ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK 2023 63 1 0101661851779 ISSN 1581-6613 A C TA G E O G R A P H IC A S LO V E N IC A • G E O G R A FS K I Z B O R N IK • 63 -1 • 20 23ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 63-1 • 2023 Contents Gordana Jovanović The North Atlantic Oscillation influence on the Debeli Namet Glacier 7 Maja Godina GoliJa Radically local supply chains through territorial brands: Insights from the 100% Local project 23 daniela nicolaie, elena Matei, timothy John cooley, iuliana viJulie, david cushinG, Marius nicolae truțescu National geniuses’ heritage as potential for the development of cultural tourism in Romania 35 sara Zupan, elena BuŽan, tatjana Čelik, Gregor kovaČiČ, Jure JuGovic, Martina luŽnik Fire and flood occurrence in the habitats of the endangered butterfly Coenonympha oedippus in Slovenia 55 eristian WiBisono Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed regions of the European Union: A systematic literature review 73 tim GreGorČiČ, andrej roZMan, Blaž repe Predicting the potential ecological niche distribution of Slovenian forests under climate change using MaxEnt modelling 89 petra GostinČar, uroš stepišnik Extent and spatial distribution of karst in Slovenia 111 naslovnica 63-1_naslovnica 49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:25 Page 1 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKIZBORNIK 2023 63 1 0101661851779 ISSN 1581-6613 A C TA G E O G R A P H IC A S LO V E N IC A • G E O G R A FS K I Z B O R N IK • 63 -1 • 20 23ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA GEOGRAFSKI ZBORNIK 63-1 • 2023 Contents Gordana Jovanović The North Atlantic Oscillation influence on the Debeli Namet Glacier 7 Maja Godina GoliJa Radically local supply chains through territorial brands: Insights from the 100% Local project 23 daniela nicolaie, elena Matei, timothy John cooley, iuliana viJulie, david cushinG, Marius nicolae truțescu National geniuses’ heritage as potential for the development of cultural tourism in Romania 35 sara Zupan, elena BuŽan, tatjana Čelik, Gregor kovaČiČ, Jure JuGovic, Martina luŽnik Fire and flood occurrence in the habitats of the endangered butterfly Coenonympha oedippus in Slovenia 55 eristian WiBisono Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed regions of the European Union: A systematic literature review 73 tim GreGorČiČ, andrej roZMan, Blaž repe Predicting the potential ecological niche distribution of Slovenian forests under climate change using MaxEnt modelling 89 petra GostinČar, uroš stepišnik Extent and spatial distribution of karst in Slovenia 111 naslovnica 63-1_naslovnica 49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:25 Page 1 ACTA GEOGRAPHICA SLOVENICA 63-1 2023 ISSN: 1581-6613 UDC: 91 2023, ZRC SAZU, Geografski inštitut Antona Melika International editorial board/mednarodni uredniški odbor: Zoltán Bátori (Hungary), David Bole (Slovenia), Marco Bontje (the Netherlands), Mateja Breg Valjavec (Slovenia), Michael Bründl (Switzerland), Rok Ciglič (Slovenia), Špela Čonč (Slovenia), Lóránt Dénes Dávid (Hungary), Mateja Ferk (Slovenia), Matej Gabrovec (Slovenia), Matjaž Geršič (Slovenia), Maruša Goluža (Slovenia), Mauro Hrvatin (Slovenia), Ioan Ianos (Romania), Peter Jordan (Austria), Drago Kladnik (Slovenia), Blaž Komac (Slovenia), Jani Kozina (Slovenia), Matej Lipar (Slovenia), Dénes Lóczy (Hungary), Simon McCarthy (United Kingdom), Slobodan B. Marković (Serbia), Janez Nared (Slovenia), Cecilia Pasquinelli (Italy), Drago Perko (Slovenia), Florentina Popescu (Romania), Garri Raagmaa (Estonia), Ivan Radevski (North Macedonia), Marjan Ravbar (Slovenia), Aleš Smrekar (Slovenia), Vanya Stamenova (Bulgaria), Annett Steinführer (Germany), Mateja Šmid Hribar (Slovenia), Jure Tičar (Slovenia), Jernej Tiran (Slovenia), Radislav Tošić (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Mimi Urbanc (Slovenia), Matija Zorn (Slovenia), Zbigniew Zwolinski (Poland) Editors-in-Chief/glavna urednika: Rok Ciglič, Blaž Komac (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Executive editor/odgovorni urednik: Drago Perko (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Chief editors/področni urednik (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia): • physical geography/fizična geografija: Mateja Ferk, Matej Lipar, Matija Zorn • human geography/humana geografija: Jani Kozina, Mateja Šmid Hribar, Mimi Urbanc • regional geography/regionalna geografija: Matej Gabrovec, Matjaž Geršič, Mauro Hrvatin • regional planning/regionalno planiranje: David Bole, Janez Nared, Maruša Goluža • environmental protection/varstvo okolja: Mateja Breg Valjavec, Jernej Tiran, Aleš Smrekar Editorial assistants/uredniška pomočnika: Špela Čonč, Jernej Tiran (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Journal editorial system manager/upravnik uredniškega sistema revije: Jure Tičar (ZRC SAZU, Slovenia) Issued by/izdajatelj: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Published by/založnik: Založba ZRC Co-published by/sozaložnik: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Address/naslov: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU, Gosposka ulica 13, p. p. 306, SI – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija; ags@zrc-sazu.si The articles are available on-line/prispevki so dostopni na medmrežju: http://ags.zrc-sazu.si (ISSN: 1581–8314) This work is licensed under the/delo je dostopno pod pogoji: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Ordering/naročanje: Založba ZRC, Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI – 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija; zalozba@zrc-sazu.si Annual subscription/letna naročnina: 20 € for individuals/za posameznika, 28 € for institutions/za ustanove Single issue/cena posamezne številke: 12,50 € for individuals/za posameznika, 16 € for institutions/za ustanove Cartography/kartografija: Geografski inštitut Antona Melika ZRC SAZU Translations/prevodi: DEKS, d. o. o. DTP/prelom: SYNCOMP, d. o. o. Printed by/tiskarna: Present, d. o. o. Print run/naklada: 300 copies/izvodov The journal is subsidized by the Slovenian Research Agency and is issued in the framework of the Geography of Slovenia core research pro- gramme (P6-0101)/Revija izhaja s podporo Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije in nastaja v okviru raziskovalnega programa Geografija Slovenije (P6-0101). The journal is indexed also in/revija je vključena tudi v: Clarivate Web of Science (SCIE – Science Citation Index Expanded; JCR – Journal Citation Report/Science Edition), Scopus, ERIH PLUS, GEOBASE Journals, Current geographical publications, EBSCOhost, Georef, FRANCIS, SJR (SCImago Journal & Country Rank), OCLC WorldCat, Google Scholar, CrossRef, and DOAJ. Design by/Oblikovanje: Matjaž Vipotnik Front cover photography: After a major storm, the carbonate Nullarbor Plain was flooded due to its impermeable layer of clay (photograph: Matej Lipar). Fotografija na naslovnici: Po močnejši nevihti je bila sicer karbonatna ravnina Nullarbor poplavljena zaradi nepropustne plasti gline (fotografija: Matej Lipar). 63-1-uvod_uvod49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:22 Page 4 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023, 73–87 ENCOURAGING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COLLABORATION AMIDST GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGES IN LESS DEVELOPED REGIONS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW Eristian Wibisono Pécs, capital of Southern Transdanubia, Hungary, is one of the European Capital of Culture cities and UNESCO Global Learning City. A region characterized by less developed industry, research and development, and innovation. E r iS T ia n W iB iS o n o 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 73 Eristian Wibisono, Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed … 74 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.10934 UDC: 910(4-773) Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Eristian Wibisono1 Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed regions of the European Union: A systematic literature review ABSTRACT: This study explores the growing literature on research and development (R&D) collabora- tion in the context of less developed regions (LDRs) in the European Union (EU) and examines the opportunities for LDRs to successfully collaborate with developed regions. A systematic review of the lit- erature shows that studies on R&D collaboration in LDRs are at the forefront of regional innovation research in the EU and that opportunities to explore this research topic are still wide open. A critical review and synthesis of the selected articles shows that LDRs have equal opportunities to collaborate and build suc- cessful relationships with developed regions by paying attention to at least five motivational drivers and critical factors to enhance the success of their R&D collaborations. KEY WORDS: R&D collaboration, geographical challenges, less developed regions, European Union, sys- tematic literature review, motivational drivers, critical factors Spodbujanje sodelovanja na področju raziskav in razvoja v manj razvitih regijah Evropske unije, ki se spopadajo z geografskimi izzivi: sistematični pregled literature POVZETEK: Avtor v članku proučuje rastočo literaturo o sodelovanju na področju raziskav in razvoja v manj razvitih regijah Evropske unije ter možnosti njihovega uspešnega sodelovanja z razvitimi regijami. Na podlagi sistematičnega pregleda literature ugotavlja, da so raziskave o tovrstnem sodelovanju v ospredju proučevanja regionalnih inovacij v Evropski uniji in da je prostora za nadaljnje raziskave na tem področju še veliko. Kritični pregled in sinteza izsledkov izbranih člankov kažeta, da imajo vse manj razvite regije enake možnosti za sodelovanje in vzpostavljanje uspešnih odnosov z razvitimi regijami, če upoštevajo vsaj pet motivacijskih gonil in ključnih dejavnikov, ki lahko izboljšajo uspešnost njihovega sodelovanja na področju raziskav in razvoja. KLJUČNE BESEDE: sodelovanje na področju raziskav in razvoja, geografski izzivi, manj razvite regije, Evropska unija, sistematični pregled literature, motivacijska gonila, ključni dejavniki The article was submitted for publication on 5th of July, 2022. Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 5. julija 2022. 1 University of Pécs, Faculty of Business and Economics, Pécs, Hungary wibisono.tian@gmail.com (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2645-580X) 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 74 1 Introduction Compared to more developed regions, less developed regions (LDRs) face more challenges in scaling up their innovation, especially when it comes to their geographical location, e.g. due to their peripheral loca- tion (Grillitsch and Nilsson 2015; Amoroso, Coad and Grassano 2018) or sparsely populated areas (Dubois, Kristensen and Teräs 2017; Sörvik et al. 2019). To increase the intensity of knowledge spillovers and research and development (R&D) investments from more advanced neighbors (Caragliu and Nijkamp 2016; Lavoratori, Mariotti and Piscitello 2020), collaboration is one of the key drivers of innovation in LDRs (Tödtling, Lehner and Kaufmann 2009; Capello and Cerisola 2021). Unfortunately, even though the European Union (EU) has launched flagship programs based on research and innovation to reduce the development gap in Europe, such as the EU Framework Program (Cecere and Corrocher 2015; Proskuryakova, Meissner and Rudnik 2017; Ulnicane 2022) or the Smart Specialization place-based innovation policy strategy (McCann and Ortega-Argilés 2014; Hassink and Gong 2019), many studies show gaps in collaboration patterns between regions. This is because the selection of collaboration partners based on similarity or proximity between partners is still an influential factor for project applicants (Schwartz et al. 2012; Capone and Lazzeretti 2018). The related literature continues to grow, although it is still segmented by field and expertise. Studies by Filippopoulos and Fotopoulos (2022) and Neuländtner (2020), which examine constraints to innova- tion collaboration due to geographic barriers in disadvantaged regions of Europe, suggest that creating and increasing the intensity of collaborative networks can increase opportunities for collaboration and inno- vation. Lalrindiki and O’Gorman (2021) highlight the important role of non-spatial proximity in substituting for the effects of spatial proximity. Badillo and Moreno (2018) highlight the importance of the capacity to absorb external knowledge and experience in collaborations between non-contiguous regions. Barzotto et al. (2019) highlight that specific motivations for collaboration are essential to distinguish LDRs from other types of regions. The results of this study suggest that even with significant geographic con- straints, LDRs can successfully collaborate with more developed regions if they have the relevant motivation and the keys to success that support the motivation. However, understanding different cases in different regions, despite the same regional context, is quite challenging. Therefore, a systematic under- standing and representation is needed to make these conditions easy to understand so that these problems can be overcome. This study aims to fill the gap in the literature that has yet to explore the development and present the systematic results of studies related to the geographical challenges of R&D collaboration in the LDRs of the EU. The study also addresses relevant research questions related to how LDRs can develop R&D col- laboration amidst the geographical challenges they face, the most pertinent motivations that can drive collaboration, and the critical factors that can support these motivations to increase the chances and suc- cess of collaboration. A systematic literature review approach was used to investigate all these questions. The remaining part of the paper is organized as follows. The second section outlines the methodological procedures used to systematically conduct the literature review. The third section outlines the research findings based on the selected articles, which consist of a systematic distribution, critical reviews, and pre- sents the motivations and critical points for improving R&D collaboration in LDRs. The fourth section concludes the study. 2 Material and methods This study builds on the methodological approach recently conducted by Wibisono (2022) and Razpotnik Visković and Logar (2022), who conducted a systematic literature review and applied a three-step proto- col in conducting the study, including 1) an initial scoping search; 2) searching, finding, and retrieving articles; and 3) conducting a systematic review. The first protocol began with an initial scoping process based on the research objectives or questions. The initial scoping process referred to the PICOC concept (Roehrs et al. 2017; Mengist, Soromessa and Legese 2020). The population (P) of this study focused on LDRs in EU member states. The intervention (I) was conducted on articles relevant to the research question, highlighting the critical findings of the stud- ies. The comparative factor (C) is represented by the synthesis of articles addressing the issue of R&D collaboration in LDRs and what factors can foster R&D collaboration in LDRs. The outcome of this study (O) Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 75 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 75 Eristian Wibisono, Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed … 76 is expected to provide insights on how to address the geographical challenges related to R&D collabora- tion in the EU context (C). The second protocol searches and retrieves literature from the Web of Science database. The keywords used in the database search were ‘geograph*; collaborati*; network*; region*; innovati*; europ*’. An aster- isk next to each keyword indicates that the exact spelling of the word was included in the search, e.g., geography, geographical; collaboration, collaborative; network, network; region, region, regional; inno- vation, innovative; Europe, European. Several other restrictions were also applied (as inclusion factors), including topic limitations, language (English), document type (article), publication year (2015–2022), and Web of Science category/field (economics, geography, management, business, urban and regional plan- ning). In terms of keywords and their relation to the research objectives, I did not use the terms ‘challenge’ in relation to ‘geography or ‘less developed’ in relation to ‘region’ in the search process. The aim was to find as much literature as possible on R&D collaboration in the EU region. In addition to the broad mean- ing of the term ‘challenge’, ‘less developed’ is not yet a standardized term to describe specific regions in the EU. Other terms such as ‘peripheral regions’, ‘sparsely populated areas’ and ‘lagging regions’ are often used in the literature on the same research topic. The initial scoping process with these details resulted in 34 potentially relevant articles. The screen- ing process was then continued by matching the attributes of the articles (especially the titles and abstracts) with the research questions/objectives. When reading the titles and abstracts, besides referring to the research objectives, to find the most eligible or highly relevant articles, attention was also paid to the content of articles related to ‘geographical challenges’ and ‘less developed regions’. Of the 34 articles, 23 had a broad focus and were not explicitly related to the research objectives (despite having one or more S cr ee n in g E li g ib il it y In cl u d ed Id en ti fi ca ti o n Records identified through database searching (n = )→ 34 Additional records identified through other sources (n = )-→ Records selected (n = )34→ Records after (n = )duplicates -→ Records screened: number of papers (n = ) highly relevant 11→ Records excluded (n = )23 → Records identified through additional search techniques (n = )-→ Full text of papers assessed for eligibility (n = )highly relevant 11→ Studies included for synthesis (n = )11→ Figure 1: PRISMA diagram. 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 76 combinations of the search terms). The articles generally addressed, for example, the relationship between innovation and economic growth or regional governance, university-industry collaboration (UIC), the evo- lution of regional innovation, critical resources of regional innovation, and comparative studies of Europe with other regions or countries (Asia and Africa). After excluding these irrelevant articles, only the remain- ing 11 eligible articles were considered for inclusion and synthesis in this study. The PRISMA diagram (de Barcelos Silva et al. 2020; Page et al. 2021; Bejjani, Göcke and Menter 2023) in Figure 1 summarizes the article search and selection process. The third protocol consists of a systematic review of the eleven selected articles. This set of articles will first be analyzed descriptively to see the characteristics, patterns, distribution of the articles, the specific focus of each article, including the journal that published it, the quality of the journal, and the scientific field or subject category of the journal. The next step was to analyze the content of the eleven selected articles accord- ing to the research objectives. This stage is the essential part of the study, which presents the critical findings of the selected articles and synthesizes them in such a way as to achieve the research objectives. The three research protocols are presented in Figure 2. 3 Systematic literature review 3.1 Systematic distribution of selected articles This subsection shows the systematic distribution of the selected articles. The articles are grouped by year of publication, journal and publisher, and journal topic category. Table 1 shows that from 2017 onwards, despite the initial scope limitation for 2015-2022, studies specifically addressing R&D collaboration as part of region- al innovation have been published in leading journals. In 2017, two authors wrote on this topic. In 2018, studies related to this research objective were published in four articles, the most compared to previous years. In 2019, two articles were published. In the following three years, one article was published each year. Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 77 First protocol Second protocol Third protocol • Conducting a systematic review of the selected articles. • Searching and retrieving literature from the database. • Initial scoping based on research objectives. Figure 2: The research protocol. Table 1: List of selected literature. No. Year of Publication No. of Articles Authors 1 2017 2 Berge (2017), Marek et al. (2017) 2 2018 4 Amoroso, Coad and Grassano (2018), Badillo and Moreno (2018), De Noni, Orsi and Belussi (2018), Lata, von Proff and Brenner (2018) 3 2019 2 Barzotto et al. (2019), Miguelez (2019) 4 2020 1 Neuländtner and Scherngell (2020) 5 2021 1 Lalrindiki and O’Gorman (2021) 6 2022 1 Filippopoulos and Fotopoulos (2022) 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 77 Eristian Wibisono, Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed … 78 Table 2: Sources of publications. No. Publication Source & Publisher No. of Articles Quartile (SJR 2022) 1 Annals of Regional Science – Springer Verlag 3 Q2 – Social Sciences 2 Economics of Innovation and New Technology – Routledge 1 Q1 – Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 Papers in Regional Science – Wiley-Blackwell 1 Q1 – Geography, Planning and Development 4 Regional Studies – Routledge 1 Q1 – Social Sciences 5 Research Policy – Elsevier B.V. 2 Q1 – Management of Technology and Innovation 6 Technovation – Elsevier Ltd. 1 Q1 – Management of Technology and Innovation 7 Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society – 1 Q1 – Geography, Planning and Development Oxford University Press 8 Triple Helix – Brill Academic Publishers 1 Q2 – Economics, Econometrics and Finance Table 2 shows the distribution of articles by journal and publisher and the quality or quartile (Scimago Journal Rank) of the journal. Three articles were published in Annals of Regional Science – Springer Verlag, followed by Research Policy – Elsevier B.V. with two articles, and the remaining six were published in different jour- nals. From this distribution, the selected articles were published in journals of high quality or the top quartile. Of the eleven articles selected, seven (64%) were published in top-quartile (Q1) journals. This indi- cates that research on R&D collaboration is at the forefront of regional innovation studies. However, there are still many opportunities for research on this topic. While other research on innovation has increased and found that collaboration is crucial for innovation, research specifically addressing R&D collaboration and its interaction with factors such as spatial and non-spatial proximity and knowledge networks still needs to be improved, especially in the context of the LDRs of the EU. Such studies, published in leading jour- nals, provide ample opportunities for future researchers to further explore how R&D collaboration can foster regional innovation in LDRs of the EU. Looking at Figure 3, the articles are distributed across several subject categories of the journal, name- ly: Social Sciences (37%), Technology and Innovation Management (27%), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (18%), and Geography, Planning and Development (18%). This chart may help guide future research in finding studies relevant to R&D collaboration in the context of LDRs of the EU. 3 (27%) 2 18%)( 2 18%)( 4 (37%) Management of Technology and Innovation Economics, Econometrics and Finance Geography, Planning and Development Social Sciences Figure 3: Journal subject categories. 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 78 3.2 Critical findings of selected articles This subsection critically reviews the main content of the selected articles. The articles are divided into two groups (Figure 4). It should be noted that the second group of articles does not explicitly consider the type of region (in this case, LDR) as the first group of articles does. However, as the geographical chal- lenges in the second group of articles are also discussed in the context of R&D collaboration for innovation at the regional level, it can be assumed that LDRs also face similar challenges. Filippopoulos and Fotopoulos (2022) addressed the issue of differences in innovation performance between developed and LDRs in 183 NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) 2 regions in the EU. The study applied the Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (FsQCA) method to address methodological gaps in innovation studies that are difficult to address using econometric approaches. The critical findings of this study show that LDRs are characterized by public R&D-driven innovation mech- anisms and actively participate in collaborative R&D networks with more developed regions. However, LDRs are also characterized by innovation at a more superficial technological level, which is one of the reasons why these regions have low patent production. Not to mention that they also lack knowledge spillovers from neighboring regions due to unfavorable geographical conditions. In line with this, Barzotto et al. (2019) show that collaboration between LDRs and developed regions, while motivated by technological upgrading, is not essentially driven by technological proximity. This con- dition causes more developed regions to benefit less from technology upgrading when they collaborate with LDR, which becomes a challenge for LDR to attract them into collaboration. In the context of smart specialization, Barzotto et al. (2019) emphasize that technological proximity should not be the primary goal of collaboration for LDRs, but rather other strategic or public policy goals, such as collaboration in the entrepreneurial discovery process (EDP), which allows LDRs to involve stakeholders or other part- ners from more developed regions. In the context of research networks in the EU Framework Program, Amoroso, Coad and Grassano (2018) point to the spatial clustering of knowledge networks, which creates an imbalance between devel- oped regions and LDRs. The geographical barriers and limited capacity of R&D resources in LDRs contribute to low technology absorption in the region. Meanwhile, collaboration is easier for developed regions because they are more flexible in choosing collaboration partners with a background of proximity or similar inno- vation characteristics. Even after considering all geographic and non-geographic proximity factors, geographic distance remains an essential consideration for collaboration in developed regions. Not sur- prisingly, the intensity of collaboration in LDRs is low. To foster innovation in LDRs, De Noni, Orsi and Belussi (2018) highlight the importance of strength- ening organizational and institutional capacities to generate collaborative networks. Analyzing a seven-year dataset of 205 EU regions shows that collaborative R&D networks in LDRs can be fostered by continuously Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 79 • : Amoroso et al. (2018), De Noni et al. (2018), Barzotto et al. (2019), Filippopoulos and Fotopoulos (2022) Four articles • : Berge (2017), Marek et al. (2017), Badillo and Moreno (2018), Lata et al. (2018), Miguelez (2019), Neuländtner (2020), Lalrindiki and O’Gorman (2021) Seven articles 2. Articles focusing on geographical challenges in enhancing R&D collaboration for innovation 1. Articles focusing on R&D collaboration in LDRs of the EU Figure 4: Grouping of articles by study focus. 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 79 Eristian Wibisono, Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed … creating and strengthening links between LDRs and other regions with broader knowledge by improving their organizational and institutional capacity. In absorbing external knowledge, LDRs should involve key innovation actors as one of the stakeholders, such as inventors or senior researchers. The combination of these factors has the potential to create a solid internal knowledge network that can attract developed regions to collaborate with LDRs. Regarding geographic constraints, Lalrindiki and O’Gorman (2021) examined the interaction and inter- dependence of non-geographic factors in the collaboration of triple helix actors in non-contiguous European regions. They recommended an interregional innovation system (iRIS) framework that integrates vari- ous non-geographic proximity factors to foster collaboration. The interdependence of non-geographic proximity, such as cognitive proximity and social proximity, tends to increase the effectiveness of iRIS through a process of openness to learning and knowledge sharing based on mutual trust, understanding, respect, and intensive communication between partners. Meanwhile, organizational proximity can enhance col- laboration by improving organizations’ management quality and leadership spirit. It has much to do with the planning, structuring, and distributing of tasks in collaborative projects. On the same issue, Badillo and Moreno (2018) proved the positive significance of domestic-interna- tional collaborative alliances of Spanish firms. Innovation collaborations with high-tech global firms in the United States (US), India, and China significantly impact the technological change of Spanish domes- tic firms. The most significant impact is due to innovation collaborations with the US. Meanwhile, the results of collaborations with India and China, although less significant than those with the US, are still more impactful than collaborations with domestic firms or other EU members. In these collaborations, domestic firms are highly motivated to absorb external knowledge and technology effectively and efficiently from partner firms. The results of this study highlight the importance of enhancing the absorptive capac- ity of local partners to achieve optimal impact from innovation collaborations, especially if they have to cross geographically distant boundaries. With respect to smaller firms, such as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), Marek et al. (2017) investigated the interaction of spatial and proximity factors in German National Collaboration Program projects from 2006 to 2012 that heavily involved the private sector. The unique finding of this study is that the impact of geographic and organizational proximity on collaboration forms an inverted U-curve or has a negative direction at saturation or a certain threshold. Organizational proximity cannot simply replace geographic proximity, but the two are interdependent. Similarly, cognitive proximity cannot directly replace geographic proximity, but the link between them can potentially strengthen collaboration. Organizational proximity and cognitive proximity in interregional collaboration in Germany require a high level of knowl- edge absorption by collaborating firms, which is one of the keys to the success of this program. Geographic distance is still a serious problem in patent collaboration in Europe. Lata, von Proff and Brenner (2018) point this out in their study and compare it with the US. While in the US distance between locations can weaken collaboration, in Europe this geographic distance is more related to language and national borders. In this respect, R&D collaboration in Europe is still possible for short to medium dis- tances, such as a maximum of 300 km. Beyond this distance, collaboration opportunities are further reduced, especially when language and national borders are already dominant constraints. In Europe, cognitive prox- imity is more conducive to collaboration as R&D and innovation policies grow from mature knowledge (Tödtling and Trippl 2005; Ranga and Etzkowitz 2013). The challenge, however, is how cognitive prox- imity can counteract the negative effects of geographic proximity. Miguelez (2019) explores collaboration and social proximity among inventors from different regions who share the commonality of having previously worked in the same field and location. The study uses microdata of biotechnology inventors from the European Patent Office (EPO) from 1978 to 2005. Assuming that these social relationships are long-lasting, the results of the conditional fixed effects logit model esti- mation suggest that such relationships can accelerate the formation of collaborative relationships in their current spatial context and give rise to joint patents. The positive effect of past co-location factors is even more significant when the spatial distance between regions becomes larger (e.g., at the NUTS 2 regional level) or when knowledge workers have crossed national borders. Indeed, there will be higher transaction costs when there are cultural and organizational differences in extra-regional or international collabora- tions to make these collaborations happen. However, the social relationships that have developed between them in the past are expected to overcome these barriers. 80 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 80 Berge (2017) investigated the impact of R&D collaboration networks in overcoming geographical bar- riers in five major EU countries (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom). The main idea of the study is that network connectivity can compensate for increased geographical distance in R&D col- laboration. Using gravity and Poisson regression modeling of 17,292 regionally paired chemical science co-publication data (as a measure of network proximity between regions) from 132 NUTS 2 regions in 2001–2005, the results of his study show that network proximity can increase as geographical distance increas- es, both in the sense of physical space and through the influence of national borders. This finding suggests that interregional collaboration remains possible over large distances by creating network connectivity or increasing network proximity between potential collaboration partners. Neuländtner (2020) combines the two dimensions of geographic and technological proximity and col- laborative networks in a unified model. A dataset of 505 EU metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions that have received EU Framework Program projects was grouped by Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) into six interregional R&D networks. By analyzing a negative binomial spatial interaction modeling approach, the results show that geographical barriers of distance and borders are still a significant challenge in build- ing collaborative networks and that the negative effect of national borders on collaboration by the KET group in the EU is profound, even though the EU Framework Program is designed to minimize such risks (Koschatzky and Stahlecker 2010; Pandza, Wilkins and Alfoldi 2011; Arnold 2012; Varga and Sebestyén 2017). With respect to technology-motivated collaborations, the negative effects of geographic distance tend to drive nanotechnology collaborations, while the negative effects of national geographic boundaries tend to drive R&D collaborations in microelectronics and advanced materials technologies. On the other hand, network effects across regions enable collaboration in all technology groups regardless of geographical barriers. Regions with high network embeddedness are more likely to form collaborations, especially if they have sufficient network centrality. This study contributes to R&D policy advice for motivating region- al technological capacity building. The data configuration in this study shows that if geographical factors can cluster regional collaboration by specific technology groups, network effects open up collaboration for all regions across all technology categories. Therefore, regional innovation policies should be encour- aged to overcome geographical barriers by creating new knowledge networks. The creation of local knowledge networks can be fostered by cooperation between local R&D institutions and those with experience in extra- regional or international cooperation. 3.3 Motivational drivers and critical factors for successful R&D collaboration in LDRs of the EU This subsection is designed to answer the main research question of this study, i.e., how R&D collabora- tion can be realized in LDRs of the EU, given their geographical challenges, and what motivations and critical factors can support these motivations and enhance the success of LDR collaboration. Like other regions, LDRs have the necessary capital to develop their regions, although innovation is not necessarily a top devel- opment priority. To activate regional resources for innovation, LDRs are first encouraged to have internal knowledge networks supported by adequate organizational and institutional capacities (De Noni, Orsi and Belussi 2018). As a first step, LDRs need to build linkages with other more developed regions that are appro- priate to their resources. Furthermore, LDRs are expected to have the capacity to absorb diverse external knowledge and experience of more developed regions in managing innovation organizations and institu- tions as the main capital to create internal knowledge networks (Capello and Lenzi 2018; Trippl, Zukauskaite and Healy 2019; Marques and Morgan 2021; Wibisono 2022). The involvement of critical actors in innova- tion should also be encouraged to create interregional linkages (Gertler and Levitte 2005; Yoon and Park 2017). According to Barzotto et al. (2019), the main motivation for innovation collaboration in LDRs should not be technologically driven only, as is the case for collaboration between more developed regions. LDRs are still at a more basic technological stage, which may be less attractive for more advanced regions. Therefore, the motivations for LDR collaboration could be more strategic or for policy-making purposes. For exam- ple, regional domain specialization through the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP) is identified in the policy context of the Smart Specialization Strategy (S3). Collaboration in the context of smart specialization enables inter-organizational and inter-regional cooperation to improve the success of its implementation (Di Cataldo, Monastiriotis, and Rodríguez-Pose et al. 2020; Foray, Eichler and Keller 2021; Ghinoi et al. 2021). Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 81 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 81 MOTIVATIONAL DRIVERS Strategic/policy objectives Cognitive/technological proximity Organizational and institutional proximity Knowledge network proximity Social proximity CRITICAL FACTORS Creating a mutually beneficial relationship between collaborators Increasing regional absorptive capacity Leadership and management capabilities Strengthening network centrality Identify the social and professional relationships of innovation actors Figure 5: Motivational drivers and critical factors for R&D collaboration in the LDRs of the EU. However, it is important to consider that collaboration must also be mutually beneficial (Silva et al. 2021). Providing incentives to developed regions that may not be related to knowledge or innovation can encour- age them to consider collaborating with LDRs (Foray 2014; Uyarra 2019; Meyer, Gerlitz and Klein 2022). This description leads us to the first motivation for R&D collaboration in LDRs, which is driven by strategic or policy objectives. The critical factor is creating a mutually beneficial relationship between the collaboration partners. Technological similarity and cognitive proximity offer many advantages for collaboration, especially for those with geographical proximity (Lazzeretti, Capone and Cinti 2010; Bathelt and Henn 2014). As explained in the study by Marek et al. (2017), regional collaboration projects in Germany benefit from the geographical proximity of regions, coupled with their technological level and absorptive capacity. These factors are essential for planning the project schemes to be developed. In the case of LDR, this experience can be instructive. Given that, according to Lata, von Proff and Brenner (2018), collaboration is still pos- sible at short and medium distances (up to 300 km), LDRs that fit this category have a great opportunity to realize collaboration. Cognitive proximity can be fostered by increasing absorptive capacity when the initial connection is established (Badillo and Moreno 2018; De Noni, Orsi and Belussi 2018). If technol- ogy is a strong motivation for collaboration in LDRs, they should strongly consider absorptive capacity to attract more advanced neighboring regions to collaborate (Hellsmark et al. 2016; Meissner 2019; Tang et al. 2020). This description suggests a second motivation for R&D collaboration in LDRs that is driven by cognitive or technological proximity, and the critical factor is increased regional absorptive capacity. For geographically distant regions, organizational and institutional proximity further compensates for the barriers of geographic distance. Establishing initial links, strengthening organizations and institutions, and learning from the experiences of more advanced regions are essential processes in collaboration (Gertler and Levitte 2005; Ranga 2018; Lalrindiki and O’Gorman 2021). These processes create mutual trust and understanding between collaborative partners. For organizational and institutional proximity to be a fac- tor that can offset the negative effects of geographic distance, leaders of organizations in the region must have good leadership and management skills, as these skills will be very influential in planning, imple- menting, and developing the collaboration. The mutual trust and understanding created in the process will lead to openness and ease of communication. This description shows the third motivation for R&D collaboration in the LDR, which is driven by organizational and institutional proximity, and an impor- tant factor is leadership and management skills. The study by Neuländtner and Scherngell (2020) is one of the few empirical studies that combines sev- eral proximity factors and network effects in one analytical framework, which are analyzed separately in other studies (e.g., Cantner and Graf 2006; Allen, James and Gamlen 2007; Fritsch and Kauffeld-Monz 2010; Marrocu, Paci and Usai 2013). According to the results of these studies, cooperation in LDRs is likely to be 82 Eristian Wibisono, Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed … 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 82 83 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 successful when interregional networks are formed and various network effects occur, supported by a com- bination of proximity factors. Under these conditions, network centrality becomes crucial, as it will attract other regions to collaborate with LDRs. As Berge (2017) argues, network proximity is inversely propor- tional to geographic distance, implying that geographic barriers can be overcome by increasing network connectivity. The network proximity effect ultimately removes geographic distance when network prox- imity is optimal (Chen and Lin 2014; Janssen, Bogers and Wanzenböck 2020; Pires et al. 2020; Komlósi et al. 2022). This description suggests a fourth motivation for R&D collaboration in LDRs, driven by knowl- edge network proximity, and an important factor is to strengthen network centrality. The mobility of knowledge workers is important because the social interactions and relationships formed in the process will benefit the region in the future, even over long geographical distances. Long-term social interactions are also thought to create proximity and foster collaboration (Agrawal, Cockburn and McHale 2006; Torre 2008; Breschi and Lissoni 2009; Lavie, Kang and Rosenkopf 2011). Using a dataset spanning three decades, Miguelez (2019) provides evidence that innovation actors who have worked in the same field and location in the past have social ties, potentially opening up opportunities for future col- laboration. Certain less developed regions are likely to have at least some of these innovation actors. The challenge for the region is to find and identify them and explore opportunities for collaboration through this social proximity. As suggested by Lalrindiki and O’Gorman (2021), social proximity is related to cog- nitive proximity, which assumes that social relationships can open up opportunities for knowledge exchanges. This description suggests a fifth motivation for R&D collaboration in LDRs driven by social proximity, and a critical factor is the identification of past social interactions and relationships of innovation actors. Five motivational drivers and critical factors for R&D collaboration in the LDRs of the EU are pre- sented in Figure 5. 4 Conclusion This study aims to fill the literature gap on R&D collaboration for innovation in the context of a less devel- oped region of the EU characterized by geographical challenges. The exploration and investigation of relevant literature through the systematic literature review protocol shows that this topic is developing and is at the forefront of the EU innovation studies. On the other hand, the limited research on this topic opens opportunities for future research to explore further. The critical review of the selected articles reveals two crucial emphases. First, if LDRs are to establish successful collaborative relationships with developed regions, three things need to be prioritized, namely, openness to external knowledge that can be used to enhance regional innovation, the ability to absorb knowledge and experience from partner regions, and the abili- ty to identify critical actors to engage in collaboration for innovation. Second, five motivational drivers need to be reinforced by five critical factors to improve the success of LDR collaboration with developed regions, namely, collaboration motivated by strategic and public policy objectives needs to be supported by mutually beneficial relationships between partners, collaboration motivated by cognitive proximity needs to be strengthened by knowledge absorption capabilities and capacity, collaboration motivated by insti- tutional proximity needs to be supported by leadership and organizational management capabilities, collaboration motivated by knowledge network proximity requires strengthening the centrality of knowl- edge networks, and collaboration motivated by social proximity can be focused on past relationships between innovation actors. This study is expected to have practical and academic implications for the implementation of inno- vation policy through R&D collaboration between LDRs and developed regions, by considering the challenges and factors supporting its success and encouraging future studies focusing on innovation development in LDRs of the EU. Given the limited current literature explicitly addressing related issues in the databases searched, it is inevitable that the results of this study cannot be generalized to broader issues of R&D col- laboration. The study also recognizes its limitations in robustly justifying and comprehensively presenting the interrelation between geographically challenged and less developed regions. Therefore, categorizing or differentiating between less developed and other types of regions, such as peripheral, sparsely popu- lated, lagging, and underdeveloped, may suggest different interpretations of the study results. Finally, the points presented in this study regarding motivational drivers and critical factors are still propositions, and therefore further research needs to be conducted to validate them empirically. 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 83 Eristian Wibisono, Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed … ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The author gratefully acknowledge the support provided by POLISS (https://poliss.eu), a project funded by the European Union H2020 Research and Innovation Program, Grant Agreement No. 860887. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the grantor is responsible for them. The author would also like to thank Dr. Balázs Lengyel, Professor Tamás Sebestyén, the editorial team, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and suggestions. 5 References Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., McHale, J. 2006: Gone but not forgotten: knowledge flows, labor mobility, and enduring social relationships. Journal of Economic Geography 6-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbl016 Allen, J., James, A. D., Gamlen, P. 2007: Formal versus informal knowledge networks in R&D: a case study using social network analysis. R&d Management 37-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2007.00468.x Amoroso, S., Coad, A., Grassano, N. 2018: European R&D networks: a snapshot from the 7th EU Framework Programme. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 27-5,6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10438599.2017.1374037 Arnold, E. 2012: Understanding long-term impacts of R&D funding: The EU framework programme. Research evaluation 21-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs025 Badillo, E. R., Moreno, R. 2018: Does absorptive capacity determine collaboration returns to innovation? A  geographical dimension. The Annals of Regional Science 60-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00168-015-0696-7 Barzotto, M., Corradini, C., Fai, F. M., Labory, S., Tomlinson, P.R. 2019: Enhancing innovative capabili- ties in lagging regions: An extra-regional collaborative approach to RIS3. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 12-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsz003 Bathelt, H., Henn, S. 2014: The geographies of knowledge transfers over distance: toward a  typology. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 46-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/a46115 Bejjani, M., Göcke, L., Menter, M. 2023: Digital entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122372 Berge, L. R. 2017: Network proximity in the geography of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science 96-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12218 Breschi, S., Lissoni, F. 2009: Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of economic geography 9-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbp008 Cantner, U., Graf, H. 2006: The network of innovators in Jena: An application of social network analysis. Research policy 35-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.01.002 Capello, R., Cerisola, S. 2021: Catching-up and regional disparities: a resource-allocation approach. European Planning Studies 29-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1823323 Capello, R., Lenzi, C. 2018: Regional innovation evolution and economic performance. Regional Studies 53-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1502421 Capone, F., Lazzeretti, L. 2018: The different roles of proximity in multiple informal network relationships: Evidence from the cluster of high technology applied to cultural goods in Tuscany. Industry and Innovation 25-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2018.1442713 Caragliu, A., Nijkamp, P. 2016: Space and knowledge spillovers in European regions: the impact of different forms of proximity on spatial knowledge diffusion. Journal of Economic Geography 16-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbv042 Cecere, G., Corrocher, N. 2015: The intensity of interregional cooperation in information and commu- nication technology projects: An empirical analysis of the Framework Programme. Regional Studies 49-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.759651 Chen, L. C., Lin, Z. X. 2014: Examining the role of geographical proximity in a cluster’s transformation process: the case of Taiwan’s machine tool industry. European Planning Studies 22-1. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09654313.2012.722973 de Barcelos Silva, A., Gomes, M. M., da Costa, C. A., da Rosa Righi, R., Barbosa, J.L.V., Pessin et al. 2020: Intelligent personal assistants: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications 147-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113193 84 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 84 De Noni, I., Orsi, L., Belussi, F. 2018: The role of collaborative networks in supporting the innovation performances of lagging-behind European regions. Research Policy 47-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.respol.2017.09.006 Di Cataldo, M., Monastiriotis, V., Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2020: How ‘smart’are Smart Specialisation strategies? Journal of Common Market Studies 60-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13156 Dubois, A., Kristensen, I., Teräs, J. 2017: Outsmarting geography: implementing territorial innovation strategies in sparsely populated regions. European Planning Studies 25-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09654313.2017.1320355 Filippopoulos, N., Fotopoulos, G. 2022: Innovation in economically developed and lagging European regions: A configurational analysis. Research Policy 51-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104424 Foray, D., 2014. Smart specialisation: Opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy. London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773063 Foray, D., Eichler, M., Keller, M. 2021: Smart specialization strategies – insights gained from a unique European policy experiment on innovation and industrial policy design. Review of Evolutionary Political Economy 2-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43253-020-00026-z  Fritsch, M., Kauffeld-Monz, M. 2010: The impact of network structure on knowledge transfer: an appli- cation of social network analysis in the context of regional innovation networks. The Annals of Regional Science 44-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-008-0245-8 Gertler, M. S., Levitte, Y. M. 2005: Local nodes in global networks: the geography of knowledge flows in biotechnology innovation. Industry and innovation 12-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13662710500361981 Ghinoi, S., Steiner, B., Makkonen, T., Hassink, R. 2021: Smart Specialisation strategies on the periphery: a  data-triangulation approach to governance issues and practices. Regional Studies 55-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1791321 Grillitsch, M., Nilsson, M. 2015: Innovation in peripheral regions: Do collaborations compensate for a  lack of local knowledge spillovers? The Annals of Regional Science 54-1. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00168-014-0655-8 Hassink, R., Gong, H. 2019: Six critical questions about smart specialization. European Planning Studies 27-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1650898 Hellsmark, H., Mossberg, J., Söderholm, P., Frishammar, J. 2016: Innovation system strengths and weak- nesses in progressing sustainable technology: The case of Swedish biorefinery development. Journal of Cleaner Production 131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.109 Janssen, M. J., Bogers, M., Wanzenböck, I. 2020: Do systemic innovation intermediaries broaden horizons? A proximity perspective on R&D partnership formation. Industry and Innovation 27-6. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13662716.2019.1618701 Komlósi, É., Sebestyén, T., Tóth-Pajor, Á., Bedő, Z. 2022: Do specific entrepreneurial ecosystems favor high- level networking while others not? Lessons from the Hungarian IT sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121349 Koschatzky, K. Stahlecker, T. 2010: A new challenge for regional policy-making in Europe? Chances and risks of the merger between cohesion and innovation policy. European Planning Studies 18-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310903343492 Lalrindiki, M., O’Gorman, B. 2021: The role of proximity in developing an inter-regional innovation system. Triple Helix 8-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10024 Lata, R., von Proff, S., Brenner, T. 2018: The influence of distance types on co-patenting and co-publishing in the USA and Europe over time. The Annals of Regional Science 61-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00168-017-0857-y Lavie, D., Kang, J., Rosenkopf, L. 2011: Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organization Science 22-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.1100.0596 Lavoratori, K., Mariotti, S., Piscitello, L. 2020: Location and Intra-firm co-location of MNEs’ activities: Does geographical proximity always matter? Regional Studies 54-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404. 2020.1732901 Lazzeretti, L., Capone, F., Cinti, T. 2010: The regional development platform and »related variety«: Some evidence from art and food in Tuscany. European Planning Studies 18-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09654310903343518 Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 85 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 85 Eristian Wibisono, Encouraging research and development collaboration amidst geographical challenges in less developed … Marek, P., Titze, M., Fuhrmeister, C., Blum, U. 2017: R&D collaborations and the role of proximity. Regional Studies 51-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1242718 Marques, P., Morgan, K. 2021. Innovation without regional development? The complex interplay of innovation, institutions, and development. Economic Geography 97-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00130095.2021.1972801 Marrocu, E., Paci, R., Usai, S. 2013: Proximity, networking and knowledge production in Europe: What lessons for innovation policy? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80-8. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.004 McCann, P., Ortega-Argilés, R. 2014: Smart specialisation in European regions: Issues of strategy, institutions and implementation. European Journal of Innovation Management 17-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2014-0052 Meissner, D. 2019: Public-private partnership models for science, technology, and innovation coopera- tion. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 10-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0310-3 Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., Legese, G. 2020: Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX 7-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.mex.2019.100777 Meyer, C., Gerlitz, L., Klein, M. 2022: Creativity as a Key Constituent for Smart Specialization Strategies (S3), What Is in It for Peripheral Regions? Co-creating Sustainable and Resilient Tourism with Cultural and Creative Industries. Sustainability 14-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063469 Miguelez, E. 2019: Collaborative patents and the mobility of knowledge workers. Technovation 86-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.01.001 Neuländtner, M. 2020: An Empirical Agent-Based Model for Regional Knowledge Creation in Europe. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 9-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9080477 Neuländtner, M., Scherngell, T. 2020: Geographical or relational: What drives technology-specific R&D collaboration networks? The Annals of Regional Science 65-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00168-020-01002-5 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L. et al. 2021: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic reviews 10-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2021.07.010 Pandza, K., Wilkins, T.A., Alfoldi, E.A. 2011: Collaborative diversity in a nanotechnology innovation system: Evidence from the EU Framework Programme. Technovation 31-9. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.technovation.2011.05.003 Pires, S. M., Polido, A., Teles, F., Silva, P., Rodrigues, C. 2020: Territorial innovation models in less developed regions in Europe: the quest for a  new research agenda? European planning studies 28-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1697211 Proskuryakova, L., Meissner, D., Rudnik, P. 2017: The use of technology platforms as a policy tool to address research challenges and technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer 42-1. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10961-015-9421-z Ranga, M. 2018: Smart specialization as a strategy to develop early-stage regional innovation systems. European Planning Studies 26-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1530149 Ranga, M., Etzkowitz, H. 2013: Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry and higher education 27-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5367/ ihe.2013.0165 Razpotnik Visković, N. Logar, E. 2022: Certification, labelling and branding in tourism research: systematic review. Acta geographica Slovenica 62-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.10858 Roehrs, A., Da Costa, C. A., da Rosa Righi, R., De Oliveira, K. S. F. 2017: Personal health records: a systematic literature review. Journal of medical Internet research 19-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/ jmir.5876 Schwartz, M., Peglow, F., Fritsch, M., Günther, J. 2012: What drives innovation output from subsidized R&D cooperation? – Project-level evidence from Germany. Technovation 32-6. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.technovation.2012.03.004 Silva, C., Ribeiro, P., Pinto, E. B., Monteiro, P. 2021: Maturity model for collaborative R&D university-industry sustainable partnerships. Procedia Computer Science 181-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.234 86 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 86 Sörvik, J., Teräs, J., Dubois, A., Pertoldi, M. 2019: Smart specialisation in sparsely populated areas: Challenges, opportunities and new openings. Regional Studies 53-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1530752 Tang, Y., Chen, Y., Wang, K., Xu, H., Yi, X. 2020: An analysis on the spatial effect of absorptive capacity on regional innovation ability based on empirical research in China. Sustainability 12-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12073021 Tödtling, F., Lehner, P., Kaufmann, A. 2009: Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation 29-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.05.002 Tödtling, F., Trippl, M. 2005: One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research policy 34-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018 Torre, A. 2008: On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission. Regional studies 42-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400801922814 Trippl, M., Zukauskaite, E., Healy, A. 2019: Shaping smart specialization: The role of place-specific factors in advanced, intermediate and less-developed European regions. Regional Studies 54-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1582763 Ulnicane, I. 2022: Artificial Intelligence in the European Union: Policy, ethics and regulation. The Routledge handbook of European integrations. London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429262081-19 Uyarra, E. 2019: Smart Specialization as Place-based Policy: Lessons Learnt? Regional Insights 1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13673882.2018.00001022 Varga, A., Sebestyén, T. 2017: Does EU Framework Program participation affect regional innovation? The differentiating role of economic development. International Regional Science 40-4. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0160017616642821 Wibisono, E. 2022: Smart Specialisation in less-developed regions of the European Union: A Systematic Literature Review. REGION 9-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18335/region.v9i2.388 Yoon, J., Park, H.W. 2017: Triple helix dynamics of South Korea’s innovation system: a network analysis of inter-regional technological collaborations. Quality & Quantity 51-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11135-016-0346-x Acta geographica Slovenica, 63-1, 2023 87 63-1_acta49-1.qxd 17.10.2023 6:23 Page 87