There has been a rapidly growing number of studies of the geographical aspects of happiness and well-being. Many of these studies have been highlighting the role of space and place and of individual and spatial contextual determinants of happiness. However, most of the studies to date do not explicitly consider spatial clustering and possible spatial spillover effects of happiness and well-being. The few studies that do consider spatial clustering and spillovers conduct the analysis at a relatively coarse geographical scale of country or region. This article analyses such effects at a much smaller geographical unit: community areas. These are small area level geographies at the intra-urban level. In particular, the article presents a spatial econometric approach to the analysis of life satisfaction data aggregated to 1,215 communities in Canada and examines spatial clustering and spatial spillovers. Communities are suitable given that they form a small geographical reference point for households. We find that communities’ life satisfaction is spatially clustered while regression results show that it is associated to the life satisfaction of neighbouring communities as well as to the latter's average household income and unemployment rate. We consider the role of shared cultural traits and institutions that may explain such spillovers of life satisfaction. The findings highlight the importance of neighbouring characteristics when discussing policies to improve the well-being of a (small area) place.
This report analysis the geography of the tech sector in Amsterdam, with a focus on scaleups. After a literature review, it contains a quantitative analysis, showing and mapping the spatial clustering of various types of tech companies cluster in the Amsterdam region. Then, based on interviews, we analyse the growth dynamics, location preferences and geographical dynamics of tech scale-ups. Also, we identify which push and pull factors affect Amsterdam based tech scale-up companies in their locational decision making, on the neighborhood and building level.
Introduction: There are good reasons to study urban innovation from a systemic perspective. A key finding in innovation research is that organizations rarely innovate in isolation, but in interaction with clients, competitors, suppliers, and other organizations. A system perspective is useful in understanding and analyzing these interactions. Cities and urban regions are increasingly recognized as key milieus in which these interactions occur. The urban innovation system approach conceptualizes the city or urban region as a context in which innovations emerge from complex interactions between urban actors—firms, citizens, governments, knowledge institutes— in a particular institutional setting. The systemic view of innovation departs from traditional linear models that depict innovation as a staged process that starts with (basic) scientific research and ends with commercialization by companies. Innovation processes are much more complex and diverse, influenced by multiple actors that interact in networks with feedback loops, and involving many types of knowledge beyond scientific knowledge. Urban innovation systems are nested in innovation systems on other spatial levels—regional, national, international. Studies on urban innovation systems seek to explain how innovations emerge in an urban context, why urban regions differ in their innovative performance, and also address questions on the governance and management of such systems. Studies in this field draw from a variety of disciplines including economic geography, urban and regional economics, political sciences, innovation studies, social sciences, and urban planning.
MULTIFILE
