Search results

The purpose of this paper is to develop a more socially centred understanding of living labs for urban research questions by reflecting on current technologically centred and innovation-driven approaches.

The paper takes the form of literature review complemented by conceptual knowledge from practical experiences.

Urban living labs, as they were introduced from a technological and economic point of view, have to be translated into the context of social sciences. By doing so, they may be a promising tool to stimulate co-creation and collaboration also in urban research projects that focus on social research questions and include diverse target groups. Socially centred living labs take into account the local context by developing a space of encounter for the participants in the urban living lab and by implementing a set of living methods that suit both the research design and the local requirements.

This paper argues that urban living labs can be a valuable tool in urban research to include researchers, politicians, local stakeholders and residents in an open concept of co-creation. It argues that a locally contextualised design in terms of space and methods is necessary to create an environment of trust and collaboration.

An increasingly urbanized global population is facing multiple, inter-related and inter-connected challenges. By applying the so-called Living Lab concept, the authors open up innovation processes through online and offline collaborations between urban policymakers, non-profit organizations, citizens and other stakeholder groups. However, much of the current research being conducted on Living Labs is lacking in empirically tested methodologies for the co-creation of sustainable urban innovations in defined contexts. This research is intended to fill this gap by presenting a systemic approach to digital co-creation processes in Living Labs. The purpose of this paper is to present the first evaluation results of European Living Labs by applying the new developed digital co-creation monitoring technique.

By emphasizing the interplay between places, technology and people, the Digital Co-Creation Index (DCCI) calculation methodology provides a systemic understanding of the basic factors shaping the co-creative processes in Living Labs. DCCI has been used to evaluate such labs in four different European cities: Aukštamiestis in Vilnius, Lithuania; Alvalade in Lisbon, Portugal; Città Studi in Milano, Italy and Zuid Park in Ghent, Belgium. The empirical data for assessment and index calculation were collected by using a mixed-method approach (i.e. qualitative and quantitative analysis).

While the findings are complex and varied, the case studies in this paper share several characteristics and patterns – the attractiveness of physical spaces, opportunities for experimentation, the density and diversity of stakeholders involved and the emergence of creative communities that co-design novel initiatives. The results show that digital technologies are underused in the evaluated Living Labs.

The results are limited to a comparison of the European Living Labs in the research sample. In the absence of an index that was obtained, designed and tested in other territorial contexts, the comparative value of the outcomes of this research can be established between only four case studies. The authors anticipate that the implementation of the C3Places project and other research activities will yield even more scientific results. The findings and their implications should be discussed and tested in the broadest context possible. By focusing on creative synergy between places, technology and people, this paper presents a unified and empirically validated systemic approach to assessing digital co-creation efforts in urban planning.

Unlike previous research, this paper presents a unified and empirically based approach to assessing digital co-creation efforts in urban planning by emphasizing interplay between place, technology and people.

The purpose of this paper is to question the appropriateness of current lab types for addressing wicked problems. A new lab type, a Systemic Innovation Lab, is proposed which combines the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems.

Characteristics of initiatives that are considered appropriate for addressing wicked problems and existing lab types that contain any of these characteristics are identified. These lab types are Social Innovation Labs, Living Labs, Urban Living Labs, Urban Transition Labs and Public Sector Innovation Labs. The proposed new lab type is reasoned by combining the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems. How the new lab would work in practice is illustrated with a case study.

When addressing wicked problems, labs need to take a systemic design and not a service design approach. They also need to focus on addressing complex problems, take a place-based and transition approach, enable coherent action by diverse actors, involve users as co-creators, support a networked governance approach and recognize government as an enabler of change.

This paper provides a new lab type designed specifically for addressing wicked problems. This new lab supports practitioners that take a systemic design, solution ecosystem and systemic innovation approach. Systemic design is based on a core set of principles that are a crossover between design and complexity theory.

For the first time, this paper analyzes different lab types to determine their appropriateness for addressing wicked problems. It also proposes a new lab type whose sole purpose is addressing wicked problems.

The aim of this paper is to present a research approach that can contribute to a sustainable development of urban spaces for sports and physical activity, comprising theoretical reflections and directions for applied research.

This research builds on an urban real-world lab in a city district. It is based on principles of transdisciplinary research and intense processes of participation.

Five projects with regard to sport and physical activity development were implemented. The projects resulted in exchange and learning of citizens and other stakeholders as well as transformations of the social and built environment.

Instead of top-down research and planning this approach enables bottom-up processes in which affected citizens and stakeholders can contribute to sport and physical activity development.

The approach can help to integrate sport and physical activity development and transformative processes of sustainable development in urban areas.

Through participation and involvement, citizens can be empowered and social capital can be generated.

Urban real-world labs are a new approach for sport and physical activity development. This approach opens up the possibility to include sport and physical activity development in processes of city development. Hence, urban real-world labs are able to address an integrated urban and sport development process and can be used for city marketing purposes.

Initiating a practical model for embedding transformative learning in education that will promote sustainable development is a challenge for higher education. Siam University decided to assign a task force with the mission to work with communities in order to propose guidelines of learning for sustainability (LfS) based on real-life experiences. Selected communities which have agreed to be the community living labs for teaching and learning activities of the university were chosen based on the Bray and Thomas’ Cube Model. There are differences in sizes (number of members), locations (urban, suburban), and histories (old settlement with long history and rich culture and the newly settlement communities consisting of migrated members). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) was applied in the study. The initial model was developed from the synthesis of experiential work with communities in sustainability-related projects. After revision, the “Learning for Sustainability Action Model” was proposed. Success factors in implementing the model were also suggested.

Laboratories or “labs” outside science and technology have become increasingly popular in recent years. Their proliferation raises questions about what they have in common and the extent to which “lab” as a metaphor is still pertinent. We develop six criteria to assess these types of labs: (1) theoretical foundations; (2) experimentation; (3) collaboration; (4) boundaries; (5) governance; and (6) temporality. We identify a number of paradoxes in the operation of labs and explore their implications for research and practice.

This paper aims to share the experience of a collaborative platform for social innovation (SI) in urban governance in Brussels (Belgium) and to formulate recommendations for future initiatives.

The publicly funded collaborative platform “Brussels by us”, which aimed to improve the quality of life in specific neighbourhoods in Brussels (Belgium), is presented as a case study for SI in urban governance. The case study is detailed according to four dimensions based on the SI and living lab literature.

While the initiative appeared to be a successful exploration platform for collaborative urban governance, it did not evolve into concrete experimentation nor implementation of the solutions. Possible explanations and recommendations are formulated.

The findings of this paper are based on the experience of a one-year initiative. The results should be completed by similar case studies of longitudinal initiatives, and with other levels of implementation such as experimentation and concrete implementation of solutions.

This paper presents a concrete case study of a collaborative platform implemented in a specific neighbourhood in Brussels (Belgium). Its digital and offline approach can help other practitioners, scholars and public institutions to experiment with the living lab methodology for the co-ideation of solution in urban governance. The four-dimensional framework presented in the study can provide future initiatives with a structured reporting and analysis framework, unifying and strengthening know-how in the domain of SI.