Research Track: Living Labs for Policies, Governance, Collaboration, and Innovation Ecosystems

TIME

15:45 – 17:15

Chaired by

Sebastian Stefaniga

Type of Session

Research Session

DESCRIPTION

Following the evaluation procedure the OLLD evaluation committee has accepted the research papers. All papers reflect on the theme of the conference LIVING LABS FRONTIERS: Driving systemic change through Soci(et)al Engagement, for real impact” explores how Living Labs can drive meaningful societal systemic change through active engagement and collaboration.” and have been classified according to its sub-tracks. These are: TRACK 1: Living Labs for Grand Societal Challenges; TRACK 2: Living Labs for Policies, Governance, collaboration and innovation ecosystems; TRACK 3: LLs for Inclusive Soci(et)al Engagement; TRACK 4: Living Labs for Business and Emerging Technology; TRACK 5: Living Labs Operation, Methods, Tools, and Impact.

"Living Labs for Inclusive Soci(et)al Engagement" papers by the Evaluation Committee

MataCities: When Living Labs Meet Smart Cities

Abdolrasoul Habibipour, Stina Johansson, Mikael Långström, Janno Viiding, Risto Jurva, Timo Bräysyand, Viktorija Prilenska, Agneta Hedenström, Carina Jenslid, Neils Kalnins and Agnieszka Ligeza

Abdolrasoul Habibipour

Senior lecturer - Assistant professor - in Information Systems at Luleå University of Technology in Sweden and is the Managing Director of Botnia Living Lab

AbstractMetaCity is an innovative smart city and urban concept that champions open innovation through digital platforms and social networks. It goes beyond being merely a research idea or a single technical advancement, instead embodying a holistic approach that encompasses innovators, innovations, users, and facilitators within a new narrative of innovation ecosystem. Metacities rooted in the Living Lab principles, i.e., the inclusion of early (and continuous) engagement of all relevant stakeholders, value co-creation for all participants, openness and transparency, an iterative process (inclusive to receive and apply feedback), real-life experimentation, the distribution of decision-making power, and the identification of stakeholders’ needs, motivations, and expectations to promote social inclusivity. Accordingly, MetaCities can be defined as the extended version of traditional and technically oriented smart cities by integrating Living Lab principles to foster inclusivity by balancing the social and technical aspects. To achieve the main objective of this initiative, the MetaCities project —Connecting Pockets of MetaCity Excellence around the Baltic Sea Region, funded by the European Commission under grant agreement 101134225. The project aims to accelerate, consolidate, align, and leverage the existing MetaCity and Smart City initiatives of the partner regions. Through these efforts, the project seeks to build the world’s leading connected MetaCity Region across the Baltic Sea (BSR).

Key wordsLiving Lab, Smart Cities, MetaCities, PentaHelix, Principles

 

Living Labs Engagement Framework

Elena Malakhatka, Miguel Arato, Shea Hagy

Elena Malakhatka

Post Doc Researcher at Chalmers University of Technology, co-founder of VR Sci-Fest

AbstractThe Living Labs Engagement Framework (LLEF) aims to enhance stakeholder engagement in Living Labs, fostering collaborative innovation. This study, focused on European Living Labs, introduces a structured engagement model categorizing participants into three levels: highly engaged, moderately engaged, and low engagement. By mapping motivations and barriers across these levels, the LLEF provides insights into enhancing participant involvement. The framework’s development involved co-design sessions with experts and validation through digital surveys. Key findings highlight the importance of addressing both qualitative and quantitative aspects of engagement, emphasizing continuous feedback and adaptation. The study underscores the LLEF’s practical application for Living Lab managers, researchers, and participants, offering a comprehensive tool for planning, monitoring, and evaluating engagement strategies. Despite limitations such as geographic focus and survey-based data collection, the LLEF represents a significant advancement in understanding and optimizing stakeholder participation in innovation ecosystems. Future research should expand the framework’s applicability globally and incorporate diverse qualitative methods for deeper insights.

Key words: Living Labs, stakeholder engagement, collaborative innovation, co-creation 

Building Climate Resilience: The Role of Living Labs in Supporting Vulnerable Communities

L. Dimitriadou, A. Guittard, Deanne Brettle, E. Akinsete, Stavroula Samara

Deanne Brettle

PhD Candidate, University of Birmingham

AbstractClimate change poses significant challenges to vulnerable communities worldwide, exacerbating existing socio-economic disparities and creating new risks that amplify their vulnerability. Vulnerable populations such as homeless individuals, elderly populations, and low-income families face disproportionate risks from climate-related hazards, including heat waves. This abstract explores the role of Living Labs at the intersection of climate change and vulnerable communities, highlighting the impacts of extreme weather events and environmental degradation on those already marginalized. Through initiatives like the CARMINE project, Living Labs are used to identify specific vulnerabilities and adaptation needs, inform targeted interventions to mitigate the impacts of climate change, and foster collaborative innovation. Nonetheless, the focus remains on understanding and addressing the unique vulnerabilities of communities most affected by climate change. By prioritizing inclusivity, innovation, and community engagement, efforts to address climate change can be more effective in building resilience and fostering sustainable development for all.

Key words: Living Labs, Climate Resilience, Vulnerable Communities, Nature-Based Solutions, Climate Hazards, European cities

 

A Knowledge Exchange Platform (KEP) as a Collaborative Ecosystem to Economic- and Financial Well-being in South Africa: Who should be involved?

Bernadene de Clercq

Prof Bernadene de Clercq

NRF-rated researcher in the College of Accounting Sciences at the University of South Africa

AbstractThis paper positions a Knowledge Exchange Platform (KEP) as a representation of the South African financial education innovation ecosystem aimed at enhancing Economic- and Financial Well-being (EFWB) as a response to a grand challenge. Efforts to enhance EFWB in SA are limited due to a lack of coordination and collaboration amongst the various stakeholders. This paper, therefore, aims to surface the collaborative stakeholder pathfinding that codesigns the KEP through an experimental yet frugal Living Lab approach. The project is still in the Problem Space per the Living Lab Integrative Process. As such, it is critical to identify the collective action required of stakeholders across the ecosystem platform who pursue the shared goal of enhancing EFWB in SA and, as such, contribute to reducing SA’s triple (and grand) challenges.

Key words: Knowledge exchange platform ecosystem; financial well-being; financial education; experimental living lab; grand challenges; South Africa (SA) 

How can Living Labs contribute to policymaking?

Astha Bhatta, Heleen Vreudenhil, Jill Slinger

Astha Bhatta

PhD Researcher in the CASTOR project at Delft University of Technology

AbstractFor many years now, various knowledge evidence has indicated that the Dutch land and water systems are reaching their limits. Thus, instead of manipulating the water and subsurface to achieve the desired functions, functions need to follow what the land and water system can offer. Consequently, in 2022, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water forwarded an innovative and transitional approach of letting water and soil guide the policymaking, namely ‘water and soil guiding’. In this light, this research on progress paper aims to understand the cumulative role that living labs and similar projects existing before the policy guide had in institutionalizing this policy guide. Secondly, ‘water and soil guiding’ is just at an initiation stage. This paper further tries to understand in what capacity living labs can support the operationalization, execution, and monitoring of this policy guide. In our preliminary finding, a direct link between the establishment of policy guide and the living labs existing before this establishment has not been formulated yet. However, indirect links such as delivering hard knowledge evidence, and formation and expansion of networks with relevant stakeholders have been recognized as indirect links.

Key words: Water and soil system, policy cycle, stakeholder network, impacts