IJPP ISSN: 2239-267X IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 24 Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study Paolo Scattoni Associate Professor, Department of Architectural Planning, Design, and Technology, Sapienza Università di Roma, pscattoni@uniroma1.it Marco Lombardi MSc Student , Department of Architectural Planning, Design, and Technology Sapienza Università di Roma - Via Flaminia, 72 00196 Rome, Italy marco.lombardi.rm@gmail.com Marco Pini Italian Union Chambers of Commerce, Rome Roberto Turi Ministry of Labor and Social Policies 5 KEYWORDS: startups, location determinants, urban planning, Fab Lab, coworking. ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to analyze innovative startup localization determinants, taking into account a range of factors related to town planning subjects, too. We also focused on the role played by the Fab Labs and coworking as well as on startupper characteristics (e.g. age, previous employment status, business motivation, etc.). The analysis is based on a dataset including information deriving from a survey on 127 innovative startups located in the city of Rome at a district level, linked to other business register (administrative archive) data in addition to geo-referencing analysis. Our findings are that logistics are the main determinant of innovative startup localization for older startuppers in particular while younger startuppers pay more attention to real estate costs and proximity to home. The presence of Fab Lab spaces and coworking is the second determinant, especially for innovative startups located in the city center. Furthermore, our analysis also reveals that the mailto:pscattoni@uniroma1.it mailto:marco.lombardi.rm@gmail.com Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 25 majority of startuppers are people who have previously worked as employees, professionals, etc. on the basis of know-how acquired during their working careers. Moreover, the results suggest that social relationships and the family are the main two contexts in which people develop an entrepreneurial spirit. Finally, policy implications for the town planning agenda linked to entrepreneurship theme are also discussed. Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 26 INTRODUCTION Company start-up is a topic which is closely bound up with innovation and knowledge spillovers (Minniti, 2005; Vittoria and Lubrano Lavàndera, 2014; Vivas, Barge-Gil, 2015) influencing the economy at a territorial level with reference to urban areas as well. The aim of this paper is to analyze the features of Italian innovative startups, focusing on localization factors and considering the case of the city of Rome. Moreover, the paper also aims to test current thinking on the birth and evolution of innovative startups empirically. The Italian law which legally recognized innovative startups was passed five years ago (law 221/2012, conversion law of Decree law 179/2012 called Decreto Crescita 2.0) 1 . It set out specific measures to sustain their competitiveness and growth. A substantial dataset exists on this phenomenon. The Italian startup register contained more than 6,500 firms in early 2017. The academic literature (Anderson, 2012) sees the birth and evolution of a startup developing essentially via four steps. The first is a purely playful dimension. Nowadays, easy access to low cost technologies allows universal and widespread use of these in a recreational dimension. For example, the Maker Faire exhibition has been taking place in Rome since 2013 2 , demonstrating the rapid growth of technological applications in quantity and quality terms. In this respect, rapid and widespread dissemination of the microcontroller Arduino has been the developmental backbone of this technological dissemination over the last decade. Once the first, essentially creative step has been taken, the second step requires costly equipment available usually in specific spaces called Fab Labs (Fabrication Laboratories) (Gershenfeld, 2012) where simple hunches can be transformed into real projects 3 . The second step is closely linked to the third step which relates to coworking: open spaces where aspiring startuppers can make use of many other collateral services such 1 http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/moduli/DL_181012_179.pdf 2 http://www.makerfairerome.eu/it/ 3 For more detailed explanation of the meaning of Fab Lab, see e.g. Vittoria and Napolitano (2017). Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 27 as administrative assistance and consultancy. Finally, the fourth step is setting up a firm at which point the project enters the economic sphere and competes in the market. It is generally believed that startuppers are entrepreneurs who followed all the steps referred to above: one of the aims of this paper is precisely to assess whether this is really the case in Italy, with the help of the Rome case study. In this respect we will look at startuppers’ previous status, the environment in which their entrepreneurial spirit develops and the role of Fab Lab and coworking experiences. As far as the spatial perspective is concerned, the localization factors behind startup creation, especially with regard to the role played by Fab Labs, has been little studied. Thus, a further purpose of this paper relates to innovative startup localization determinants within Rome: we also carried out counterfactual analysis comparing young and less young startuppers. Moreover, we also used specific geo-referencing analysis to verify potential spatial clusters. The analysis as a whole is based on the results of a survey of 127 innovative startups in Rome, supplemented with information on startup structural characteristics supplied by the innovative startup register held by the Chamber of Commerce. Therefore, considering innovative startup features and their localization determinants, this paper attempts to provide useful information for urban planning policies in consideration of the influence of the startup phenomenon on the local economy: attracting both financial and human capital; effects on the logistic and infrastructure field; urban requalification and so on. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the institutional background with an overview of Italian innovative startup law and the literature, highlighting the gaps this paper aims to fill. Section 3 illustrates data and methodology. Section 4 analyzes the empirical results and Section 5 provides discussion. BACKGROUND Institutional framework Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 28 Over recent years Italy has developed a range of policies to sustain innovation. One of these relates to innovative startups which are legally recognized in an ad hoc law (221/2012, conversion law of Decree law 179/2012 called Decreto Crescita 2.0). In Italy all firms are filed in a business register held by the Chamber of Commerce. Innovative startups are also registered in a special section of this register set up by Law 221/2012 to monitor the phenomenon more accurately. The law views innovative startups as limited companies, in common with cooperatives, based in Italy, or another EU country but with a branch in Italy, whose object clause is «the development, production and trade of innovative goods and services of high technological value». The aim of innovative startup regulation is to boost sustainable growth, technological development, entrepreneurship and employment, attracting talent, innovative enterprise and capital from abroad. More specifically, the law has drawn up a set of requirements which a start-up must respect to be considered innovative. They must: a) have been set up no more than 60 months ago; b) have their main business center in Italy; c) have a yearly production value not in excess of 5 million euros after their second year of business; d) non-profit status e) have as an exclusive or prevalent object clause development, production and trade in innovative goods and services of high technological value; f) not originate from business split-ups or mergers; g) fulfil at least one of the following sub-requirements: g1) R&D expenditures greater than 15% in comparison with the highest amount between the cost and the total production value; g2) one third of the workforce (employees and independent workers) with a PhD or studying for a PhD or two thirds of the workforce with tertiary education; g3) a startup owner with sole rights (inventions, processing software, etc.). To boost innovative entrepreneurship, the law has set up many incentives for innovative startups which relate to: bureaucratic procedure simplification; lower administrative costs at launch; potential to pay partners through stock option schemes and external service suppliers (e.g. lawyers, accountants, etc.) with work for equity schemes; investment tax Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 29 breaks; crowdfunding introduction; easy access to credit; internationalization support. Literature review Following Marshall (Marshall 1891) and Jacobs (Jacobs 1970; 1961), innovative and entrepreneurial clusters have been widely studied (Porter 1990, 1996 1998; P; Glaeser 1999; 2000; Glaeser 2001; Audretsch 2003; Feldman and Audretsch 1999; Florida 2002, 2005, 2006, 2012a; Feldman and Florida 1994). Nevertheless, the role played by location determinants in attracting startups have been studied for the last 15 years. At a macro level, scholars have underlined many factors such as economies of scale, urbanization factors (Gries and Naudé, 2008), social capital (Birley, 1986; Davidsson and Honig, 2003), knowledge base and networking (technological universities, skilled labor, etc.), industry specialization as suitable preconditions in startup set up and success (Beise and Stahl, 1998). In addition, potential startup funding financial sources is a further important precondition (Wach, 2008). Moreover, Florida (2002) has pointed out place related factors because firms based on creative ideas require specific local conditions. “The Boulder thesis” (Feld, 2012) is also worthy of mention as it identifies four determinant factors in startup success: i) an ecosystem made up of universities, investors, government, companies and media; ii) leaders with long-term commitment; iii) a startup community inclusive of anyone wanting to participate in it; iv) ongoing startup community activities to stimulate links between members and enhance value-creation activities. In the recent digital revolution Fab Labs represent an important expression of community and open innovation, playing a potential determinant role in startup creation and location (Tech et al., 2016; Gershenfeld, 2012; West and Lakhani, 2008). Nonetheless, few empirical analyses on Fab Labs exist4 consisting, in Italy, of case studies by 4 For first empirical research on Fab Labs see Troxler and Schweikert (2010) which analyzes Northern Europe. Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 30 Menichelli and Ranellucci (2014), Bianchini et al. (2015), and Vittoria and Napolitano (2017). Focusing on the local level, the majority of early studies documented a business and startup shift in the US, including for highly technological firms, from city centers to suburbs, to office and industrial parks dubbed “nerdistans” (Kotkin, 1997, 2000; Florida and Kenney, 1988), such as California’s Silicon Valley, the Route 128 beltway outside Boston, etc. More recently, over the past two decades, town planners based on Jacobs (1970, 1961) have underlined an inversion, dubbed by Ehrenhalt (2012) “a great inversion”: innovation and entrepreneurial activity develops in the cities where people, talent, and companies are concentrated. Thus, several recent, once again US studies, (Silicon Valley, etc.) have highlighted a shift from the suburbs to cities (Florida 2012b; 2013; 2014; Florida and Mellander 2016; Guzman and Stern, 2016; Frey 2012, 2014). Thus, cities are incubators for new ideas and innovation boosting startup creation (Glaeser, 2007; Glaeser and Resseger, 2010). Recently, Florida and King (2016) and Florida and Mellander (2016) analyzed US venture capital investment and startup activity at a highly detailed local level using zip-code or metro based data: their findings confirm a shift to urban neighborhoods. Thus, on one hand, few recent studies exist on startup localization determinants especially at a local level, taking into account the role of the Fab Labs and, on the other, the literature underlines the importance of the city in attracting startups. In this respect the aim of this paper is to fill this gap, analyzing startup localization motivations in Rome at a sub- municipality level (districts) highlighting the role of the Fab Labs too, and to identify differences between young and older startuppers. Furthermore, we will analyze other important startupper features, too, such as business motivation and previous status (student, employee, etc.). Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 31 METHODOLOGY Database Our data source is a survey of Rome innovative startups carried out in March 2017. The survey’s reference universe was 543 innovative startups registered in early 2017 in the national business register’s Special section (Innovative startups) held by Infocamere, the Chamber of Commerce IT firm. Firstly we divided the archive data into four groups according to age (young and non-young5) and phone number availability, also using other public firm archives. The results were as follows: group 1: 72 youth startups with available phone numbers; group 2: 82 youth startups with no available phone numbers but available email addresses (generic or certified); group 3: 155 non-youth startups with available phone numbers; group 4: 234 non-youth startups with no available phone number but available email addresses (generic or certified). Startups in groups 1 and 3 were interviewed using CATI methods (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing). Startups in groups 2 and 4 were interviewed using CAWI methods (Computer Assisted Web Interviewing) via emails and one reminder where required. The survey was done by a professional contractor with an ad hoc help desk to support startuppers in the compilation of a questionnaire designed to gather both qualitative and quantitative information at firm level. Taking the two methods together, 129 startups were interviewed in total with a response rate of 23.8%. As two questionnaires were missing a considerable number of answers, we considered a dataset of 127 innovative startups: 47 youth innovative startups (37% of the total) and 80 non-youth innovative startups (63%). Finally, by applying the record-linkage method we built a database (with reference to 127 startups) which gathered both survey and business register related information. Specifically, the entire dataset included: i) survey data on startupper characteristics (educational attainment level, entrepreneur’s previous status, business motivation, type of environment 5 Youth startups are those in which the entrepreneurs or the majority of business partners are under 35 years of age. Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 32 in which entrepreneurial spirit developed), the role played by the Fab Labs and co-working in firm set up and localization (at a district level6) and its determinants; ii) while the business register’s special section offers a large structural statistic database, such as activity sector, legal form, size class, share capital class and also R&D, highly educated staff and ownership of sole rights characteristics (required by law). This dataset was analyzed statistically (the results are reported in the next section) based on frequency distribution. EMPIRICAL RESULTS Structural statistics Table 1 displays the structural features of the innovative startups interviewed. Representing the most advanced segment of entrepreneurship, almost half (40.9%) of the innovative startups studied operate in the information technology sector. The R&D sector accounts for 15% of the total and one third is accounted for by other service activities. Finally, 11% of the total works in the industry sector. By size class, around 90% of the innovative startups studied are micro firms (fewer than 10 employees), almost equally distributed between 1-4 employees (44.9%) and 5-9 employees (41.7%). As an effect of their small size, two thirds of the innovative startups (exactly 66.1%) have a share capital of 10,000 euros or less whilst 22% have share capitals of 10,000-50,000 euros with only 11.8% over 50,000 euros. The most widespread requirement fulfilled is R&D expenditure at 78.7% of the total. While the highly educated workforce criterion is less achieved (32.3%) and this is even more the case of sole rights (16.5%). Moreover, a large majority of innovative startups (78%) fulfills only one of these three requirements with just a few cases in which all three requirements (5.5%) or two requirements out of three (16.5%) are respected. As we have seen, youth innovation startups represent over one third (37%; 47 out of 127) of the total startups interviewed. Another interesting feature is startupper educational attainment level: a large 6 Rome is divided up into 15 districts. Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 33 majority are graduates (84.3%) and a significant percentage of these are postgraduates (over half of those with tertiary education). Thus, only 15% stopped at higher secondary (including post-secondary) school and 0.8% a lower secondary education. Localization and its determinants Table 2 presents localization data. A majority of innovative startups are located in municipality no.1 (‘the city center’): almost one third (30%) of those reporting a municipality basis. In such cases the “youth factor” is significant because youth innovation startups in the city center account for 25.6% as against 32.8% non-youth (the appendix geo-references startups by age class). Identifying the reasons behind this difference requires analyzing startup localization determinants (table 3). First of all, the first factor affecting choice of startup localization is logistics (indicated by 25.2% of the total) followed by another three factors concerning: the presence of coworking spaces, Fab Labs and business accelerators (18.9%); proximity to home (18.1%); and real estate benefits such as rental costs, physical spaces, etc. (16.5%). For youth innovation startups two factors predominate in choice of location as compared to non-youth startups: real estate benefits (27.7% versus 10%) and proximity to home (27.7% versus 12.5%). Both factors are linked to costs, which is more significant for young people. From a geographical point of view, two factors relate to differences between city center and other areas of the city: the potential for coworking, Fab Labs and business accelerators, which are more significant in the city center (31.3% versus 14.7%), and real estate benefits which are probably more determinant in others areas of the city where rent prices, for example, are lower (20% versus 6.3%) (table 4). 4.3 Fab Labs and coworking Fab Labs are still not a widespread phenomenon with only 3.9% of innovative startups originating in a Fab Lab and no significant differences between young and non-young startuppers (table 5). Coworking is more widespread, since 25.2% of start uppers emerged in a coworking context, a figure which is slightly higher for youth as Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 34 compared to non-youth firms (27.7% versus 23.8%) and in graduate startuppers (28%; only 10.5% in the case of upper secondary school). Coworking experiences play a determinant role for firms because almost all startups (90.6%) which have this type of experience evaluate it quite or very important to their development, as do those emerging from a Fab Lab context (95.5% of the total of the startups with a Fab Lab experience), though the latter is much less common as we have seen. It is interesting to underline that startups originating with coworking experiences are linked to a greater extent to highly educated workforce requirements (37.5% fulfill this condition) as compared to the others (30.5%). Previous status, business motivation and environment Other startupper features enquired into include the previous status of the startuppers (table 6): the majority were professionals (33.1%), followed by employees (22%) and former entrepreneurs (18.9%). A small percentage were researchers (10.2%) and even fewer professors (3.9%). Students looking for their first jobs were very few (4.7%). Thus innovative startup usually involves people with work experience. What drives people to set up in business? In accordance with the above, the most widespread motivation is giving value to know-how acquired during a professional career (indicated by 29.9% of startuppers) (table 7). The second also relates to giving value to know-how but in this case it is a question of course of study related know-how (24.4%). Thus, innovative startup stems from an ambition to take advantage of one’s know-how. In fact, the third motivation is a question of taking advantage of one’s knowledge of the market (12.6%). The fourth is financial and personal ambition (11.8%). Our analysis by age highlighted a number of differences: younger as compared to less young startuppers are more driven by a desire for personal and financial success (19.1% versus 7.5%) and by dissatisfaction with their previous jobs (10.6% versus 3.8%). Furthermore, where do startuppers generally develop their entrepreneurial spirit? The social context is the best environment, signaled by over one third of the total (37%) with the family coming Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 35 second (16.5%) and coworking third (11.8%), thus confirming its importance in the development of the innovative startups phenomenon. At the same time, it is important to underline the academic environment, which accounts for almost 20% if we add up postgraduate studies, ventures with researchers and professors and educational labs (table 8). Lastly, innovative startups show considerable international openness with 66.1% having relationships with foreign countries (table 9). More specifically, these relationships mainly concern project development (signaled by 35.4% of those with international relations), and sale of goods/services (32.3%) contrasting with purchases (11%). DISCUSSION This paper enquires into innovative startup localization determinants and analyzes how they originated. Special attention was paid to the differences between young and older startuppers and the role played by Fab Labs and coworking. We studied the city of Rome by means of the results of a survey linked to other information available from administrative archives. Our findings provide useful information for city planning policies, too. Logistics emerged as the main determinant of innovative startup localization and thus town planning action should take this into account in their agendas as logistics impact on business appeal, particularly with reference to suburb requalification where there are fewer innovative startups. Moreover, although the existence of Fab Labs and coworking is the second determinant, we found that only a few startups emerged from Fab Lab experiences. Nevertheless, startuppers from Fab Labs and coworking recognize the important role played by this accelerator. Thus, urban policies aiming to foster area development through business attraction should also consider this aspect and define spaces dedicated to Fab Labs and coworking at a local level. At the same time we also need to raise awareness of the potential of these business accelerators. Our analysis also reveals that the majority of startuppers are people who previously worked as employees, professionals, etc. It is no coincidence Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 36 that the main business motivation cited is giving value to know-how acquired at work. Thus, innovative startups are not only young people on their first jobs, probably with Fab Lab or coworking experience, as is underlined in the thinking on the Makers. Finally, we found that social relationships and the family are the main two environments in which people’s entrepreneurial spirit develops and the role of university is also significant. These two aspects can be considered simultaneously because developing networks between academic world and society can sustain innovative entrepreneurship. As far as our findings are concerned, Industry 4.0 industrial policy could potentially play an important role in supporting urban policies through a stronger connection between town planning, logistics infrastructure, business accelerators and universities. Since few studies have been conducted on the startup phenomenon (including for Italy), especially from the town planning point of view and with reference to the role of the Fab Labs, our contribution is a first step in filling this gap. Its main limitation is naturally the circumscribed scope of an analysis limited to the city of Rome. Further studies might be the following: similar studies in other Italian towns; an in-depth examination of the role of the Fab Labs and coworking spaces to understand their strengths and weaknesses; an analysis of the determinants of innovative startup performances, for example by localization or startupper origin. Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 37 Statistical Appendix Table 1. Structural features (distribution %) Economic sphere Industry 11.0 Information technology 40.9 R&D services 15.0 Other services 33.1 Size class 1-4 employees 44.9 5-9 employees 41.7 10 and over employees 13.4 Share capital Up to 5,000 euros 16.5 5,001-10,000 euros 49.6 10,001-50,000 euros 22.0 50,001 and over 11.8 Requirements* R&D 78.7 Highly educated workforce 32.3 Sole rights 16.5 Age class Under 35 (youth startups) 37.0 35 and over (non-youth innovative startups) 63.0 Educational attainment level Primary, primary and lower secondary education or less 0.8 Higher secondary education 15.0 Tertiary education 84.3 Total 100.0 * The total is over 100% because startups can fulfill more than one requirement. Source: own elaboration of survey data. Table 2. Localization: differences between youth and non-youth innovative startups (distribution %) Youth startups Non-youth startups Total I (city center) 32.8 25.6 29.9 II 9.4 4.7 7.5 III 4.7 2.3 3.7 IV 4.7 0.0 2.8 V 1.6 7.0 3.7 Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 38 VI 1.6 1.6 4.7 VII 1.6 9.3 4.7 VIII 4.7 0.0 2.8 IX 7.8 7.0 7.5 X 0.0 4.7 1.9 XI 3.1 7.0 4.7 XII 4.7 4.7 4.7 XIII 0.0 0.0 0.0 XIV 4.7 2.3 3.7 XV 7.8 2.3 5.6 Outside Roma Capitale 10.9 18.6 14.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: own elaboration of survey data. Table 3. Localization determinants: differences between youth and non-youth innovative startups Youth startups Non-youth startups Total Logistics 4.3 37.5 25.2 Existence of Fab Labs, coworking and business accelerators 17.0 20.0 18.9 Proximity to home 27.7 12.5 18.1 Real estate benefits (rental costs, etc.) 27.7 10.0 16.5 Proximity to universities and research centers 12.8 8.8 10.2 Presence of similar firms (e.g. technological districts) 2.1 3.8 3.1 Demand for innovative goods/services 6.4 0.0 2.4 Other 2.1 7.5 5.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: own elaboration of survey data. Table 4. Localization determinants: differences between city and suburb based innovative startups Municipality I (city center) Other municipalities Total Logistics 21.9 26.3 25.2 Existence of Fab Labs, coworking and business accelerators 31.3 14.7 18.9 Proximity to home 15.6 18.9 18.1 Real estate benefits (rental costs, etc.) 6.3 20.0 16.5 Proximity to universities and research centers 12.5 9.5 10.2 Presence of similar firms (e.g. technological districts) 0.0 4.2 3.1 Demand for innovative goods/services 3.1 2.1 2.4 Other 9.4 4.2 5.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: own elaboration of survey data. Table 5. Dissemination and importance of Fab Labs and coworking Startup developed in a Fab Lab Yes 3.9 Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 39 No 96.1 The importance of Fab Lab experiences in startup progress Quite/very important 95.5 Not very or not important 4.5 Startup developed via coworking Yes 25.2 No 74.8 The importance of the coworking experience in startup progress Quite/very important 90.6 Not very or not important 9.4 Total 100.0 Source: own elaboration of survey data. Table 6. Previous status of startuppers Professional 33.1 Employee 22.0 Entrepreneur 18.9 Researcher 10.2 Students looking for their first jobs 4.7 Professor 3.9 Manager 2.4 Worker 1.6 Other 3.1 Total 100.0 Source: own elaboration of survey data. Table 7. Business motivation: differences between youth and non-youth innovative startups Youth startups No-youth startups Total To give value to know-how acquired during professional career 19.1 36.3 29.9 To give value to know-how acquired during education 23.4 25.0 24.4 Potential for knowledge-of- the-market based opportunities 10.6 13.8 12.6 Financial and personal ambition 19.1 7.5 11.8 Dissatisfaction with previous job 10.6 3.8 6.3 Potential to act as supplier to previous occupation firm 2.1 5.0 3.9 Potential to take advantage of subsidies and incentives 4.3 3.8 3.9 Need to find employment 0.0 2.5 1.6 Other 10.6 2.5 5.5 Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 40 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: own elaboration of survey data. Table 8. Entrepreneurial spirit development environment Total Social relationships 37.0 Family 16.5 Coworking 11.8 University: post-graduate studies 7.1 University: ventures with research and professors 7.1 University: educational labs 3.9 Higher secondary school 1.6 Other 15.0 Total 100.0 Source: own elaboration of survey data. Table 9. Startup internationalization Total International relationships Yes 66.1 No 33.9 Total 100.0 Type of international relationship* Project development 35.4 Sale of goods/services 32.3 Partnerships 26.0 Fairs 15.0 Goods/services purchase 11.0 * The total is over 100% because the question was multiple choice. Source: own elaboration of survey data. Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 41 Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 42 Map Appendix Map A1. Startup distribution in Rome (all 127 cases) Source: own elaboration of survey data. Maps A2. Startup distribution in Rome (class birth year: age <35 “blue”, >35 “green”) Source: own elaboration of survey data. Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 43 Maps A3. Startup distribution in Rome (class birth year: age<24 “Red Fox”, >24<35 “blue”, >35 “green”) Source: own elaboration of survey data. Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 44 References Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. New York: Crown Business. Audretsch, D. B. (2003). Innovation and Spatial Externalities. International Regional Science Review 26(2), 167–74. doi:10.1177/0160017602250973. Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy 28(4), 397–422. Bianchini, M., Menichinelli, M., Maffei, S., Bombardi, F., & Carosi, A. (2015). Makers’ Inquiry. Un’indagine socioeconomica sui makers italiani e su Make in Italy, Milano: Libraccio Editore, retrieved from http://makersinquiry.org/. Birley, S. (1986). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 107–117. Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331. Ehrenhalt, A. (2012). The Great Inversion and the Future of the American City. Knopf. Feld, B. (2012). Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in your City. John Wiley & Sons. Feldman, M. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (1999). Innovation in Cities: Science- Based Diversity, Specialization and Localized Competition. European Economic Review 43, 409–29. Feldman, M. P., & Richard F. (1994). The Geographic Sources of Innovation: Technological Infrastructure and Product Innovation in the United States. Annals of the Association American Geographers 84(2), 210–229. Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 45 Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. Florida, R. (2005). The World Is Spiky. The Atlantic, October. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/images/issues/200510/world-is- spiky.pdf. Florida, R. (2006). Where the Brains Are. The Atlantic Monthly, October. Florida, R. (2012a). The Rise of the Creative Class - Revisited: 10th Anniversary Edition - Revised and Expanded. Second Edition. New York: Basic Books. Florida, R. (2012b). The Joys of Urban Tech. The Wall Street Journal. August 31.http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100008723963904449149045776194 4 1778073340. Florida, R. (2013). The Connection Between Venture Capital and Diverse, Dense Communities. CityLab. July 9. http://www.citylab.com/work/2013/07/connection-between-venture- capital- and-diverse-dense-communities/5444/. Florida, R. (2014). Startup City: The Urban Shift in Venture Capital and High Technology. Toronto, ON: Martin Prosperity Institute. http://martinprosperity.org/media/Startup-City.pdf. Florida, R., & Kenney M. (1988). Venture Capital-Financed Innovation and Technological Change in the USA. Research Policy 17(3), 119–37. Florida, R., & King, K. (2016). Spiky Venture Capital: The Geography of Venture Capital Investment by Metro and Zip Code. Martin Prosperity Institute. http://martinprosperity.org/content/spiky-venture- capital. Florida, R., & Mellander, C. (2016). Rise of the Startup City: The Changing Geography of Venture Capital Financed Innovation. California Management Review, 59(1), 14–38. Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 46 Frey W. H. (2012). Demographic Reversal: Cities Thrive, Suburbs Sputter, The Brookings Institution, June 29. http://www.brook- ings.edu/research/opinions/2012/06/29-cities-suburbs-frey Frey W. H. (2014). Will This Be the Decade of Big City Growth? The Brookings Institution, May 23. http://www.brook- ings.edu/research/opinions/2014/05/23-decade-of-big-city-growth-frey. Gershenfeld, N. (2012). How to make almost anything. The digital fabrication revolution. Foreign Affairs, retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2012-09-27/how-make-almost- anything. Glaeser E. L. (2007). Entrepreneurship and the City. NBER Working Paper No. 13551. Glaeser E. L., & Resseger, M. G. (2010). The Complementarity between Cities and Skills. Journal of Regional Science, 50(1), 221-244. Glaeser, E. L. (1999). Learning in Cities. Journal of Urban Economics 46(2), 254–77. Glaeser, E. L. (2000). The New Economics of Urban and Regional Growth. In G. Clark, M. Gertler, & M. Feldman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Glaeser, E. L. (2001). Consumer City. Journal of Economic Geography 1(1), 27–50. Gries, T., & aud , W. (2009). Entrepreneurship and regional economic growth: towards a general theory of start-ups. Innovation–The European Journal of Social Science Research, 22(3), 309–328. Guzman, J., & Stern, S. (2016). The State of American Entrepreneurship: New Estimates of the Quality of Entrepreneurship for 15 US States, 1988- 2014. NBER Working Paper No. 22095. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22095. Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 47 Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House Digital, Inc. Jacobs, J. (1970). The Economy of Cities. New York, NY: Vintage. Kotkin, J. (1997). Escape From Nerdistan: Artistic Types Run With the Geeks in the New Centers of Multimedia. The Washington Post (1974-Current File), September 14, sec. Outlook. http://search.proquest.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/14446 32370/abstract?accountid=14771. Kotkin, J. (2000). The New Geography: How the Digital Revolution Is Reshaping the American Landscape. New York: Random House. Marshall, A. (1891). Principles of Economics. Macmillan and Company. Menichinelli, M., Ranellucci, A. (2014). Censimento dei Laboratori di Fabricazione Digitale in Italia, 2014. Minniti, M. (2005). Entrepreneurship and network externalities, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 57, 1–27. Porter, M. (1996). Competitive Advantage, Agglomeration Economies, and Regional Policy. International Regional Science Review 19(1), 85–94. Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review. http://www.alanausterman.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/12/Clusters-The-New-Economics-of-Competition- Michael-Porter.pdf. Porter, M. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York, NY: Free Press. Tech R. P. G., Ferdinand J. & Dopfer M. (2016). Open source hardware startups and their communities. The case of 3d printing. In J. Ferdinand, U. Petschow, & Scattoni, Lombardi, Pini, Turi – Innovative startup localization determinants and origin: A Rome city case study IJPP – Italian Journal of Planning Practice Vol. IX, issue 1 – 2019 48 S. Dickel (Eds.), The Decentralized and Networked Future of Value Creation, Berlin: Springer. Troxler, P., Schweikert, S. (2010). Developing a Business Model for Concurrent Enterprising at the Fab Lab, IEEE, International Technology Management Conference, pp. 1–8. Vittoria, M. P., & Napolitano P. (2017), Le comunità informali per la città contemporanea. I Fab Lab come occasione di learning e di lavoro partecipativo. L’industria-Rivista di Economia e Politica Industriale, (1), 75–96. Vittoria, . ., ubrano, avad ra . (2014). Knowledge networks and dynamic capabilities as the new regional policy milieu. A social network analysis of the Campania biotechnology community in southern Italy, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 26, 594–618. Vivas, C., & Barge-Gil, A. (2015). Impact on firms of the use of knowledge external sources: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29, 943–964. Wach, K. (2008). Impact of the Regional Business Environment on the Development of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Southern Poland. In Cracow University of Economics Conference Proceedings. West J., & Lakhani K. R. (2008), Getting clear about communities in open innovation, Industry and Innovation, 15, 223–231.