What is a Science City?

There is no fixed definition of what a science city is. It is also open to interpretation which, on one hand,
could provide considerable scope and freedom for those who want to use the concept to deliver specific
agendas, and on the other hand, could raise questions about whether a meaningful impact will be realized
given the vagueness of the definition. However, the following definition is considered: “Science cities are
new settlements, generally planned and built by governments, and aimed at generating scientific
excellence and synergistic research activities, by concentrating a critical mass of research organizations
and scientists within a high-quality urban space” (Castells and Hall, 1996). Based on this, this document
defines a Science City as “a human settlement that deliberately uses science, technology, and innovation
to create an inclusive, resilient, and transformative urban environment that enables and empowers
communities to improve their quality of life.”

There has also been a key shift in emphasis, from a focus on the production of science in research centers
and departmental laboratories to drive economic development to its application in social and economic
development for the benefit of the wider population, in the evolution of science cities. Thus, taking a
chronological perspective, Anttiroiko (2004) characterized science cities into three generations or basic
models: 1) science-based new town construction, 2) extended science parks, and 3) local or regional
development projects. In the first wave, science cities emerged in the context of centrally planned new
town construction, with organized concentrations of scientific expertise, housing universities, research
laboratories, and research and development (R&D)-oriented institutions. The classic examples are
Tsukuba Science City in Japan, Daedeok Science Town in South Korea, and Akademgorodok in Siberia.
This wave of science cities can be considered successful, but one downside has been the absence of a
strong urban dimension and cultural vibrancy, which limits the real scope for creativity of scientists and
staff beyond the research centers and government labs (Charles 2015).
The second wave represents a step towards a focus on commercialization. In this generation, some cities
with a concentration of academic, scientific or technological activities, or those with internationally
renowned science parks, science museums, theme parks, and sites of recreational learning are also
sometimes referred to as science cities. These large-scale projects, generally funded by national
governments, are often built on the outskirts of existing cities, and are usually oriented around fostering
closer links between industry and research to promote applied science and development research. In turn,
such relationships and strategy would not only support and strengthen local and national industry, but also
contribute to national economic development and global competitiveness. Examples of this
model/generation of science cities are the Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park in Taiwan, Singapore
Science Park in Singapore, and Zhongguancun Science Park in Beijing, China.

Finally, the third wave of science cities mark a departure from the traditional new town projects and
extended science parks adjacent to schemes deliberately woven into existing metropolitan areas, while
leveraging existing science resources to meet the developmental needs of the city. This change is reflected
in cities like the Kansai Science City in Japan and Guangzhou Science City in China. Third wave science
cities tend to be more multifaceted in their science base, as they are constructed as hubs of innovation and
research in the global knowledge economy. Additionally, third wave science cities tend to be more highly
networked, with multiple connections within and between research institutions, universities and
businesses; there also exists partnerships among sub-national agencies and organizations that contribute
to the delivery of the science city (Charles and Wray 2018).
Aside from the definition, there are also no rigid criteria for designation of a science city. However,
Schweitzer (2000) suggested the following criteria that would benefit from special-purpose legislation: 1)
the percentage of workforce engaged in science and education activities, and 2) the percentage of the city
budget devoted to supporting science and education. Anttiroiko (2004) also identified the following basic
characteristics of a genuine science city: 1) the national, regional or local government is a key player; 2)
scientific activities, basic research, and universities play an important role; 3) there is little or no high-tech
industrial activities and manufacturing; 4) there is a clear-cut urban area built to a comprehensive science
city plan; and 5) the appearance of the city is essentially urban, combined with a range of urban amenities
and facilities.