01941nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245024400055210006900299260004200368300001000410490000700420520115000427653002001577653002701597653001901624653002201643100002001665700002001685856003001705       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aUrban Living Labs and Transformative Changes: A qualitative study of the triadic relationship between financing, stakeholder roles, and the outcomes of Urban Living Labs in terms of impact creation in the city of Groningen, the Netherlands0 aUrban Living Labs and Transformative Changes A qualitative study  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2021  a73-870 v113 aUrban Living Labs (ULLs) have become a popular instrument for finding solutions to urban challenges faced by cities. While ULLs have achieved a certain level of normalisation in cities, a general lack of understanding remains regarding the character and purpose of the ULL phenomenon still leaves many challenges open to be overcome. One challenge involves the potential impact of ULLs in contributing to meaningful transformative changes. By combining a literature review with a comparative case study of three ULLs in the city of Groningen, the Netherlands, this study confirms and adds to current theoretical positions taken about how to overcome the challenge in terms of holding a shared ideology and reviewing the concepts of agency and power. It also shows that opportunity comes along with trust-building among stakeholders in ULLs, as a way to enhance their potential in practise. Consequently, this study calls for further research regarding underexplored theories and models of ULLs, power dynamics in ULLs, and into their self-sustaining character, both in terms of social adoption and ownership, as well as financial sustainability.10aImpact Creation10aTransformative Changes10aTrust Building10aurban living labs1 aBlezer, Stefano1 aAbujidi, Nurhan  utimreview.ca/article/146600860nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245004000055210003700095260004200132300000800174490000600182653001700188653002000205653001500225653001500240653001600255653002000271653001700291653001900308653001000327653003700337653002200374100001800396700002300414700002800437700002200465700002100487856003800508       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs (March 2019)0 aEditorial Living Labs March 2019  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2019  a3-50 v910aaccelerators10abusiness models10aframeworks10ainnovation10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10astakeholders10asustainability10atools10aUN Sustainable Development Goals10aurban living labs1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul1 aRunardotter, Mari1 aChronéer, Diana  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122002229nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245005400055210005000109260004200159300001000201490000600211520160800217653002001825653001101845653001501856653001601871653001501887653002201902100001601924700002201940856003701962       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Defining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs0 aDefining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2017  a21-330 v73 aThe organization of supported and sustainable urban interventions is challenging, with multiple actors involved, fragmented decision-making powers, and multiple values at stake. Globally, urban living labs have become a fashionable phenomenon to tackle this challenge, fostering the development and implementation of innovation, experimentation, and knowledge in urban, real-life settings while emphasizing the important role of participation and co-creation. However, although urban living labs could in this way help cities to speed up the sustainable transition, urban living lab experts agree that, in order to truly succeed in these ambitious tasks, the way urban living labs are being shaped and steered needs further research. Yet, they also confirm the existing variation and opaqueness in the definition of the concept. This article contributes to conceptual clarity by developing an operationalized definition of urban living labs, which has been used to assess 90 sustainable urban innovation projects in the city of Amsterdam. The assessment shows that the majority of the projects that are labelled as living labs do not include one or more of the defining elements of a living lab. In particular, the defining co-creation and development activities were found to be absent in many of the projects. This article makes it possible to categorize alleged living lab projects and distill the “true” living labs from the many improperly labelled or unlabelled living labs, allowing more specific analyses and, ultimately, better targeted methodological recommendations for urban living labs.10acharacteristics10acities10adefinition10aliving labs10aTIM Review10aurban living labs1 aSteen, Kris1 avan Bueren, Ellen  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/108801810nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245009800055210006900153260004200222300001000264490000600274520103100280653002701311653003101338653001901369653003801388653002201426100002301448700001701471700002301488700002101511856003601532       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aGoverning Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship0 aGoverning Quintuple Helix Innovation Urban Living Labs and Socio  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2016  a22-300 v63 aGrowing urbanization puts pressure on both social and ecological systems. This pressure raises complex and multi-facetted challenges that can only be tackled by collaborative and distributed innovation development processes. However, theoretical frameworks that assess such collaborations are often very conceptual, with little focus on the actual governance mechanisms that facilitate them. This article studies the urban living lab concept as an inter-organizational design and multi-stakeholder innovation development process to govern the quintuple helix model for innovation by means of an action research based multidimensional case study design, which focuses on the concepts of innovation democracy, mode 3 knowledge production, the innovation ecosystem as a system of societal subsystems, and socio-ecological transition. In this way, we provide a more profound understanding of such innovation processes to tackle socio-ecological challenges by means of public–private interactions driven by eco-entrepreneurship. 10adistributed innovation10aquintuple helix innovation10asocial ecology10asocio-ecological entrepreneurship10aurban living labs1 aBaccarne, Bastiaan1 aLogghe, Sara1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aDe Marez, Lieven  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/97202007nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245011900055210006900174260004200243300001000285490000600295520127700301653001601578653002501594653001801619653002201637653002201659100001801681700001701699700002501716856003601741       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aContextuality and Co-Creation Matter: A Qualitative Case Study Comparison of Living Lab Concepts in Urban Research0 aContextuality and CoCreation Matter A Qualitative Case Study Com  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2015  a48-550 v53 aInnovation development is key to transforming a product-based economy into an innovative service economy by integrating users as co-creators in real-life environments. User co-creation and user involvement are key elements in living labs. Urban living labs add not only the urban component to the conceptual design, but also societal, political, and technological questions. Fields of analysis in urban research relate to socio-spatial environment, living together, and urban policies. The leading question of this article is: to what extent can urban living labs be used as an instrument to support these fields of investigation? Comparing three different approaches for urban living labs, ranging from socially-centred to more technology-centred, we offer a more nuanced understanding of urban living lab design in diverging research contexts. All three case studies manage to go beyond testing and improving new products, which is normally the aim of existing living labs, by embedding innovation in appropriate social, structural, and institutional frameworks, and targeting civil society involvement. The community benefits from this case study comparison because it contextualizes living labs as research methodology to be applied in future urban research projects. 10aco-creation10ainnovation ecosystem10aparticipation10asocial innovation10aurban living labs1 aFranz, Yvonne1 aTausz, Karin1 aThiel, Sarah-Kristin  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95200869nas a2200301   4500008004100000022001400041245006300055210006000118260004200178300000800220490000600228653002000234653002200254653001200276653001800288653002400306653001600330653002000346653002200366653002200388653002000410100001800430700001900448700002300467700002100490700002000511856003600531       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (December 2015)0 aEditorial Living Labs and User Innovation December 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2015  a3-50 v510abusiness models10aclosed innovation10acontext10acrowdsourcing10ainnovation networks10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aspaces and places10aurban living labs10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aHuizingh, Eelko  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/94701801nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245008300055210006900138260004200207300001000249490000600259520114400265653001501409653002501424653001301449653002501462653002201487100002101509700001701530856003601547       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aActor Roles in an Urban Living Lab: What Can We Learn from Suurpelto, Finland?0 aActor Roles in an Urban Living Lab What Can We Learn from Suurpe  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2013  a22-270 v33 aThere is a growing trend to involve citizens in city development to make urban areas more suitable to their needs and prevent social problems. City centres and neighbourhoods have increasingly been serving as regional living labs, which are ideal platforms to explore the needs of users as residents and citizens. This article examines the characteristics and success factors of urban living labs based on a case study of Suurpelto, Finland. Urban living lab activity is characterized by a practice-based innovation process with diffuse and heterogeneous knowledge production that aims to address urban problems of varying complexity. User involvement is critical for co-creating value, but equally important is collaboration between other living lab actors: enablers, providers, and utilizers. Enabler-driven labs can be successful in creating common goals but they need providers, such as development organizations, to boost development. Proactive networking, experimentation as a bottom-up process, using student innovators as resources, as well as commitment and longevity in development work are success factors for urban living labs.10ainnovation10aknowledge production10anetworks10aregional development10aurban living labs1 aJuujärvi, Soile1 aPesso, Kaija  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/742