Meta Synthesis Review: Explaining the Role of Urban Living Labs in Citizen Participation

Parmah, Heydar; Shayan, Ali; Sahraei, Shaghayegh; Rouhani, Saeed

doi:10.22034/jipm.2024.2010910.1356

Meta Synthesis Review: Explaining the Role of Urban Living Labs in Citizen Participation

Document Type : The fourth smart city conference

Authors

Heydar Parmah ¹

Ali Shayan ²

Shaghayegh Sahraei ³

Saeed Rouhani ⁴

¹ Tarbiat Modares University

² Department of Information Technology Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran;

³ Tarbiat modares univesity- facualty of management

⁴ university of tehran- facualty of management

10.22034/jipm.2024.2010910.1356

Abstract

Today, the boundaries of organizations have become wider and various agents and stakeholders have been placed within the boundaries of the organization. Studies indicate that organizations and cities alone are not able to create value and to create better value, they need cooperation and interaction with customers and citizens. With the expansion of the Internet and information technology, customers and citizens are more interested in participating in the process of ideation and production of products and services. Therefore, paying attention to their opinions and ideas and increasing their participation is very important for organizations and cities.
In the urban area and smart city, citizen participation is one of the principles and requirements of future cities. To solve today's challenges and problems in this field, innovative approaches with the participation of citizens are needed. Urban living labs are one of the methods used to create cooperation and interaction between citizens and organizations to improve urban life and create value. These labs seek to provide collaborative solutions by citizens for sustainable urban development.
Considering the important role of living labs in the development of citizens' participation and sustainable development of cities, and despite the establishment of various urban living labs in developed countries, no significant research and operational action has been taken in the country. This research deals with the systematic review of literature in the field of urban living labs and its role in citizens' participation. In terms of data collection, this research is meta-synthesis and in terms of purpose, it is an applied study. In order to collect data, the articles of WoS and Scopus databases were reviewed and studied and the content of these articles was analyzed and coded using MaxQda software, and according to the analysis and summarization, living labs facilitates participatory governance, facilitating urban innovation, facilitating learning and social innovation, strengthening the role of citizens in urban development, creating collaborative decision-making and facilitating collective participation.

Keywords

living labs

citizen participation

Collaborative participation

innovation

smart city

Subjects

Public-private Partnership

فهرست منابع

Abdullah, J., Ahmad, R., & Zainal, M. H. (2020). The Blue-Green Urban Living Labs of Kuala Lumpur. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 5 (13), 367-359.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35 (4), 224-216.

Ballon, P., & Schuurman, D. (2015a). Living labs: concepts, tools and cases. info.

Ballon, P., & Schuurman, D. (2015b). Living labs: concepts, tools and cases. info, 17 (4). doi: 10, 1108/ info-0024-2015-04

Ballon, P., Van Hoed, M.;& Schuurman, D. (2018). The effectiveness of involving users in digital innovation: Measuring the impact of living labs. Telematics Informatics, 35 (5), 1214-1201.

Bates, O., & Friday, A. (2017). Beyond data in the smart city: repurposing existing campus IoT. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 16 (2), 60-54.

Besson, R. (2021). Role and limits of third places in the fabrication of contemporary cities. Territoire en mouvement Revue de géographie et aménagement. Territory in movement Journal of geography and planning (51).

Bevilacqua, C., & Pizzimenti, P. (2016). Living lab and cities as smart specialisation strategies engine. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223, 922-915.

Bifulco, F., Tregua, M., & Amitrano, C. C. (2017). Co-governing smart cities through living labs. Top evidences from EU. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 13 (50), 37-21.

Chesbrough, H. (2019). Open innovation results: Going beyond the hype and getting down to business: Oxford University Press.

Chochliouros, I. P., Spiliopoulou, A. S., Sfakianakis, E., Georgiadou, E. M., & Rethimiotaki, E. (2013). Living labs in smart cities as critical enablers for making real the modern future internet. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Applications of Neural Networks.

Compagnucci, L., Spigarelli, F., Coelho, J., & Duarte, C. (2021). Living Labs and user engagement for innovation and sustainability. Journal of cleaner production, 289, 125721.

Dell'Era, C., & Landoni, P. (2014). Living Lab: A methodology between user‐centred design and participatory design. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23 (2), 154-137.

International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation/ IEEE lnternational Technology Management Conference (ICE/ ITMC).

Erwin, E. J., Brotherson, M. J., & Summers, J. A. (2011). Understanding qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and opportunities in early childhood intervention research. Journal of Early Intervention, 33 (3), 200-186.

Evans, P. (2019). Living Lab Methodology: Handbook: European Commission.

Fu, Z., Chao, C., Wang, H., & Wang, Y (2019). Toward the participatory human‐centred community an exploration of cyber‐physical public design for urban experience. IET Cyber‐Physical Systems: Theory & Applications, 4 (3), 213-209.

Gamache, G., Anglade, J., Feche, R., Barataud, F., Mignolet, C., & Coquil, X. (2020). Can living labs offer a pathway to support local agri-food sustainability transitions? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 37, 107-93.

Gordon, E., Harlow, J., Teng, M., & Christoferetti, E. (2021). Toward A Collaborative Smart City: A Play-Based Urban Living Laboratory in Boston. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 17-1.

Greve, K. (2019). Facilitating co-creation in living labs. University of Cambridge.

Guzmán, J. G., del Carpio, A. F., Colomo-Palacios, R., & de Diego, M. V. (2013). Living labs for user-driven innovation: a process reference model. Research-Technology Management, 56 (3), 39-29.

Haukipuro, L., & Väinämö, S. (2019). Digital user involvement in a multi-context living lab environment. Technology innovation management review, (10) 9.

Juujärvi, S & Lund, V. (2016). Enhancing early innovation in an urban living lab: Lessons from Espoo, Finland.

Katharina Greve, R. D. V., Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund. (2021). Living Labs: From Niche to Mainstream Innovation Management. Sustainability, 13 (2), 791. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10,3390/su13020791

Kris, S., & Ellen van, B. (2017). The Defining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs. Technology innovation management review, 7 (7). Retrieved from http://timreview.ca/article/1088

Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M (2014). Incremental and radical service innovation in living labs. In Transcultural Marketing for Incremental and Radical Innovation (pp. 295-281): IGI Global.

Levenda, A. M. (2019). Thinking critically about smart city experimentation: entrepreneurialism and responsibilization in urban living labs. Local Environment, 24 (7), 579-565.

Lusch, R. F., & Webster Jr, F. E. (2011). A stakeholder-unifying, cocreation philosophy for marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 31 (2), 134-129.

Mačiulienė, M., & Skaržauskienė, A. (2020). Sustainable urban innovations: digital co-creation in European living labs. Kybernetes.

Martínez-Bello, N., Cruz-Prieto, M. J., Güemes-Castorena, D., & Mendoza-Domínguez, A. (2021). A methodology for designing smart urban living labs from the university for the cities of the future. Sensors, 21 (20). doi:10,3390/s21206712

Mccormick, K., & Hartmann, C. (2017). The emerging landscape of urban living labs: Characteristics, practices and examples.

Møller, A., & Myles, P. (2016). What makes a good systematic review and meta-analysis? BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia, 117 (4), 430-428.

Moro, A., & Puerari, E. (2015). Ecosystem innovation as trigger of new paths and practices for urban space. Paper presented at the Culture, Innovation and Entrepreneurship: connecting the knowledge dots. 10th International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics November.

Ng, I., Parry, G., Smith, L., Maull, R., & Briscoe, G. (2012). Transitioning from a goods‐dominant to a service‐dominant logic: Visualising the value proposition of Rolls‐Royce. Journal of Service Management.

Nguyen, H. T., Marques, P., & Benneworth, P. (2022). Living labs: Challenging and changing the smart city power relations? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183, 121866.

OECD. (2020) The Digitalisation of Science, Technology and Innovation

Key Developments and Policies: OECD

Pihlajaniemi, H., Juntunen, E., Luusua, A., Tarkka-Salin, M., & Juntunen, J. (2016). SenCity-piloting intelligent lighting and user-oriented services in complex smart city environments.

Pournaras, E., Ghulam, A. N., Kunz, R., & Hänggli, R. (2021). Crowd Sensing and Living Lab Outdoor Experimentation Made Easy. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 21 (1), 27-18.

Pucihar, A., Zajc, I., Sernec, R., & Lenart, G (2019). Living lab as an ecosystem for development, demonstration and assessment of autonomous mobility solutions. Sustainability, 11 (15), 4095.

Rehm, S.-V., McLoughlin, S., & Maccani, G. (2021). Experimentation platforms as bridges to urban sustainability. Smart Cities, 4 (2), 587-569.

Robles, A. G., Hirvikoski, T., Schuurman, D., & Stokes, L. (2015). Introducing ENoLL and its living lab community. European Network of Living Labs, Brussels.

Roser, T., DeFillippi, R., & Samson, A. (2013). Managing your co‐creation mix: co‐creation ventures in distinctive contexts. European business review.

Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2006). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research: springer publishing company.

Santonen, T., Creazzo, L., Griffon, A., Bódi, Z., & Aversano, P. (2017). Cities as Living Labs: Increasing the impact of investment in the circular economy for sustainable cities.

Santos, I., Nobre, A. C. B., Ibiapina, J. C., Oliveira, P. R. M., nia de Carvalho, Z. V., & de Oliveira, Á. D. (2017). Strategies and methodologies for civic engagement and social empowerment. Paper presented at the 2017 IEEE First Summer School on Smart Cities (S3C).

Schade, S., & Granell, C. (2014). Shaping digital earth applications through open innovation–setting the scene for a digital earth living lab. International Journal of Digital Earth, 7 (7), 612-594.

Schuurman, D., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. (2013). Open innovation processes in living lab innovation systems: insights from the LeYLab. Technology innovation management review, (11) 3.

Temmerman, L., Veeckman, C., & Ballon, P. (2021). Collaborative governance platform for social innovation in Brussels. Social Enterprise Journal.

Van Geenhuizen, M. (2019). Applying an RRI Filter in Key Learning on Urban Living Labs’ Performance. Sustainability, 11 (14), 3833.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 36 (1), 10-1.

Vicini, S., Bellini, S., & Sanna, A. (2012). The city of the future living lab. International Journal of Automation and Smart Technology, 2 (3), 208-201.

Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2011). Managing the challenges of becoming an open innovation company: experiences from Living Labs. Technology innovation management review, (1) 1.

Zuniga, C., Felipe, A., Cifuentes, M., Davalos, A. G., Solarte, Z., Escobar, L. M., … Ieee. (2011). Software Platform for Services in Colombian Cities Using the Living Labs Approach. Paper presented at the 2011 IEEE GLOBECOM WORKSHOPS (GC WKSHPS)