Neighborhood assets as enablers of urban-suburban innovation capacities
Uncovering patterns and divides in Massachusetts and New York using traditional and API-mined data
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18335/region.v13i2.660Abstract
Large, open-source, and API-mined data have revolutionized the analysis of urban and suburban city neighborhoods with respect to their innovation capacities. Such data complements traditional census and government data collection methods and sources to help explain significant variations in invention activity across neighborhoods within a city. This paper combines diverse data sources to assess urban-suburban capacities and divides in the generation of patent-based innovation. First, it identifies patterns in innovation outcomes using USPTO patent records and illustrates spillovers across all ZIP codes in New York and Massachusetts and compares them with data from Google Maps to obtain a more granular and broader understanding of the concentration of innovation spaces. The findings reveal variations in the distribution of activity when comparing traditional patent records and API-mined data. Second, the study examines how economic, social, and spatial characteristics are associated with high levels of granted patents across neighborhoods in New York and Massachusetts. Drawing on a composite dataset assembled from multiple sources, the research interrogates the density of correlations between neighborhood variables and patent activity. Third, a comparative design spanning the two US states with distinct urban contexts deploys difference-in-means testing to systematically identify both shared patterns and divergences in how place-level conditions relate to high patent performance. Beyond the empirical findings, the study contributes a replicable methodology for assembling neighborhood asset indicators from heterogeneous data sources and offers a grounded interpretation of results for planning practice and innovation policy. The findings suggest that while traditional datasets provide long-term insights for formal study, alternative data-driven approaches reveal dynamic information that is important for understanding the evolving nature of innovation landscapes and informal innovation activities. Ultimately, this study advocates for a hybrid model that integrates both traditional and API-mined data paradigms to promote urban intelligence and equity. It advocates considering alternative innovation measures when designing innovation policies.
References
Arundel A, Kabla I (1998) What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy 27: 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(98)00033-x
Arzaghi M, Henderson J (2008) Networking off Madison Avenue. Review of Economic Studies 75: 1011–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00499.x
Audretsch D, Feldman M (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review 86: 630–640
Balland P, Boschma R, Crespo J, Rigby D (2020) Smart specialization policy in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Regional Studies 54: 1252–1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1437900
Balland P, Rigby D (2017) The geography of complex knowledge. Economic Geography 93: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2016.1205947
Berry C, Glaeser E (2005) The divergence of human capital levels across cities. Papers in Regional Science 84: 407–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2005.00047.x
Bessen J, Hunt R (2007) An empirical look at software patents. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 16: 157–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2007.00136.x
Boeing G, Waddell P (2017) New insights into rental housing markets across the United States: Web scraping and analyzing craigslist rental listings. Journal of Planning Education and Research 37: 457–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x16664789
Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies 39: 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
Brynjolfsson E, McElheran K (2016) The rapid adoption of data-driven decision-making. American Economic Review 106: 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161016
Capdevila I (2015) Co-working spaces and the localized dynamics of innovation in Barcelona. International Journal of Innovation Management 19: 1540004. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919615400046
Carayannis E, Campbell D (2009) ‘mode 3’ and ‘quadruple helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technological Management 46: 201. https://dx.org/10.1504/ijtm.2009.023374
Carayannis E, Campbell D (2010) Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and environment relate to each other? International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development/ 1: 41–69
Carlino G, Kerr W (2015) Agglomeration and innovation. In: Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Volume 5. Elsevier, 349–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-59517-1.00006-4
Castaldi C (2024) The geography of urban innovation beyond patents only: New evidence on large and secondary cities in the United States. Urban Studies 61: 1248–1272. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231204718
Castells M, Hall P (1994) Technopoles of the world: The making of twenty-first-century industrial complexes. Routledge, London
Cockburn I, Henderson R, Stern S (2018) The impact of artificial intelligence on innovation. NBER Working Paper No. 24449. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24449
Cohen W, Nelson R, Walsh J (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper No. 7552. https://doi.org/10.3386/w7552
Cooke P, Parrilli MD, Curbelo JL (2012) Innovation, Global Change and Territorial Resilience. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857935755
Cortright J, Mayer H (2002) Signs of life: The growth of biotechnology centers in the U.S. Greater Philadelphia Regional Review.newblock https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242301940_Signs_of_Life_The_Growth_of_Biotechnology_Centers_in_the_US
Delgado M, Porter M, Stern S (2010) Clusters and entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Geography 10: 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq010
Diemer A, Iammarino S, Rodríguez-Pose A, Storper M (2022) The regional development trap in Europe. Economic Geography 98: 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2022.2080655
D’Este P, Guy F, Iammarino S (2013) Shaping the formation of university–industry research collaborations: What type of proximity does really matter? Journal of Eco-no-mic Geography 13: 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbs010
European Commission -- European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2024) European innovation score-board 2024. Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/779689
Ezcurra R, Rodríguez-Pose A (2013) Political decentralization, economic growth and regional disparities in the OECD. Regional Studies 47: 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.731046
Fehder D, Hochberg Y, Barrot J, Cohen S, Hausman N, Murray F, Nanda R, Stern S (2014) Accelerators and the regional supply of venture capital investment. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2518668. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2518668
Feldman M (2001) The entrepreneurial event revisited: Firm formation in a regional context. Industrial and Corporate Change 10: 861–891. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.4.861
Feldman MP, Audretsch DB (1999) Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review 43: 409–429. http://doi.org/10.1016/s0014-2921(98)00047-6
Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books, New York
Florida R (2014) The rise of the creative class—revisited. Basic Books, New York
Gallouj F, Weinstein O (1997) Innovation in services. Research Policy 26: 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(97)00030-9
Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28: 1661–1707
Hall B, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics 36: 16–38
Herrera L, Nieto M (2008) The national innovation policy effect according to firm location. Technovation 28: 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.02.009
Hidalgo C, Klinger B, Barabási A, Hausmann R (2007) The product space conditions the development of nations. Science 317: 482–487. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144581
Holl A, Martínez C, Casado C (2024) The changing geography of innovation: Comparing urban, suburban and rural areas. Growth and Change 55. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.70003
Iammarino S (2018) FDI, global value chains, and local development. Palgrave Macmillan, London
Jacobs J (1969) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New York
Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2002) Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5263.001.0001
Jang S, Kim J, Zedtwitz M (2017) The importance of spatial agglomeration in product innovation: A microgeography perspective. Journal of Business Research 78: 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.017
Katz B, Wagner J (2014) The rise of innovation districts: A new geography of innovation in America. Brookings institution
Kerr W, Kominers S (2015) Agglomerative forces and cluster shapes. Review of Economics and Statistics 97: 877–899. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00471
Kerr W, Nanda R, Rhodes-Kropf M (2014) Entrepreneurship as experimentation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28: 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.3.25
Kinne J, Lenz D (2021) Predicting innovative firms using web mining and deep learning. PLOS ONE 16: 0249071. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249071
Leyshon A, Thrift N (1997) Money/space: Geographies of monetary transformation. Routledge, London
Loures L, Santos R, Panagopoulos T (2007) Urban parks and sustainable city planning: The case of Portimão, Portugal. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development 3: 171–180
Mariotti I, Akhavan M, Matteo D (2021) The geography of coworking spaces and the effects on the urban context: Are pole areas gaining? In: Mariotti I, Akhavan M, Matteo D (eds), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories. Springer, Cham, 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_10
Matsiuk N, Doloreux D, Shearmur R (2024) Beyond buzz: Knowledge interactions, innovation, and neighborhood characteristics. Journal of Economic Geography lbae026. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbae026
Mewes L, Broekel T (2022) Technological complexity and economic growth of regions. Research Policy 51: 104550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104156
Mozingo L (2011) Pastoral capitalism: A history of suburban corporate landscapes. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8626.001.0001
OECD (2018) Job creation and local economic development 2018: Preparing for the future of work. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264305342-en
Oikonomaki E, Komninos N (2026) Predicting local innovation through AI and geospatial models: Revisiting the innovation district theory. Technovation 156: 103544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2026.103544
Pakes A, Griliches Z (1984) Patents and r&d at the firm level: A first look. In: Griliches Z (ed), R&D, Patents, and Productivity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL, 55--72.newblock https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226308920.001.0001
Pike A, Rodríguez-Pose A, Tomaney J (2006) Local and regional development. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203003060
Pinheiro F, Balland P, Boschma R, Hartmann D (2022) The dark side of the geography of innovation: Relatedness, complexity and regional inequality in Europe. Regional Studies 59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2106362
Puentes R, Roberto E (2008) Commuting to opportunity: The working poor and commuting in the United States. Brookings institution
Rammer C, Kinne J, Blind K (2019) Knowledge proximity and firm innovation: A microgeographic analysis for Berlin. Urban Studies 57: 996–1014. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018820241
Roche M, Oettl A, Catalini C (2024) Proximate (co-)working: Knowledge spillovers and social interactions. Management Science 70: 8245–8264. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.03555
Rodríguez-Pose A, Dijkstra L, Poelman H (2024) The geography of EU discontent and the regional development trap. Economic Geography 100: 213–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2024.2337657
Rodríguez-Pose A, Gill N (2003) The global trend towards devolution and its implications. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 21: 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0235
Rodríguez-Pose A, Wilkie C (2017) Revamping local and regional development through place-based strategies. Cityscape 19: 151–170
Sennett R (2006) The culture of the new capitalism. Yale University Press, New Haven
Shearmur R (2012) The geography of intrametropolitan KIBS innovation: Distinguishing agglomeration economies from innovation dynamics. Urban Studies 49: 2331–2356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011431281
Storper M (1995) The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: The region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies 2: 191–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/096977649500200301
Vazquez-Barquero A (1999) Inward investment and endogenous development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 11: 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/089856299283308
von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2333.001.0001
Wiener A (2019) The floating utopia of Salesforce Park. The New Yorker
World Bank (2009) World development report 2009: Reshaping economic geography. World Bank, Washington, DC
Younge K, Kuhn J (2016) Patent-to-patent similarity: A vector space model. SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2709238
Zhang L, Pfoser D (2019) Using OpenStreetMap point-of-interest data to model urban change. PLOS ONE 14: 0212606. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212606
Zhou Q (2018) Exploring the relationship between density and completeness of urban building data in OpenStreetMap. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 32: 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2017.1395883
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Eleni Oikonomaki

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
REGION is an open journal, and uses the standard Creative Commons license: Copyright We want authors to retain the maximum control over their work consistent with the first goal. For this reason, authors who publish in REGION will release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution license. This license allows anyone to copy and distribute the article provided that appropriate attribution is given to REGION and the authors. For details of the rights authors grant users of their work, see the "human-readable summary" of the license, with a link to the full license. (Note that "you" refers to a user, not an author, in the summary.) Upon submission, the authors agree that the following three items are true: 1) The manuscript named above: a) represents valid work and neither it nor any other that I have written with substantially similar content has been published before in any form except as a preprint, b) is not concurrently submitted to another publication, and c) does not infringe anyone’s copyright. The Author(s) holds ERSA, WU, REGION, and the Editors of REGION harmless against all copyright claims. d) I have, or a coauthor has, had sufficient access to the data to verify the manuscript’s scientific integrity. 2) If asked, I will provide or fully cooperate in providing the data on which the manuscript is based so the editors or their assignees can examine it (where possible) 3) For papers with more than one author, I as the submitter have the permission of the coauthors to submit this work, and all authors agree that the corresponding author will be the main correspondent with the editorial office, and review the edited manuscript and proof. If there is only one author, I will be the corresponding author and agree to handle these responsibilities.



