城市空间形态与创新：复杂知识流动的视角

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2025.05.063

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (5)

Download: PDF (1463 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Knowledge has become a strategic resource at the heart of regional innovation and economic upgrading in the 21st Century. As global competition for innovation intensifies, a region’s long-term competitiveness increasingly depends on its ability to continuously generate, diffuse, and recombine complex knowledge. While existing literature has extensively examined knowledge accumulation and R&D investment, relatively little attention has been paid to how the physical structure of urban space affects the quality, particularly the complexity, of knowledge. Addressing this gap, this paper investigates how compact urban spatial forms influence the production and diffusion of complex knowledge across Chinese prefecture-level cities.Drawing on a comprehensive panel dataset spanning 1992 to 2020, we construct city-level knowledge complexity indicators based on patent applications, complemented by data on research and development(R&D) intensity, patent citation velocity, intra-city patent collaboration, and product export diversity. To more accurately capture urban spatial configuration, we introduce a novel methodological framework that replaces conventional Euclidean distance with a network-based approach integrating Delaunay triangulation, breakpoint detection, and Dijkstra’s shortest-path algorithm. This allows for a more precise assessment of urban compactness by reflecting the intricate interactions between built form, infrastructure connectivity, and internal accessibility.Our empirical analysis reveals that compact urban forms significantly enhance knowledge complexity, with stronger effects observed in cities characterized by low technological diversity or well-developed digital infrastructure. We identify three primary mechanisms underpinning this relationship. First, spatial compactness fosters high-tech firm agglomeration, intensifying market competition and stimulating R&D investment. Second, geographic proximity improves both local and global channels of knowledge diffusion, facilitating the transmission of complex, often tacit knowledge through face-to-face interaction and knowledge spillovers. Third, compact urban structures reduce collaboration costs, thereby increasing the likelihood of localized knowledge partnerships and enabling more effective recombination of diverse knowledge components.Beyond these mechanisms, we further examine the micro-foundations of knowledge complexity through the lens of firm-level product diversity. Using industrial firm records and customs export data, we find that compact spatial forms significantly enhance firms’ product diversity—serving as an observable external manifestation of knowledge complexity. This effect is particularly pronounced among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), non-state-owned firms, and foreign-invested enterprises, underscoring the role of compact cities in fostering flexible, innovation-oriented enterprises.The findings offer important policy implications for urban development and innovation governance. First, cities should shift from extensive spatial expansion toward intensive spatial optimization to improve efficiency and facilitate knowledge flows. Second, differentiated innovation ecosystems must be constructed in accordance with a city’s development stages, strengthening physical agglomeration in emerging regions while expanding digital infrastructure and virtual clustering in land-constrained cities. Third, greater efforts are needed to build local knowledge platforms and link them with global innovation networks, accelerating the circulation and recombination of innovation factors to enhance urban competitiveness in the knowledge economy.

Key words： urban morphology knowledge complexity industrial clustering knowledge spillover innovation quality

Received: 06 May 2025

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Deng Huihui
	Pan Xueting
	Zeng Qingge
	Yu Lu

Cite this article:

Deng Huihui,Pan Xueting,Zeng Qingge等. Urban Morphology and Regional Innovation Development: A Perspective Based on Complex Knowledge Flows[J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2026, 56(4): 34-57.

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2025.05.063 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2026/V56/I4/34

1 毛琦梁、王菲：《地区比较优势演化的空间关联：知识扩散的作用与证据》，《中国工业经济》2018年第11期，第136-154页。
2 洪俊杰、杨志浩：《方言边界、交流障碍与创新绩效》，《南开经济研究》2021年第2期，第46-66页。
3 易巍、龙小宁、林志帆：《地理距离影响高校专利知识溢出吗——来自中国高铁开通的经验证据》，《中国工业经济》2021年第9期，第99-117页。
4 蒋仁爱、杨圣豪、温军：《高铁开通与经济高质量发展——机制及效果》，《南开经济研究》2023年第7期，第70-89页。
5 Hoekman J.， Frenken K. & Tijssen R.， “Research collaboration at a distance： changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe，” Research Policy， Vol. 39， No. 5 （2010）， pp. 662-673.
6 Boschma R. & Frenken K.， “The spatial evolution of innovation networks： a proximity perspective，” in Boschma R. & Martin R. （eds.）， The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography， Cheltenham： Edward Elgar Publishing， 2010， pp. 120-136.
7 Balland P. & Rigby D.， “The geography of complex knowledge，” Economic Geography， Vol. 93， No. 1 （2017）， pp. 1-23.
8 Liu X.， Ji X. & Ge S.， “Does the complexity and embeddedness of knowledge recombination contribute to economic development？—observations from prefecture cities in China，” Research Policy， Vol. 53， No. 2 （2024）， https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104930.
9 Broekel T.， Knuepling L. & Mewes L.， “Boosting， sorting and complexity—urban scaling of innovation around the World，” Journal of Economic Geography， Vol. 23， No. 5 （2023）， pp. 979-1016.
10 陆铭：《向心城市》，上海：人民出版社，2022年。
11 Harari M.， “Cities in bad shape： urban geometry in India，” American Economic Review， Vol. 110， No. 8 （2020）， pp. 2377-2421.
12 刘修岩、秦蒙、李松林：《城市空间结构与劳动者工资收入》，《世界经济》2019年第4期，第123-148页。
13 方颖、白秀叶：《城市空间形态、公共服务空间均等化与居民满意度》，《经济学（季刊）》2022年第4期，第1405-1424页。
14 彭冲、韩立彬、岑燕：《城市内部空间结构与消费多样性：街区大数据视角》，《世界经济》2023年第12期，第64-91页。
15 邓慧慧、曾庆阁、张三峰等：《城市空间形态如何影响居民消费》，《财贸经济》2024年第7期，第130-146页。
16 刘修岩、王峤：《空间发展模式、知识溢出与城市创新绩效》，《财贸经济》2023年第8期，第142-158页。
17 邓慧慧、曾庆阁、张三峰：《“一方水土一方人”——城市空间形态与家庭创业决策》，《经济科学》2024年第5期，第114-133页。
18 Marshall A.， Principles of Economics， London： MacMillan， 1890.
19 Krugman P.， Geography and Trade， Cambridge， MA： MIT press， 1991.
20 曹虹剑、张帅、欧阳峣等：《创新政策与“专精特新”中小企业创新质量》，《中国工业经济》2022年第11期，第135-154页。
21 巫强、仲志源：《高新技术企业认定能否提升企业专利质量？——基于内向型开放式创新的视角》，《南开经济研究》2023年第3期，第173-192页。
22 陈强远、赵浩云、林思彤等：《中国高质量技术创新：情境叙事与测度体系》，《管理世界》2024年第5期，第23-41页。
23 Pinheiro F.， Balland P. & Boschma R. et al.， “The dark side of the geography of innovation： relatedness， complexity and regional inequality in Europe，” Regional Studies， Vol. 59， No. 1 （2022）， pp. 1-16.
24 Balland P.， Jara-Figueroa C. & Petralia S. et al.， “Complex economic activities concentrate in large cities，” Nature Human Behaviour， Vol. 4， No. 3 （2020）， pp. 248-254.
25 Hamidi S. & Zandiatashbar A.， “Does urban form matter for innovation productivity？ a national multi-level study of the association between neighbourhood innovation capacity and urban sprawl，” Urban Studies， Vol. 56， No. 8 （2018）， pp. 1576-1594.
26 Hamidi S.， Zandiatashbar A. & Bonakdar A.， “The relationship between regional compactness and regional innovation capacity （RIC）： empirical evidence from a national study，” Technological Forecasting and Social Change， Vol. 142 （2019）， pp. 394-402.
27 王峤、刘修岩：《空间发展模式与中国城市增长——基于几何形态视角的考察》，《经济学（季刊）》2024年第2期，第588-604页。
28 Marshall S.， Gong Y. & Green N.， Urban Compactness： New Geometric Interpretations and Indicators， Cham： Springer International Publishing， 2019.
29 Porter M.， Competitive Advantage： Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance， New York： Free Press， 1985.
30 Lee C.， “Competition favors the prepared firm： firms’ R&D responses to competitive market pressure，” Research Policy， Vol. 38， No. 5 （2009）， pp. 861-870.
31 Li J.， Shan Y. & Tian G. et al.， “Labor cost， government intervention， and corporate innovation： evidence from China，” Journal of Corporate Finance， Vol. 64 （2020）， http：//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119920301127.
32 Mewes L. & Broekel T.， “Technological complexity and economic growth of regions，” Research Policy， Vol. 51， No. 8 （2022）， https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104156.
33 Benoit F. & Belderbos R.， “International connection， local disconnection： the （heterogeneous） role of global cities in local and global innovation networks，” Journal of International Management， Vol. 30， No. 3 （2024）， https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2024.101137.
34 Ren C.， Wang T. & Wang L. et al.， “‘Buzz-and-Pipeline’ dynamics of urban dual innovation： evidence from China’s biomedical industry，” Applied Geography， Vol. 158 （2023）， https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.103048.
35 Morrison A.， “Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts： who they are， how they interact，” Regional Studies， Vol. 42， No. 6 （2008）， pp. 817-835.
36 Bathelt H. & Li P.， “Processes of building cross-border knowledge pipelines，” Research Policy， Vol. 49， No. 3 （2020）， https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103928.
37 Vivona R.， Demircioglu M. & Audretsch D.， “The costs of collaborative innovation，” The Journal of Technology Transfer， Vol. 48， No. 3 （2023）， pp. 873-899.
38 Balland P.， Boschma R. & Frenken K.， “Proximity and innovation： from statics to dynamics，” Regional Studies， Vol. 49， No. 6 （2015）， pp. 907-920.
39 Hansen T.， “Juggling with proximity and distance： collaborative innovation projects in the danish cleantech industry，” Economic Geography， Vol. 90， No. 4 （2014）， pp. 375-402.
40 Johnston A. & Huggins R.， “University-industry links and the determinants of their spatial scope： a study of the knowledge intensive business services sector，” Papers in Regional Science， Vol. 96， No. 2 （2017）， pp. 247-261.
41 李建成、邓慧慧、陈亲亲等：《政府行为新叙事：异地信息选择与跨区域合作创新》，《经济研究》2025年第8期，第116-140页。
42 Albeaik S.， Kaltenberg M. & Alsaleh M. et al.， “Improving the economic complexity index，” 2017-07-24， https：//doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1707.05826， 2025-08-01.
43 He C.， Liu Z. & Tian J. et al.， “Urban expansion dynamics and natural habitat loss in China： a multiscale landscape perspective，” Global Change Biology， Vol. 20， No. 9 （2014）， pp. 2886-2902.
44 Frenken K.， van Oort F. & Verburg T.， “Related variety， unrelated variety and regional economic growth，” Regional Studies， Vol. 41， No. 5 （2007）， pp. 685-697.
45 刘烨、王琦、班元浩：《虚拟集聚、知识结构与中国城市创新》，《财贸经济》2023年第4期，第89-105页。
46 刘啟仁、龙健雄、张展辉等：《税收激励、研发支出与出口绩效——基于高新技术企业认定条件改革的聚束分析》，《中国工业经济》2023年第4期，第79-97页。
47 Hegde D.， Herkenhoff K. & Zhu C.， “Patent publication and innovation，” Journal of Political Economy， Vol. 131， No. 7 （2023）， pp. 1845-1903.
48 Hausmann R. & Hidalgo C. A.， “How will we earn our living 20 years from now？ a growth ventures analysis for the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy （WRR），” 2013-11， https：//english.wrr.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2013/11/04/how-will-the-netherlands-earn-its-income-20-years-from-now/Web074e-How-will-the-Netherlands-earn-its-income-20-years-from-now.pdf， 2025-05-06.
49 Neffke F.， Hartog M. & Boschma R. et al.， “Agents of structural change： the role of firms and entrepreneurs in regional diversification，” Economic Geography， Vol. 94， No. 1 （2018）， pp. 23-48.
50 Forslid R. & Okubo T.， “Trade， location， and multi-product firms，” Regional Science and Urban Economics， Vol. 100 （2023）， https：//doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2023.103891.
51 Kolev J.， Haughey A. & Murray F. et al.， “Of academics and creative destruction： startup advantage in the process of innovation，” Academy of Management Proceedings， No. 1 （2023）， https：//www.nber.org/papers/w30362.