Urban Living Labs: Opportunities in and for Planning

This chapter explores some of the most significant potentials of Living Lab environments in urban systems while viewing urban planning as the entire set of transformative practices possible and available in urban contexts. It explores three main potentials of Urban Living Labs, i.e., their being practice-based innovation environments, their capacity to create cross-boundary arenas where many diverse actors and organizations can interact, and, lastly, their being contexts for new modes of urban activism. This chapter also analyzes some challenges launched by Living Labs in urban environments and discusses some possible roles for planners who recognize Living Lab potentials as transformative drivers. Finally, considering the collective (public) experimental perspective introduced by Urban Living Labs, the idea of the city as a laboratory is discussed.

[1]  S. Juujärvi,et al.  Actor Roles in an Urban Living Lab: What Can We Learn from Suurpelto, Finland? , 2013 .

[2]  P. Ellström,et al.  Practice‐based innovation: a learning perspective , 2010 .

[3]  H. Etzkowitz.  The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages , 1998 .

[4]  Louis Albrechts,et al.  Bridge the Gap: From Spatial Planning to Strategic Projects , 2006 .

[5]  M. Warner.  Club Goods and Local Government , 2011 .

[6]  Grazia Concilio,et al.  Trading Zones and Public Spaces Transformations the Case of Piazza Leonardo in Milan , 2017 .

[7]  Francesco Molinari,et al.  Living Labs as multi-stakeholder platforms for the egovernance of innovation , 2011, ICEGOV '11.

[8]  Alessandro Balducci,et al.  Planning as agonistic communication in a trading zone: Re-examining Lindblom’s partisan mutual adjustment , 2011 .

[9]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[10]  Otthein Herzog,et al.  Wearable Computing - an Approach for Living Labs , 2006 .

[11]  Hiroyuki Itami.  Mobilizing invisible assets , 1987 .

[12]  Delwyn N. Clark,et al.  Strategic management tool usage: a comparative study , 1997 .

[13]  Daniel Forgues,et al.  Information technology as boundary object for transformational learning , 2009, J. Inf. Technol. Constr..

[14]  D. Harvey.  The right to the city , 2003 .

[15]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  P ERSPECTIVE M AKING AND P ERSPECTIVE T AKING IN C OMMUNITIES OF K NOWING , 2000 .

[16]  D. Dougherty.  A PRACTICE-CENTERED MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL RENEWAL THROUGH PRODUCT INNOVATION , 1992 .

[17]  Carina Ihlström Eriksson,et al.  User Contribution in Innovation Processes - Reflections from a Living Lab Perspective , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[18]  Anders Söderholm,et al.  Beyond Project Management: New Perspectives on the temporary – permanent dilemma , 2002 .

[19]  Robert Arnkil,et al.  Exploring Quadruple Helix Outlining user-oriented innovation models , 2010 .

[20]  D. Leonard-Barton,et al.  Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation , 1995 .

[21]  Sirkku Wallin,et al.  The Methodology of User-Sensitive Service Design within Urban Planning , 2010 .

[22]  Adele Celino,et al.  Participation in environmental spatial planning: Structuring-scenario to manage knowledge in action , 2010 .

[23]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. , 1992 .

[24]  Deborah Dougherty,et al.  Organizing Practices in Services: Capturing Practice-Based Knowledge for Innovation , 2004 .

[25]  M. Miles.  Innovation in education , 1965 .

[26]  Asbjørn Følstad,et al.  Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communication Technology: A Literature Review , 2008 .

[27]  Sirkku Wallin,et al.  Playing With The Glocal Through Participatory e-Planning , 2012, J. Community Informatics.

[28]  Andreas Paul Spee,et al.  Strategy tools as boundary objects , 2009 .

[29]  Evelyn Fenton,et al.  Complexities and Dualities in Innovative Forms of Organizing , 2000 .

[30]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Concept Design with a Living Lab Approach , 2009 .

[31]  Nils Walravens.  The City as a Service Platform: A Typology of City Platform Roles in Mobile Service Provision , 2013, AMCIS.

[32]  W. Bijker,et al.  Constructing a City: The Cerdà Plan for the Extension of Barcelona , 1997 .

[33]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure , 1977 .

[34]  M. Michalski.  Boundary Objects and Organizational Integration , 2006 .

[35]  F. Milanovic.  Travail d’articulation et organisations-frontières dans la recherche urbaine française , 2006 .

[36]  Lars Svensson,et al.  Exploring brokering situations in an innovation boundary context , 2011 .

[37]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Distances and diversity: sources for social creativity , 2005, C&C '05.

[38]  J. Hou,et al.  Insurgent public space : guerrilla urbanism and the remaking of the contemporary cities , 2010 .

[39]  P. Trompette,et al.  Revisiting the notion of Boundary Object , 2009 .

[40]  I. Nonaka,et al.  SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation , 2000 .

[41]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[42]  W. Mensink,et al.  Unpacking European Living Labs: Analysing Innovation’s Social Dimensions , 2010 .

[43]  R. Defillippi,et al.  Project-Based Organizations, Embeddedness and Repositories of Knowledge: Editorial , 2004 .

[44]  M. Westerlund,et al.  Living labs as open-innovation networks , 2012 .

[45]  J. Brown,et al.  Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing , 1999 .

[46]  E. Hippel,et al.  Lead users: a source of novel product concepts , 1986 .