Vasiliki Charalampidou (p), Anestis Gourgiotis

Svetlana Rastvortseva

Given the general problem at the European level regarding the spatial network hierarchy, but also given the fact that the process of designing and using classifications must be attempted in a way that allows their constant updating and feedback depending on the dynamics of relationships developed in urban systems, This proposal identifies the differences in classification between the first (2003–2004) and the second generation (2018–2019) of regional spatial plans, in accordance with the General Spatial Plan.
In addition, using evaluation criteria belonging to the three main thematic areas; population, geographical location, services, and infrastructure, the paper proposes a new categorization of Greek spatial network that reflects the existing relationships and trends, as well as a picture of the spatial dynamics and intra-regional reach of the classified cities. Furthermore, the criteria used refer to population size, geopolitical location, accessibility, regional services, production infrastructure, research and technology infrastructure, and higher and technical education.
From all of the above, it is appropriate to expand the methodology and criteria for prioritizing the spatial network at both the national and regional level. For further research, more criteria will be added from literature, complementing new thematic units of social life and forming a multifactorial system of variables on the basis of which the residential network will be re-examined and, of course, will require a new prioritization at a later stage.

Juan Ignacio Dorrego Viera (p), Pablo Collazzo

Vasiliki Charalampidou

The adoption of Open Innovation practices to promote the circular economy: a territorial exploration.
The Circular Economy (CE) has recently been presented by a large number of development economist as a promising approach for sustainable development (Bakker et al., 2021; Ghisellini et al., 2016; Kirchherr et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2018; Rosa et al., 2020). CE operates at the micro (companies, products and consumers), meso (eco-industrial parks and industrial symbiosis networks) or macro-level (cities, regions and national or global governments) (Jesus & Jugend, 2021; Khitous et al., 2020; Skawińska & Zalewski, 2018). This study focuses on the micro level, since a number of studies have pointed out that a detailed understanding of how to progress towards a circular economy on a micro level is lacking (Baratsas et al., 2022; Kristensen & Mosgaard, 2019). Consequently, rather than concentrating on the development of circular business models, we have dedicated to the study of circular products in order to advance CE strategies (Bocken et al., 2016; Cooper, 1983; Franzò et al., 2021).
Scholars have claimed that there is insufficient literature covering the adoption of innovation practices in the implementation of CE initiatives. In particular, Open Innovation (OI) can be seen as a path to reduce technological barriers in the transition from linear to circular products (Ambos et al., 2021; Brown et al., 2020; Elmquist et al., 2009; Giuliani et al., 2015; Lazzarotti et al., 2017; Lema et al., 2019; Manzini et al., 2017). Therefore, this paper examines how companies exploit OI practices to further CE by advancing new product development.
By applying it to a specific case study, this paper is intended to fill the existing gap in the literature that addresses CE and OI. On the example of Uruguay, where government and Finnish multinational UPM have recently reached a record-setting USD 3 billion agreement to construct a pulp mill in the center of the country, it addresses implications of adopting OI practices for the development of circular production at the micro-level.
Using the Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodological framework, this study intends to contribute to the broader literature on territorial (regional) development, sustainability, and innovation by answering the following research question:

How do companies exploit open innovation for developing circular products?

Keywords: Circular economy, Circular products, Open Innovation, Sustainability, Local Development, Pulp Industry, forestry/wood/cellulose sector, Territory, Participatory Action Research.

Filippo Berti Mecocci (p), Amir Maghssudipour, Marco Bellandi

Juan Ignacio Dorrego Viera

see extendend abstract

Svetlana Rastvortseva (p), Ekaterina Panina

Filippo Berti Mecocci

Regions do not develop in isolation. It is assumed that there is some influence of neighboring regions on each other, and the strength of such interaction depends on technological, economic and geographical distance. The diffusion and location of innovative activities, new technologies and knowledge have their own specifics. More innovative regions are able not to drag development on themselves, but on the contrary, to spread innovative influence through institutions and information and communication technologies to neighboring regions and further, increasing the level of their involvement in innovative development. At the same time, companies, patenting their inventions, still make a choice between regions, which means that competition factors remain. The spread of innovative agglomerations and the polarization of regions are influenced by innovative ecosystems, clusters, megaregions, large firms, research centers and universities.
We assessed the relationship between the territorial concentration of innovation and spatial dependence and determined how technological innovation activities in one region are related to those in neighboring regions.
We calculated global and local Moran I indices for 169 European Union regions by the number of European patent applications for 2018, 2019, and 2020. There is divergence between EU regions in terms of the number of patents (with E(I) = -0.005952 and I = 0.7704, 0.6564, 0.2544, respectively). We constructed scatter maps for three years and analyzed the changes in dynamics.
We have identified 4 groups of regions. (1) HL (high-low) – territories that have a high number of patents and are adjacent to regions with low values of the indicator. (2) LL (low-low) – territories not affected, they have a low number of patent applications and are surrounded by neighbors with similar indicators. (3) LH (low-high) – regions with a low number of patent applications, surrounded by regions with high values. (4) HH (high-high) – regions with high indicators surrounded by similar regions.
Most regions in the EU register a relatively small number of patents and are weakly dependent on the influence of neighbors. Among them, we identify those regions that may in the future become core (HL) or create an innovative development cluster (HH). Such regions are clearly visible in Finland, Ireland, Spain and Poland. It is necessary to pay attention to the leading regions, which do not contribute to the development of neighboring territories (HL). They are in France, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, and Spain. Innovative development clusters are becoming more differentiated, and their number is decreasing.