication atmosphere, communication frequency, communication object and communication quality as the dependent variables of innovation. Through correlation analysis and multiple linear regression analysis, innovative informal communication space features are screened out, and the spatial quality evaluation index systems of parks, squares, and pedestrian streets are constructed, respectively. In the empirical study, 24 samples of Gaoxin South District (GXSD) are selected for spatial quality evaluation. Subjective evaluation and objective evaluation are used to obtain the advantages and disadvantages of different spaces to stimulate innovation. This study is helpful for urban designers and planners to better carry out space design to promote innovation through evaluating space status.

1. Introduction

Since the 21st century, with the knowledge economy and innovation becoming the new driving force of urban development, the location choice of high-tech enterprises has changed dramatically [1]. The demand for creative talents no longer tends to be the ‘Silicon Valley Model’—low density, space isolation, access to work areas only through cars, and away from life and entertainment; rather, it prefers walking neighborhoods, mixed land use, and comfortable and dynamic urban living and working environments [2,3]. In response, recent urban planning trends have become a new urban model, known as an innovation district [4], and have become a global phenomenon in many cities. Innovation districts are a new type of land use because they adopt an open innovation system with mixed uses and fuzzy boundaries [5,6]. The Boston Innovation District and Cambridge Kendell Square are typical innovation districts [7,8]. As the growth node of the metropolis, these new generation innovation districts stimulate the economic development of the city. At the same time, the innovation district corresponds to the new urbanism model of ‘focusing on walking space and emphasizing intensive development’, while also promoting the sustainable development of the social culture and environment [9,10,11].
As a highly concentrated innovation cluster of high-tech industries and talents within the city, knowledge spillover is one of the decisive factors of innovation, which is very important to the generation and diffusion of innovation [12]. Knowledge, especially tacit knowledge, is not easy to obtain from formal channels (such as education). Most of them stimulate inspiration and innovation through informal communication such as face-to-face and repeated contact [13]. Due to the high degree of localization of knowledge spillover, relying on a short distance is conducive to innovation-related activities among innovation subjects through knowledge reception, translation, and combination, to establish a localized innovation network and realize open innovation [14]. This explains why more and more creative enterprises and talents are willing to return from ‘suburban‘ to ‘city center‘ in the era of open innovation [15,16]. A large number of innovative elements are gathered in the high-density and compact neighborhood space, forming a continuous interactive and collaborative innovation process [17]. Innovation subjects can obtain the required innovation resources faster through the social capital of members in the region [18]. This kind of network interaction can be the social behavior of employees in different enterprises outside the working environment. Individual network activities help to maintain the existing network relations [19], which may lead to the acquisition of resources needed for innovation. This makes the region form a strong informal communication innovation network.
The existing literature confirms the role of informal communication in promoting innovation [20,21], and this informal social relationship often occurs outside the workspace. That is, in addition to the home (the first space) and workplace (the second space), the informal communication space is called the third space [22]. The existing research on the quality of an informal communication space mainly focuses on evaluation, case, and design. In the evaluation of space quality, through the accessibility of space quality [23], comfort [24], the impact on residents’ mental health [25], and other aspects of evaluation [26,27]. In the case of design, through the analysis of relevant cases, space design is carried out for inclusiveness [28], vitality [29], and community perception [30]. However, how the quality of informal communication space affects innovation and how to guide urban design still need to be explored.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is mainly to fill the above gaps. The specific research questions are as follows: (1) evaluate how the quality of different informal communication space in innovative districts affects innovation; and (2) based on the results of the impact of spatial quality on innovation, the index system of spatial quality evaluation (innovation orientation) is constructed. Spatial quality evaluation from the perspective of innovation has guiding significance for urban design. This paper helps urban planners, urban designers, and community planners to understand how the quality of informal communication space affects people’s social interaction, and thus affects innovation, so that the planning and design is carried out according to spatial quality evaluation, thus promoting regional knowledge spillover.
The rest of this article is arranged as follows. Section 2 summarizes the concept connotation and related quality evaluation of innovative districts and informal communication spaces. Section 3 introduces research design, evaluation indicators, data sources and case selection. The analysis results are in Section 4. Section 5 gives the conclusions and discussions of the study.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Innovation District

The innovation district is the product of the era of global innovation space from ‘park’ to ‘block’, and its emergence represents the new trend of agglomeration of innovative economic activities. The definition of innovation districts is not yet uniform. It includes ‘knowledge and innovation spaces’ [31], ‘innovation clusters’ [32], ‘innovation milieu’ [33], ‘knowledge (community) precincts’ [34], ‘innovation precincts’ [35], and the like that are mostly a local innovation cluster, often gathered around universities, research institutions, and knowledge-based industries, with high internal and external networks and knowledge-sharing capabilities in nature [4,36]. So, the innovation districts mainly refer to the innovation enterprise gathers, have a mixed-use city living environment, and provide the knowledge worker exchange place [37], and there are a variety of distinctive types around the world [38], some of which are just branded initiatives as innovation districts [39].

2.2. Innovation District Informal Communication Space

The earliest practical research abroad on informal communication spaces in industrial clusters originated in Silicon Valley’s Wheel bar, which describes a young person’s face-to-face exchange of information, inspiration, and innovation [40]. Oldenburg proposed the concept of the third space, which includes informal public gatherings other than home (first space) and workplace (second space) [41]. Typical examples include German beer gardens, British bars, French cafes, etc. The third space is the key to determining the vitality of the community [42]. The value of proximity and face-to-face communication makes the third space become an important gathering place in real life. Squares can attract an unlimited gathering of different groups to communicate and discuss ideas, and coffee shops are an environment in which to promote social and communication to promote academic discussion [43].
The informal communication space of innovation districts evolves from the continuous development of urban public space to give new connotations, especially under the influence of the knowledge economy, giving more attention to its connotation and extension. The innovation activities gathered together are not isolated from the revolution based on the knowledge community [44]. The new generation of innovation clusters provides a large number of third-party spaces for life, learning, games, and networks, rather than just focusing on working space [45]. The quality of informal communication space strongly affects the acquisition and dissemination of tacit knowledge by knowledge workers. In the planning, design, development, and management stages of these clusters, these aspects need to be accurately considered [46].
Nowadays, in the high-density block space of innovative districts in foreign countries, there are space carriers conducive to promoting informal communication. The informal communication space (the third space) of innovation districts can be divided into two categories, including public space and retail space [22] Parks, squares, streets, bars, and cafes are the key spaces to study the interior of innovation districts. They are physical places for cooperation, opinion exchange, and expansion of office space among employees [47]. It stimulates the vitality of innovation districts and promotes knowledge spillover [48].

2.3. Impact of Informal Communication Space on Innovation

The spillover of ‘tacit knowledge’ generated by face-to-face communication is crucial to forming an innovation climate and supporting innovation productivity in the cluster. Given that tacit knowledge is difficult to express and spread remotely, informal face-to-face communication is more important and an important channel and source of innovation diffusion [49]. The promotion effect of informal communication on innovation is mainly reflected in accelerating knowledge transfer and accumulation to promote knowledge transformation and strengthen knowledge integration and collision [50].
The impact of informal communication space on innovation can be reflected in the following aspects. (1) Communication atmosphere: Most of the space environment atmosphere required for informal communication is loose, free, and open, of which trust and knowledge spillover have a positive role in promoting. Only in the atmosphere of trust, dialogue, and open communication can the process of innovation be successful from creativity to implementation [51,52]. (2) Communication frequency: In dense and highly networked spaces, frequent interaction between people plays a vital role in innovation and ideological flow [53]. Compared with formal communication, informal communication has a higher frequency and shorter time intervals. In the process of informal communication with each other, the higher the frequency of communication is, the easier it is to improve the opportunity to acquire knowledge and promote knowledge spillover. (3) Communication network: An informal innovation network is based on the informal relationship between individual participants, and can best promote the exchange of innovative ideas and capabilities [54]. For example, Silicon Valley’s more developed social network is one of the important foundations to promote Silicon Valley’s innovation. Silicon Valley engineers often collide with each other in bars, and gradually form a huge knowledge-sharing network with high-level interaction, which promotes knowledge being encoded and realizes the spillover and innovation of tacit knowledge [55].

2.4. Space Quality Assessment for Informal Exchanges

There is no consensus on the definition of space quality in academia. Previous studies on spatial quality focused on regional and urban levels but ignored how spatial quality attracts knowledge workers and industries in innovation districts [56,57]. On the urban scale, the quality of space is closely related to the number and standard of facilities provided, which is called ‘quality of life’ [58]. At the cluster level, spatial quality can be assumed as people’s s personal experience at the street level, which refers to personal intuitive experience and perception [59]. The informal communication space in the innovation district is closely related to the innovation subject, and its spatial quality to some extent reflects the perception and experience of the innovative population in the informal communication space.
There are still relatively few studies on the quality evaluation of informal communication space in innovation districts, and representative studies mainly include the Brookings Institution and Project for Public Spaces (PPS), which primarily includes tangible and intangible assets in two dimensions. Brookings and PPS pay great attention to the quality of public space in the assessment of innovative districts. After studying thousands of global public spaces, PPS finds that the key attributes of spatial quality are accessibility and connectivity, function and activity, comfort and image, and sociality [60]. In addition to informal communication space, there are scholars who summed up the overall space quality of innovation districts, with public space as a part of it. Five aspects of spatial quality evaluation are summarized: regional background, form, function, atmosphere, and impression. The tangible dimension is related to space use and the intangible dimension is related to human perception [61].
However, in general, the evaluation of the informal communication space of the innovation district in the existing research is more targeted at the overall space, as it does not consider the construction of the innovation-oriented indicator system, but also ignores the design heterogeneity of different spaces to promote knowledge spillover.

3. Methodology and Research Design

3.1. Methodology and Research Design

This study adopts two research methods: regression analysis and Delphi analytic hierarchy process. Regression analysis explores the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables and divides the univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression according to the number of independent variables. Because each dimension constructed by the author has at least two characteristic indicators, multiple linear regression is used to determine the relationship between spatial characteristic elements and innovation. Based on the indicators determined by regression analysis, the Delphi expert scoring method is used to determine the importance of the indicators. The study shows that a team composed of 10–15 experts is sufficient for homogeneous samples [62,63], so a total of 19 experts from universities (10) and relevant planning institutes (9) in China, such as urban and rural planning, architecture, economic geography, and innovation geography, are selected.
In this study, first of all, through reading a large number of domestic and foreign literature on the evaluation of public space quality, the public space types are further divided, and the spatial characteristics and corresponding characteristics of different informal communication space types such as parks, squares, and pedestrian streets are sorted out as the source of evaluation indexes.
Secondly, we must understand the evaluation unit overview. Before the index system verification, sample selection, and sample space evaluation, it is necessary to understand the current distribution and quantity of different types of informal communication space within the case innovation district from the overall perspective, to select the sample space for evaluation.
Thirdly, the impact of evaluation indicators on innovation validation. The selected evaluation indexes are verified in the evaluation unit, and the verification steps are as follows: judging whether there is an influence relationship through multiple linear regression analysis; finally, we verify and screen out the general indicators that do not affect the characteristics of informal communication space and the innovative indicators that have an impact on innovation, to empirically evaluate the spatial quality of parks, squares, pedestrian streets, and retail space within the innovation districts.
Fourthly, evaluation sample selection. The results of the evaluation index verification finally construct the evaluation system of the quality of informal communication space in innovation districts. Before the spatial quality evaluation, we first select the samples to be evaluated. After understanding the current distribution and quantity of informal communication space in innovation districts, according to the principle of integrity and representativeness of evaluation samples, this paper explains the basis for sample selection of different types of informal communication space and finally determines the evaluation samples.
Finally, spatial quality evaluation. The evaluation index system of public space quality, such as parks, squares, and pedestrian streets, is constructed by using verified innovative indicators. The evaluation results are obtained by subjective evaluation and objective evaluation, and the evaluation grades are divided into high value, medium value, and low value (Figure 1).

3.2. Construction of Spatial Quality Evaluation Index System

Before constructing the spatial characteristic index of informal communication, the dimension of the evaluation system needs to be defined as the first-level index. Here, drawing on the spatial (place) quality evaluation framework constructed by PPS, Esmaeilpoorarabi, and Montgomery, the spatial quality evaluation of this paper is carried out from three dimensions: form, function, and image, which mainly correspond to the spatial form and connection level, the spatial use and activity level, and the personal perception and cultural innovation atmosphere level.
After constructing the first-level indicators, the second-level and third-level indicators are formed by summarizing the spatial characteristics of each factor. The parking space, square space, and the pedestrian street of public space are mainly selected. Considering the heterogeneity among the characteristics of various types of public space, the evaluation cannot be generalized, and the main contents and indicators need to be distinguished. Therefore, based on previous studies on the quality of public space, combined with the characteristics of public space, we construct the spatial quality evaluation index system.
Based on the spatial characteristics of different public spaces and the corresponding index elements, combined with previous research, this paper preliminarily constructs the evaluation index system of informal communication space quality of innovation districts based on form, function, and image (Table 1).

3.3. Case Selection and Empirical Investigation

3.3.1. Case Selection

As the first national innovative city and the first batch of national comprehensive reform-supporting pilot areas, Shenzhen is the most active city in China’s innovation economy, with strong innovation advantages and innovation ability. Among them, Nanshan District brings together 80% of the higher scientific research institutions, R&D institutions, and 75% of venture capital institutions in the city. In 2019, the value added by strategic emerging industries accounted for 55% of GDP. The South District of the high-tech zone is located in the core area of Yuehai Street in Nanshan District. The research case study of this paper is the GXSD, whose scope is mainly the agglomeration area of high-tech enterprises.
This paper divides the public space of GXSD into three categories: parks, squares, and pedestrian streets. Among them, there are six parks, mainly distributed on the west side of the GXSD. The number of squares is 5, and the distribution is more dispersed. In terms of pedestrian streets, according to the urban road grade it is divided into an expressway, main road, secondary road, and branch, for a total of 44 streets (Figure 2).
There are six parks in the GXSD, and all of them are used as the spatial quality evaluation samples in this paper (Figure 3). A total of four evaluation samples of the square, the choice of streets through the 21 September–2 October 2020 interception of two consecutive weeks of Baidu population heat map data. By understanding and comparing the distribution of dense and sparse population flow through big data, the pedestrian streets in high-value and sub high-value agglomeration areas are preliminarily selected.

3.3.2. Empirical Investigation

To deeply understand the general situation of informal communication space in GXSD, the author carried out a field survey for about three months in the case area, from 12 October 2020 to 20 January 2021. The main contents of the survey are field questionnaires and interviews, including informal communication spatial feature elements scale and innovation scale survey, spatial quality evaluation, field experience, and spatial morphology data recorded by photographs. In general, a total of 2412 questionnaires were distributed and recovered by the author and 2266 questionnaires were eliminated after being invalid, with a total effective recovery rate of 93.94%. Combined with the research purpose of this paper, the questionnaire is carried out around three forms of the spatial division of three types (Table 2).

4. Result

4.1. Evaluation of the Impact of Informal Communication Space Quality on Innovation

The visibility of the park’s 16 characteristic factors, including location influence, location vitality, walkability, traffic accessibility, internal fluency, external connectivity, recreation space, recreation facilities, public activities, landscape richness, environmental quality, topography, environmental quietness, night lighting, aesthetic feeling, and regional culture, is less than 0.05, indicating that they have a positive impact on stimulating innovation and the degree of influence is different. There is no causal relationship between park accessibility, digital facilities, facility safety, and innovation; that is, these characteristics do not affect innovation.
The 18 characteristic factors in the square have a positive impact on stimulating innovation, namely, spatial scale, spatial enclosure, walkability, accessibility, external connectivity, line of sight permeability, sitting and rest facilities, sketch facilities, public activities, functional diversification, boundary facilities, convenience facilities, cleanliness, skyline, road roughness, night lighting, symbolic nodes, and ground pavement. The remaining five are general characteristics that have no impact on innovation.
There are 19 spatial characteristics of pedestrian streets to stimulate innovation and 2 general characteristics. Among them, the innovative features are walkway width, enclosure, walkability, permeability, land use mix, format richness, rest facilities, digital facilities, activity diversity, building facade, line of sight permeability, color activity, innovative sketch facilities, environmental cleanliness, open sky, individual safety, night lighting, street buildings and marking facilities.
According to the analysis, the characteristics of informal communication space that have an impact on innovation are obtained (Figure 4), and the general indicators are deleted to obtain a set of innovation indicators that can be used to evaluate the quality of space (Figure 5). To avoid subjective interference in the survey data and obtain the objective data of informal communication space, a Goethe map, POI, land use status, field research, assignment, and other methods are used to obtain the data, and the subjective and objective methods are adopted for evaluation.

4.2. Quality Evaluation of Informal Communication Space in the Innovation District

(1) Park
From the park evaluation, a high evaluation of Science and Technology Park can be seen; moderately rated are Haitian Street Heart Garden, Central Canon Building Garden, Rule of Law Culture Park, and Virtual University Park Community Park; and the low evaluation is the street garden of civil-military integration (Figure 6).
Rule of Law Culture Park (middle) and Science and Technology Park (high): the two parks cover good and insufficient spatial characteristics and are similar, so put them together to analyze the current spatial characteristics. The advantages of spatial quality evaluation are mainly reflected in the spatial location and ecological characteristics such as location influence and terrain form, and these six spatial characteristics have formed obvious differences. However, the lack of external connectivity, landscape richness, night lighting, public activities, recreational facilities, regional culture, and location vitality of the Rule of Law Culture Park and Science and Technology Park have not yet reached the formation of a park environment that greatly stimulates innovation.
Virtual University Park Community Park, Haitian Street Garden (middle): high scores are mainly for location influence, topography such as spatial location, and ecological characteristics. The common shortcomings of subjective and objective evaluation of the two types of space are night lighting, landscape richness, recreational facilities, public activities, location vitality, and regional culture. In addition, the virtual university park community park has poor aesthetic perception and external connectivity.
(2) Square
The square space quality evaluation score is at a medium level. After sorting comparison, entrepreneurial square for high-value evaluation range, Aloe Plaza and Innovation Plaza are in medium evaluation, and CES square is low evaluation (Figure 7).
Innovation square (high): the current spatial characteristics with better overall performance are appropriate spatial scale and spatial enclosure, and cleanliness, followed by functional diversification, accessibility, and line of sight permeability. The current spatial feature of an insufficient stimulation of innovation influence is weak external connectivity: sitting and rest facilities, sketch facilities, border facilities, amenities, night lighting facilities, landmark nodes, and a small number of ground paving.
Entrepreneurship Plaza (middle): the overall performance is better for space enclosure and space scale is appropriate, space function diversification and high walkability. The number of sitting rest, sketches, borders, convenience, and night lighting facilities, landmark nodes, ground pavement, and the skyline, pavement smoothness, accessibility, and external connectivity is insufficient.
(3) Street
Overall, the evaluation score of pedestrian street space quality is in the middle and high level. After sorting, it can be seen that the high-value evaluation ranges are GX South Third Road, GX South Fourth Road, and Ewan Street; the low-value evaluation range includes the South Road of Science, the 12th Road of Science, and the 10th Road of Science; the pedestrian street is the median subjective evaluation range (Figure 8).
E Bay Street (high). The high-resolution spatial characteristics reflected by the overall situation of Ewan Street are walkability and high individual safety, that is, high patency and high safety. However, it is street buildings, line of sight permeability, public activities, digital facilities, color activity, and innovative sketch design that are slightly inadequate.
Haitian Road and Commercial Pedestrian Street (high): the high scores of the two are reflected in walkability and high individual safety. Haitian Road also emphasizes the characteristics of the land mix, and Commercial Pedestrian Street emphasizes the characteristics of sky openness. However, the spatial characteristics of digital facilities, public activities, sight permeability, color activity, innovative sketch facilities, and street buildings are insufficient. At the same time, Haitian Road in the building facade this feature which, compared to the Commercial Pedestrian Street, is not attractive enough.
High-tech South One Road and High-tech South Four Road (middle): At present, the walkability of the two streets is high, followed by individual safety, street greening, and sky openness, which correspond to the characteristics of patency, safety, and comfort. However, they do not perform well in permeability, marking facilities, rest facilities, digital facilities, public activities, sight permeability, color activity, innovative sketch facilities, and street building characteristics; in addition, the width of the walkway along the South High-tech Road is not enough to allow employees to stay, while the number of business facilities along the South High-tech Road is small.
(4) Wholistic evaluation
In the evaluation of the quality level of informal communication space through employee evaluation and objective data, if the subjective and objective evaluation levels are different, they are graded according to the lowest level in the combination (Table 3). To ultimately determine the high, medium, and low evaluation ranges of all types of informal communication spaces, this paper classifies the subjective and objective “high–high” combination as high evaluation; the combination of ‘middle–middle’, ‘middle–high’, and ‘high–middle’ is classified as middle evaluation; the combinations of ‘low–low’, ‘low–medium’, ‘medium–low’, ‘low–high’ and ‘high–low’ are classified as low evaluation. Therefore, there is one informal communication space with a high evaluation, which includes only pedestrian streets. There are 15 middle evaluations and 8 low evaluations, indicating that the quality of informal communication space is at a medium level.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

In the era of a knowledge economy driven by knowledge and technological innovation, the logic of urban development has changed dramatically. At present, the new economic geography space of innovation districts is emerging at home and abroad, and many innovative knowledge talents and new industries are gathered in high density. Informal communication space is the key catalyst to stimulating the vitality of innovation districts. Based on the systematic review of the relevant literature at home and abroad on the informal communication space of innovation districts, this paper puts forward an index system for the quality evaluation of the informal communication space of innovation districts guided by innovation, and takes Shenzhen GXSD as an example to carry out an empirical study on the three types of informal communication space: parks, squares, and pedestrian streets.
Compared with previous studies, the theoretical contribution of this paper is that the spatial quality evaluation index starts from innovation, constructs, and proposes an innovation-oriented spatial quality evaluation model. In terms of spatial quality evaluation, three types of spatial quality evaluation systems, namely, parks, squares, and pedestrian streets, are constructed with innovation-oriented exploration. The evaluation process is: index selection, index verification, evaluation sample, and quality evaluation. First of all, combined with the spatial characteristics of the three types of space, the spatial element characteristics of the informal communication space are selected. On the other hand, it combs the theory of the impact of knowledge spillover on innovation, and summarizes the four indicators of communication atmosphere, communication frequency, communication object and communication quality as innovation-dependent variables. Secondly, through the relevant multiple linear regression analysis, the characteristics of informal communication space that have an impact on innovation are screened out. Finally, the spatial quality is evaluated by selecting evaluation samples.
In empirical research, the quality of the informal communication space in Shenzhen GXSD is evaluated. Firstly, 24 samples of GXSD were selected according to field research, Gaode POI data, and Baidu heat map data through regression analysis in order to understand the spatial quality characteristics that have an impact on innovation. Secondly, according to the characteristics of innovation spaces of different types of informal communication space, different types of spatial quality evaluation indexes are constructed, respectively. Finally, through the final constructed quality evaluation index model of informal communication space, subjective evaluation and objective evaluation are adopted to obtain different evaluation results in order to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the current impact of different informal communication spaces on innovation. This study has a certain guiding significance for how to promote innovation through urban design and planning and has certain reference significance for urban designers, planners, and government decision makers.
Relevant research has proved the importance of informal communication for knowledge spillovers, and the level of informal communication is positively correlated with physical design characteristics [64]. Although the relationship between physical space characteristics and innovation promotion has received attention in academic research, the interaction mechanism between the two has not been systematically studied. Relevant research has proved that different perspectives of physical space, such as openness [65], external features [66], and environmental and aesthetic quality [67], demonstrate the impact on informal communication. The results of this study support the conclusions of the above scholars, but different types of informal communication space are heterogeneous. Different spatial characteristics have different effects on innovation in different types of informal communication spaces.
Although this study has certain contributions to the quality evaluation of informal communication space, there are still some shortcomings. (1) Considering the diversity of space types, the availability of sample size, and the local characteristics of informal communication space, it is necessary to further improve the quality evaluation index system of informal communication space in innovation districts. In the follow-up study, more cases of informal communication space in innovation districts should be selected to carry out empirical research on spatial quality evaluation, as well as to observe the universality of indicators and the scientificity of evaluation results. (2) There are various types of informal communication spaces in innovation districts. This paper mainly starts from public space, which is representative. However, due to the sample size, the feasibility of research, questionnaire issuance, and retail space has not been included in this study. In the future, more comparative studies and mechanism studies on the impact of informal communication spaces of different spatial types on innovation need to be strengthened.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.T.; Methodology, Q.Q.; Formal analysis, Q.Q. and X.C.; Data curation, X.C.; Writing—original draft, Y.T.; Funding acquisition, Y.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper received support from the National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFB210310-3).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Some or all of the data, models or codes supporting the results of this study may be obtained from the respective authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the anonymous referee for the useful suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chatterji, A.; Glaeser, E.; Kerr, W. Clusters of entrepreneurship and innovation. Innov. Policy Econ. 2014, 14, 129–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Hutton, T.A. The new economy of the inner city. Cities 2004, 21, 89–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Florida, R.; Mellander, C. Rise of the startup city: The changing geography of the venture capital financed innovation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2016, 59, 14–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Clark, J.; Huang, H.-I.; Walsh, J.P. A typology of ‘innovation districts’: What it means for regional resilience. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 121–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. van Winden, W.; Carvalho, L. Urbanize or perish? Assessing the urbanization of knowledge locations in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 2016, 23, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Jones, A.L. Regenerating urban waterfronts—Creating better futures—From commercial and leisure market places to cultural quarters and innovation districts. Plan. Pract. Res. 2017, 32, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Leon, N. Attract and connect: The 22@ Barcelona innovation district and the internationalisation of Barcelona business. Innov. Policy Econ. 2008, 10, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Monardo, B. Innovation districts as turbines of smart strategy policies in US and EU. Boston and barcelona experience. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on New Metropolitan Perspectives, Reggio Calabria, Italy, 22–25 May 2008. [Google Scholar]
  9. Yigitcanlar, T.; Inkinen, T.; Makkonen, T. Does size matter? Knowledge-based development of second-order city-regions in Finland. disP-Plan. Rev. 2015, 51, 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Pancholi, S.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Guaralda, M. Attributes of successful place-making in knowledge and innovation spaces: Evidence from Brisbane’s Diamantina knowledge precinct. J. Urban Des. 2018, 23, 693–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Vincevica-Gaile, Z.; Burlakovs, J.; Fonteina-Kazeka, M.; Wdowin, M.; Hanc, E.; Rudovica, V.; Krievans, M.; Grinfelde, I.; Siltumens, K.; Kriipsalu, M. Case Study-Based Integrated Assessment of Former Waste Disposal Sites Transformed to Green Space in Terms of Ecosystem Services and Land Assets Recovery. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kovács, I.; Petruska, I. Operational characteristics of Hungarian innovation clusters as reflected by a qualitative research study. Period. Polytech. Soc. Manag. Sci. 2014, 22, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, X.; Huang, Q.; Dou, J.; Zhao, X. The impact of informal social interaction on innovation capability in the context of buyer-supplier dyads. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 78, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Porter, C.M.; Woo, S.E. Untangling the networking phenomenon: A dynamic psychological perspective on how and why people network. J. Manag. 2015, 41, 1477–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Frenkel, A. High-tech firms’ location considerations within the metropolitan regions and the impact of their development stages. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2012, 20, 231–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arauzo-Carod, J.-M. Location determinants of high-tech firms: An intra-urban approach. Ind. Innov. 2021, 28, 1225–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tang, C.; Qiu, P.; Dou, J. The impact of borders and distance on knowledge spillovers—Evidence from cross-regional scientific and technological collaboration. Technol. Soc. 2022, 70, 102014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tasselli, S.; Kilduff, M.; Menges, J.I. The microfoundations of organizational social networks: A review and an agenda for future research. J. Manag. 2015, 41, 1361–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Volberda, H.W.; Foss, N.J.; Lyles, M.A. Perspective—Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organ. Sci. 2010, 21, 931–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Salavisa, I.; Sousa, C.; Fontes, M. Topologies of innovation networks in knowledge-intensive sectors: Sectoral differences in the access to knowledge and complementary assets through formal and informal ties. Technovation 2012, 32, 380–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fu, W.; Diez, J.R.; Schiller, D. Interactive learning, informal networks and innovation: Evidence from electronics firm survey in the Pearl River Delta, China. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 635–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kim, M. Spatial Qualities of Innovation Districts: How Third Places Are Changing the Innovation Ecosystem of Kendall Square; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  23. Li, X.; Huang, Y.; Ma, X. Evaluation of the accessible urban public green space at the community-scale with the consideration of temporal accessibility and quality. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 131, 108231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Peng, Y.; Feng, T.; Timmermans, H.J. Heterogeneity in outdoor comfort assessment in urban public spaces. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 790, 147941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wei, Z.; Jiejing, W.; Bo, Q.J.L. Quantity or quality? Exploring the association between public open space and mental health in urban China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 213, 104128. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ma, K.W.; Mak, C.M.; Wong, H.M. Effects of environmental sound quality on soundscape preference in a public urban space. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 171, 107570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Khalili, A.; Fallah, S.N. Role of social indicators on vitality parameter to enhance the quality of women׳ s communal life within an urban public space (case: Isfahan׳ s traditional bazaar, Iran). Front. Archit. Res. 2018, 7, 440–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jian, I.Y.; Chan, E.H.; Xu, Y.; Owusu, E.K. Inclusive public open space for all: Spatial justice with health considerations. Habitat Int. 2021, 118, 102457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. El-Kholei, A.O.; Yassein, G. Professionals’ perceptions for designing vibrant public spaces: Theory and praxis. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2022, 13, 101727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Navarrete-Hernandez, P.; Vetro, A.; Concha, P. Building safer public spaces: Exploring gender difference in the perception of safety in public space through urban design interventions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 214, 104180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pancholi, S.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Guaralda, M.; Phillips, F. Place making for innovation and knowledge-intensive activities: The Australian experience. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 146, 616–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Huggins, R. The Evolution of Knowledge Clusters: Progress and Policy. Econ. Dev. Q. 2008, 22, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Evans, G. Creative cities, creative spaces and urban policy. Urban Stud. 2009, 46, 1003–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Yigitcanlar, T.; Velibeyoglu, K.; Martinez-Fernandez, C. Rising knowledge cities: The role of urban knowledge precincts. J. Knowl. Manag. 2008, 12, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Pancholi, S.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Guaralda, M. Does place quality matter for innovation districts? Determining the essential place characteristics from Brisbane’s knowledge precincts. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 734–747. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ramakrishnan, M.; Shrestha, A.; Soar, J. Innovation centric knowledge commons—A systematic literature review and conceptual model. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Katz, B.; Wagner, J. The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America; Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; Available online: http://www.brookings.edu/ (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  38. Julie, W.; Bruce, K.; Osha, T. The Evloution of Innovation District. 2019. Available online: https://www.giid.org/the-evolution-of-innovation-districts/ (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  39. Morisson, A. A Framework for Defining Innovation Districts—Case Study from 22@ Barcelona; Social Science Electronic Publishing: Rochester, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  40. Saxenian, A. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition In Silicon Valley and Route 128, with a New Preface by the Author; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  41. Oldenburg, R.; Brissett, D. The third place. Qual. Sociol. 1982, 5, 265–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Florida, R. Cities and the creative class. City Community 2003, 2, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zukin, S. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  44. Evers, H.-D. Knowledge Hubs and Knowledge Clusters: Designing a Knowledge Architecture for Development; Munich Personal RePEc Archive: Munich, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  45. Tan, Y. Making space and place for the knowledge economy. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2010, 18, 1769–1786. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pancholi, S.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Guaralda, M. Governance that matters: Identifying place-making challenges of Melbourne’s Monash Employment Cluster. J. Place Manag. Dev. 2017, 10, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Martins, J. The extended workplace in a creative cluster: Exploring space (s) of digital work in silicon roundabout. J. Urban Des. 2015, 20, 125–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Giuffrida, G.; Clark, J.; Cross, S. Putting Innovation in Place: Georgia Tech’s Innovation Neighbourhood of Tech Square. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Genoa, Italy, 17–18 September 2015. [Google Scholar]
  49. McCann, P. Sketching out a model of innovation, face-to-face interaction and economic geography. Spat. Econ. Anal. 2007, 2, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Storper, M.; Venables, A.J. Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. J. Econ. Geogr. 2004, 4, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Peschl, M.F.; Fundneider, T. Spaces enabling game-changing and sustaining innovations: Why space matters for knowledge creation and innovation. J. Organ. Transform. Soc. Chang. 2012, 9, 41–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Esmaeilpoorarabi, N.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Guaralda, M. Towards an urban quality framework: Determining critical measures for different geographical scales to attract and retain talent in cities. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Dev. 2016, 7, 290–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Azudin, N.; Ismail, M.N.; Taherali, Z. Knowledge sharing among workers: A study on their contribution through informal communication in Cyberjaya, Malaysia. Knowl. Manag. E-Learn. Int. J. 2009, 1, 139–162. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jarrahi, M.; Sawyer, S. Informal Networks of Innovation. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Montréal, QC, Canada, 6–10 August 2010. [Google Scholar]
  55. Giuliani, E. Networks of innovation. In Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kloosterman, R.C.; Trip, J.J. Planning for quality? Assessing the role of quality of place in current Dutch planning practice. J. Urban Des. 2011, 16, 455–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gu, X. Cultural industries and creative clusters in Shanghai. City Cult. Soc. 2014, 5, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ballas, D. What makes a ‘happy city’? Cities 2013, 32, S39–S50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Darchen, S.; Tremblay, D.-G. What attracts and retains knowledge workers/students: The quality of place or career opportunities? The cases of Montreal and Ottawa. Cities 2010, 27, 225–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. PPS. What Make a Successful Place. 2018. Available online: https://www.pps.org (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  61. Esmaeilpoorarabi, N.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Guaralda, M. Place quality in innovation clusters: An empirical analysis of global best practices from Singapore, Helsinki, New York, and Sydney. Cities 2018, 74, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Mafi-Gholami, D.; Feghhi, J.; Danehkar, A.; Yarali, N. Classification and Prioritization of Negative Factors Affecting on Mangrove Forests Using Delphi Method (a Case Study: Mangrove Forests of Hormozgan Province, Iran). Adv. Biores. 2015, 6, 78–92. [Google Scholar]
  63. Norouzian-Maleki, S.; Bell, S.; Hosseini, S.-B.; Faizi, M. Developing and testing a framework for the assessment of neighbourhood liveability in two contrasting countries: Iran and Estonia. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 48, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Biagioli, M. The case for informal spaces in the workplace. In Integrating Art and Creativity into Business Practice; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 55–73. [Google Scholar]
  65. Penn, A.; Desyllas, J.; Vaughan, L. The space of innovation: Interaction and communication in the work environment. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1999, 26, 193–218. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ben-Yaseen, A.M. The Physical Settings and Informal Interaction in Workplaces, the Role of Spatial Structure in Supporting Informal Communication in Organisations; Stax: Perth, Australia, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  67. Dahlan, A.S. The Impact of Facilities on Informal Communication in Workplaces; Stax: Perth, Australia, 1997. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 05761 g001 550
Figure 1. Informal communication space quality evaluation framework.
Figure 1. Informal communication space quality evaluation framework.
Sustainability 15 05761 g001
Sustainability 15 05761 g002 550
Figure 2. Location and spatial distribution of informal communication of GXSD.
Figure 2. Location and spatial distribution of informal communication of GXSD.
Sustainability 15 05761 g002
Sustainability 15 05761 g003 550
Figure 3. Selection of evaluation samples.
Figure 3. Selection of evaluation samples.
Sustainability 15 05761 g003
Sustainability 15 05761 g004 550
Figure 4. Validation of the impact of informal communication space quality on innovation.
Figure 4. Validation of the impact of informal communication space quality on innovation.
Sustainability 15 05761 g004
Sustainability 15 05761 g005 550
Figure 5. Informal communication space quality evaluation index system (innovation).
Figure 5. Informal communication space quality evaluation index system (innovation).
Sustainability 15 05761 g005
Sustainability 15 05761 g006 550
Figure 6. Park evaluation results.
Figure 6. Park evaluation results.
Sustainability 15 05761 g006
Sustainability 15 05761 g007 550
Figure 7. Square evaluation results.
Figure 7. Square evaluation results.
Sustainability 15 05761 g007
Sustainability 15 05761 g008 550
Figure 8. Street evaluation results.
Figure 8. Street evaluation results.
Sustainability 15 05761 g008
Table
Table 1. Quality evaluation system of informal communication space.
Table 1. Quality evaluation system of informal communication space.
ThemeCategoryIndicatorCategoryIndicatorCategoryIndicator
ParkSquareStreet
FormSpatial
location		Location influenceSpatial
morphology		Spatial scaleStreet
morphology		Walking path width
Location vitalitySpace enclosureCircumference
AccessibilityWalkabilityAccessibilityWalkabilityPatencyWalkability
Accessibility facilitiesAccessibility facilitiesAccessibility facilities
Traffic accessibilityTraffic accessibilityPermeability
ConnectivityInternal fluencyConnectivityInternal fluency——
External connectivityExternal connectivity—
—Sight transparency—
FunctionRecreationalRecreation spaceSociableSeating facilitiesSociableRelaxation facilities
Digital doiliesSmall amenitiesDigital facilities
Recreation facilitiesPublic eventsPublic events
Public events——
EcologyThe richness of the landscapeDiversityVersatileMixabilityMixed degree of land use
Environmental qualityBorder facilitiesFormat richness
Topographic morphologyAmenitiesInterestingBuilding façade
————Line of sight transparency
——Color viability
——Innovative skit facilities
ImageComfortThe quietness of the environmentComfortCleanlinessComfortStreet greenery
Facility securityWind and sun protection facilitiesSky openness
Illumination at nightThe degree of landscape greenery—
Can be imageryAestheticsskyline—
Regional cultureSecurityPavement flatnessSecurityIndividual safety
——Illumination at nightTraffic safety
——Illumination at night
—IdentityIconic nodeIdentityStreet architecture
—Digital facilitiesIdentify facilities
—Floor paving—
Table
Table 2. Questionnaire issuance and validity test.
Table 2. Questionnaire issuance and validity test.
TypeParkSquareStreet
Questionnaire contentInnovation Impact ScaleQuality EvaluationInnovation Impact ScaleQuality EvaluationInnovation Impact ScaleQuality Evaluation
Number of indicators23——27——25——
Recycle questionnaires281403426506364432
Total valid questionnaire265389396472336408
Questionnaires are efficient94.31%96.53%92.96%93.28%92.31%94.44%
Cronbach’s α0.830.910.700.870.860.92
Table
Table 3. Overall evaluation results of informal communication space quality.
Table 3. Overall evaluation results of informal communication space quality.
Subjective–Objective RatingInformal Space Name
High evaluation‘High–High’E Bay Avenue
Mid evaluation‘Medium–Medium’Virtual University Park Community Park, Haitian Street Garden, High-tech South Road, Lanlong Road, High-tech South Ring Road, High-tech South Seven Road, Haitian Second Road
‘High–Middle’Entrepreneurship Square, Legal Culture Park, High-tech South Third Road, and High-tech South Fourth Road
‘Medium–High’Science Park, Innovation Square, Commercial Pedestrian Street, Haitian Road
Low evaluation‘Low–Low’Street Garden of Civil-military Integration, South Tenth Road of Science and Technology, South Twelveth Road of Science and Technology
‘Medium–Low’Catering Square, Four Roads in Yuexing
‘Low–Middle’Garden, CES Plaza, South Road of Science and Technology, China Connor Building
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tan, Y.; Qian, Q.; Chen, X. Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Informal Communication Space Quality on Innovation in Innovation Districts. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5761. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075761

AMA Style

Tan Y, Qian Q, Chen X. Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Informal Communication Space Quality on Innovation in Innovation Districts. Sustainability. 2023; 15(7):5761. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075761

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tan, Youwei, Qinglan Qian, and Xiaolan Chen. 2023. "Empirical Evaluation of the Impact of Informal Communication Space Quality on Innovation in Innovation Districts" Sustainability 15, no. 7: 5761. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075761

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop