Fiche du document
2023
- handle: 10670/1.9fybbv
- hal: hal-03730360
- doi: 10.1007/s00168-022-01149-3
- WOS: 000809533300001
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s00168-022-01149-3
info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Mots-clés
Eco-innovation spatial externalities related variety rural French industry L - Industrial Organization/L.L6 - Industry Studies: Manufacturing/L.L6.L60 - General O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth/O.O3 - Innovation • Research and Development • Technological Change • Intellectual Property Rights/O.O3.O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences • Diffusion Processes Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics • Environmental and Ecological Economics/Q.Q5 - Environmental Economics/Q.Q5.Q55 - Technological Innovation R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics/R.R3 - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm LocationSujets proches
Specialization Technological change Breakthroughs, Technological Innovations, Industrial Technological breakthroughs Technical innovations Innovations, Technological Businesses Firms Companies Enterprises Business organizations Organizations, BusinessCiter ce document
Danielle Galliano et al., « The geography of environmental innovation: a rural/urban comparison », HAL-SHS : économie et finance, ID : 10.1007/s00168-022-01149-3
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
This paper aims to contribute to enlarge a geography of eco-innovation. The objective is to study what kind of spatial externalities (specialization, related and unrelated variety) has the most positive impact on eco-innovation, according to firm’s location (rural, peri-urban, urban). We empirically test this framework using a hurdle negative binomial model on firm-level data drawn from the French Community Innovation Survey (CIS). The results show that spatial externalities have different effects depending on the firm’s engagement and breadth of eco-innovation as well as on its location. Marshallian specialization has a positive effect both on engagement and breadth of eco-innovations unlike unrelated variety, which negatively impacts breadth of eco-innovation. With regard to the firm’s location, related variety is particularly correlated with the eco-innovation breadth of rural firms, whereas specialization is positively correlated with the breadth of eco-innovations of peri-urban firms. As for urban firms, spatial externalities seem to have less impact on their eco-innovation related behavior.