Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Living Labs: Science, Society and Co-creation

  • Gabriela Pereira LucchesiEmail author
  • Emília Wanda Rutkowski
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71059-4_74-1

Definitions

If there’s one thing academic researchers of living labs agree on, it’s that no consensus exists about the expression’s definition. In spite of that, basic concepts are used when trying to understand living labs, such as multiple stakeholders, co-creation, innovation, and real-life context. On a basic level, one can understand living labs as “co-creation ecosystems for human-centric research and innovation” (Westerlund and Leminen 2011). Furthermore, living labs can be defined as “an emerging open innovation approach that involves multiple stakeholders, including users, to co-create value that eventually leads to innovation” (Veeckman et al. 2013).

In a more practical approach, Westerlund and Leminen (2011) define it as “physical regions or virtual realities where stakeholders form public-private-people partnerships (4Ps) of firms, public agencies, universities, institutes and users, all collaborating for creation, prototyping, validating and testing new technologies,...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Almirall E, Wareham J (2008) Living labs and open innovation: roles and applicability. Electron J Virtual Organ Netw 10:21–46Google Scholar
  2. Ballon P, Pierson J, Delaere S (2005) Test and experimentation platforms for broadband innovation: examining European practice. Paper presented at the 16th international telecommunications society Europe conference, Porto, Portugal, 4–6 September 2005Google Scholar
  3. CcHUB OLL. https://cchubnigeria.com/about/. Accessed 06 Sept 2018
  4. Dell’Era C, Landoni P (2014) Living lab: a methodology between user-centered design and participatory design. Creat Innov Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ENoLL (European Network of Living Labs). https://enoll.org/about-us/. Accessed 06 Sept 2018
  6. Eriksson M, Niitamo VP, Kulkki S (2005) State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation – an Europe approach. Technology 13(1):1–13Google Scholar
  7. Fagerberg J (2006) Innovation: a guide to the literature. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery D, Nelson R (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0001Google Scholar
  8. Fiksel J (2006) Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 2(2):14–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenhalg C, Rogers M (2010) Innovation, intellectual property, and economic growth. New Jersey: The Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Gross M, Krohn W (2005) Society as experiment: sociological foundations for a self-experimental society. Hist Hum Sci 18(2):63–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofstad H, Torfing J (2015) Collaborative innovation as a tool for environmental, economic and social sustainability in regional governance. Scand J Public Adm 19(4):49–70Google Scholar
  13. König A, Evans J (2013) Introduction: experimenting for sustainable development? Living laboratories, social learning and the role of university. In: König A (ed) Regenerative sustainable development of universities and cities – the role of living laboratories. Cheltenham, Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  14. Leminen S (2013) Coordination and participation in living lab networks. Technol Innov Manage Rev 3(11):5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leminen S (2015) Living labs as open innovation networks – networks, roles and innovation outcomes. Doctoral dissertation. Helsinki, Finland: Aalto UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Levin S (2008) Foreword. In: Norberg J, Cumming GS (eds) Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Library Living Lab. http://librarylivinglab.cvc.uab.cat/home/que-hacemos/. Accessed 06 Sept 2018
  18. Lozano R, (2006) Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities: breaking through barriers to change. J Clean Prod 14(9–11):787–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lozano R, Lozano FJ, Mulder K, Huinsingh D, Waas T (2013) Advancing higher education for sustainable development: international insights and critical reflections. J Clean Prod 48:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. NESTA – National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/landscape-of-innovation-approaches/. Accessed 15 Sept 2018
  21. Pinto MM, Fonseca LP (2013) Habitat Living Lab, red de innovación social y tecnológica. Revista CTS 23(8):135–150Google Scholar
  22. Prahalad CK, Ramaswamy V (2004) Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J Interact Mark.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schuurman D, Lievens B, De Marez L, Ballon P et al (2012) 2012 Paper presented at the XXIII ISPIM conference – action for innovation: innovating from experience, Barcelona, 17–20 June 2012Google Scholar
  24. Smart Village Living Lab – ENoLL. https://enoll.org/network/living-labs/?livinglab=smart-village-living-lab-svll. Accessed 06 Sept 2018
  25. Ståhlbröst A, Holst M (2012) The Living Lab Methodology handbook. Luleå University of Technology. http://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.101555!/file/LivingLabsMethodologyBook_web.pdf. Accessed 20 Sept 2017
  26. Tainter JA (1996) Complexity, problem solving, and sustainable societies. In: Costanza OS, Martinez-Alier J (eds) Getting down to earth: practical applications of ecological economics. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Trencher G, Nagao M, Chen C, Ichiki K, Sadayoshi T, Kinai M, Kamitani M, Nakamura S, Yamauchi A, Yarime M (2017) Implementing sustainability co-creation between universities and society: a typology-based understanding. Sustainability 9:594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Veeckman C, Schuurman D, Leminen S, Westerlund M (2013) Linking living lab characteristics and their outcomes: towards a conceptual framework. Technol Innov Manag Rev 3(2):6–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vicini S, Bellini S, Sanna A (2012) The city of the future living lab. Int J Autom Smart Technol 2(3):201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Westerlund M, Leminen S (2011) Managing the challenges of becoming an open innovation company: experiences from living labs. Technol Innov Manag Rev 1:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriela Pereira Lucchesi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emília Wanda Rutkowski
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban DesignState University of Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrazil

Section editors and affiliations

  • Lizhen Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of manufacturing and civil engineeringNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyGjøvikNorway