Figure 9 - uploaded by Kris Steen
Content may be subject to copyright.
Process visualization of the recommended initiation steps and building blocks in the living lab way of working
Source publication
Urban living labs have become a popular phenomenon in today’s cities. But what exactly are urban living labs?
All over the world, the term “living lab” is being used to refer to a variety of local experimental projects of a participatory nature. Practitioners and scholars agree on the need for a more precise definition as a starting point for livi...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... decision can come from two sides: Either from the innovation-generating I T I A T I V E F I T T I N G O F T H E IN N . Stages of adoption (Rogers, 1995) Figure 19. Process visualization of the recommended dissemination steps and building blocks in the living lab way of working Figure 20. ...
Similar publications
This paper puts forth a Multi-Stakeholder Spatial Decision Analysis (M-SSDA) which combines Multi-Stakeholders Decision Analysis (M-SDA) and GIS processing based on a collaborative, hybrid and adaptive evaluative approach to support the elaboration of enhancement strategies designed for resilient landscapes. This methodology has been tested in the...
L’Ocean Living Lab (OLL) est le premier Living lab européen dédié à l’océan, la glisse, au nautisme et aux sports aquatiques. L’objectif de OLL est de réaliser des tests fiables sur de nouveaux matériels et d’analyser les besoins des utilisateurs. Dans cette optique, une expérimentation centrée utilisateur a été menée avec des outils classiquement...
Citations
... They represent a new, more intense usage of already sparse urban space, in which experimenting is key. Several initiatives qualify as 'urban living labs' (Steen & van Bueren, 2017) and have become leading examples of urban sustainability and socio-technological innovation (subcases 1.1, 1.2 and 2.2). All initiatives show strong involvement to the place where they operate and its surroundings. ...
Comprehensive understanding of the merits of bottom-up urban development is lacking, thus hampering and complicating associated collaborative processes. Therefore, and given the assumed relevancies, we mapped the social, environmental and economic values generated by bottom-up developments in two Dutch urban areas, using theory-based evaluation principles. These evaluations raised insights into the values, beneficiaries and path dependencies between successive values, confirming the assumed effect of placemaking accelerating further spatial developments. It also revealed broader impacts of bottom-up endeavors, such as influences on local policies and innovations in urban development.
... In Table 1, we present the different stakeholders and their needs from the DHLL, followed by a further Power/interest matrix of stakeholders ( Figure 2). Our approach to systematically identify the relevant stakeholders was informed by the study of Manzini (47) and followed the steps for stakeholder selection (48) as described in the AgriLink Living Lab Toolbox (49). Applying these guidelines, we started by defining stakeholders, . ...
Co-creation in healthcare, especially in developing digital health solutions, has been widely identified as a fundamental principle for person-centered technologies that could accelerate the adaptation of innovation. A Digital Health Living Lab based on community offers a sustainable and real-life environment to ideate, develop, and evaluate digital health solutions addressing the needs of multiple stakeholders. This article presents the experience of the School of Sport and Health Sciences at the University of Brighton in establishing a Digital Health Living Lab. In addition, we share a proposed step-by-step approach to establishing such a living lab in the community, supplemented by a case study of product development.
... The JPI EU Urban Initiatives Programme placed emphasis not only on the city as a space for the search for innovation, but also on a range of issues and problems of contemporary cities (Franz, 2014) seeing urban laboratories as a soft tool for governance (Boonstra & Boelens, 2011). The European discourse on sustainable urban transformation applies the ULL approach to sociotechnical experiments of a practical nature that aim to solve urban problems in the form of prototype, small-scale solutions (Steen & van Bueren, 2017a, 2017b. In practice, ULL consist of collaborative activities aimed at testing new ways of identifying issues and their potential solutions, based on the needs of stakeholders, and using distributed knowledge located outside the main urban institutions. ...
... The stakeholder groups that construct Living Labs to target EIDs. Adapted and updated fromSteen and van Bueren (2017). ...
The emerging infectious disease (EID) crisis has been challenging global health security for decades, dealing substantial damage to all socioeconomic landscapes. Control measures have failed to prevent or even mitigate damages from an accelerating wave of EIDs, leading to the emergence and devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the wake of the pandemic, we must critically review our public health policies and approaches. Current health security measures are based on the evolutionary theorem of host-parasite coevolution, which falsely deems EIDs as rare and unpredictable. The DAMA protocol (Document, Assess, Monitor, Act) is nested in a novel evolutionary framework that describes how emergence can be prevented before the onset of an outbreak. In this paper, we discuss the importance of establishing efficient communication channels between various stakeholders affected by EIDs. We describe implementation strategies for preventive interventions on global, regional, and local scales and provide guidelines for using such strategies in the relevant policy environments of human, livestock, and crop diseases.
... These benefits and opportunities are not without challenges. Living labs are difficult to organise and the coordination requires additional time and resources (Steen and Van Bueren 2017b). In addition to these limitations, living lab projects might also face challenges associated with power issues between actors and end-user reluctance to engage (Hakkarainen and Hyysalo 2013). ...
This paper reports on a comprehensive study, which has investigated the approaches, methods and tools being deployed in implementing living labs among higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world. Two methods were employed. First, a bibliometric analysis of the current emphasis given to living labs in a sustainable development context and in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Second, an empirical study aimed at identifying the use levels of living labs at HEIs. This was accomplished through an analysis of selected case studies that showcased successful approaches to SDGs implementation with living labs, and resulted in a framework for action. There are three main findings from these analyses. The first is that the multidisciplinary character of living labs in the context of sustainable development needs to be considered, to maximize their impacts. Second, most of the studied living labs focus on SDGs 4 and 11, which deal with providing quality education and ensuring the sustainable development of cities and communities. Third, the challenges encountered in the implementation of living labs refer to (1) the complexities in institutional administration, (2) the tensions between different groups of interest that need to be addressed by enhanced communication, and (3) the necessity to pay attention to the demand of using sustainability and innovation as a strategy in the operations of living labs. The paper draws from the experiences and lessons learned and suggests specific measures, which will improve the use of living labs as more systemic tools towards the implementation of the SDGs.
... The third component is on the importance of collaboration-the involvement of both users, in other words those living in the lab, and multiple stakeholders from different sectors in cocreation [35,37]. Steen and Van Bueren [54] identified similar components when operationalising living labs and suggested context, aims, participants, and activities as four primary characteristics of living labs. "An open innovation environment in a real-life setting in which user-driven innovation is the co-creation process for new services, products and societal infrastructures". ...
The living lab concept is identified as having the potential to provide a platform to test technologies and support energy transition. However, the application of the concept to the energy sector is limited, though emerging. This study undertook a systematic literature review to understand the extent of the application of the living lab concept, with the particular aim of informing the processes to establish such a platform in urban Africa. Using a sample of 35 papers, only 17 papers were related to energy-living labs, while 18 papers were outside the energy field. The scale and contexts of the application of living labs were diverse. However, not all initiatives that defined themselves as living labs were characterised by elements typical of the concept of a living lab. Further, how the stakeholders were identified, and the stakeholder recruitment process in energy living labs was unclear in the sampled studies. A recommendation is to improve transparency in the stakeholder identification, engagement, and recruitment process in energy living labs and to incorporate gendered issues into the setup and management of urban energy living labs.
... The stakeholder groups that construct Living Labs to target EIDs. Adapted and updated fromSteen and van Bueren (2017). ...
... Since then, the concept has been applied widely to foster urban experimentation and collaborative planning and to provide a methodology for facilitating open innovation and knowledge co-creation. The living laboratories bring together citizens, consumers, and users into an innovation system, resulting in a multi-stakeholder and multidimensional structure, thereby leveraging a larger mass of knowledge, ideas and experiences (Eriksson et al., 2006;Lepik et al., 2010;Steen and van Bueren, 2017;van Geenhuizen, 2018;Bozdağ and İNam, 2021). In the Horizon 2020 REPAiR project, Peri-Urban Living Labs (PULLs) were set up in six European regions, including Pécs, to engage stakeholders in the co-creation of eco-innovative solutions for each region. ...
A Circular Economy is usually seen as achieving ‘zero waste’ and closing the material flow loops. However, multiple governance, economic, legal, socio-spatial, cultural, and behavioural barriers may easily hamper the transition. This study summarises the lessons learned from the waste flow analysis and living lab (LL) of a case study from the H2020 REPAiR project. It shows how the results of a waste flow analysis created for an urban area can help decision-makers to co-create new place-based eco-innovative solutions and hence shift the city towards circularity. At the same time, during the living lab process, it became clear that the decision support method alone is not enough to co-create or co-design new innovations, in addition the regulatory environment and the peculiarities of governance may also present multiple obstacles. The centralised governance in Hungary and the centralisation tendency in waste management and secondary resource use hamper efficient local resource management. The work in the LL showed that a centralised governance structure hinders not only the co-creation of new solutions but also the transfer of good practices from other peri-urban areas. This is important because a society that is generally less innovative and less developed at the beginning of sustainability transition is innovating for the first time via the transfer of eco-innovative solutions. Our paper shows that the governance structure of a given spatial unit (i.e. a city region) may be a significant factor in the successful or unsuccessful adoption of good practices and for the circular transition, as may system adaptability, the level of local technological development, the level of integration of actors, strategies, interests, and policy interventions.
... To address and shape these structures, innovation ecosystems have been mentioned as a possible strategy to connect the existing knowledge and resources of different stakeholders and foster innovations [63]. This may include living labs such as urban or mobility labs and the development of intermediaries whose role it is to connect different local actors [64][65][66][67]. The roles that different actors assume will shape the nature of mobility in the future [54]. ...
There is growing interest in the role of integrated mobility services in successfully transforming mobility systems by improving alternatives to individual motorised transport and thus contributing to a reduction in negative impacts on nature and society. This paper analyses the conditions for the successful implementation of local mobility services in Austria by adopting a mixed-methods approach combining grounded theory and critical realism. In total, 15 narrative, semi-structured interviews were conducted, sampled by applying thematic, practical, and criterion sampling and using an analytical procedure of open, axial, and selective coding. Particular attention was paid to the influence of governance structures and related processes, the integration of user needs, and the topic of technology and its role in local mobility services. The results showed that for the success of local mobility services, in addition to the availability of and long-term commitment to funding, the initial phase of a project (e.g., the selection of project partners) and the deployment of collaborative and local participatory target-setting processes are extremely important. Further, the findings showed that the motivation and interest of all stakeholders involved in the projects can be regarded as driving forces for enhanced cooperation, dedication, and resilience throughout the project. In addition, developing and communicating needs-oriented mobility services should be emphasised. Although the analysis showed the importance of the deployment and hence the selection of certain types of technological solutions, it also highlighted the difficulties of governance processes related to choosing and implementing adequate technological solutions regarding cooperation and networking between key stakeholders in the projects.
... The Living Lab's horizontal organisational structure favours participants' knowledge and creative contributions to occur unrestrained by hierarchical boundaries [36]. Hence, Living Labs have been used to handle problems of high complexity involving conflicting interests [37,38]. ...
Social housing (SH) upgrades involve multiple stakeholders with sometimes divergent requirements and needs. Collaboration and participative processes are essential to ensuring an appropriate value for users is delivered through social housing upgrades. Living Labs are user-centred initiatives where researchers, public and private partners, and users collaborate to develop innovative solutions in real-live environments. However, scarce research exists on how Living Labs may support the upgrading of social housing, and there is a need to explore what the challenges are that can be expected in this context. This paper discusses an integrative literature synthesis of housing upgrades developed within the context of Living Labs. Nine information-rich cases identified in the literature were chosen for in-depth examination. A living lab process was proposed based on the literature and activities and tools used in Living Labs were identified. From the challenges highlighted by existing studies, a series of recommendations to support the development of Living Labs in social housing upgrades was proposed. These should support Living Labs implementation initiatives in this specific context.
