IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i3p1139-d488402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation Pathways for Age-Friendly Homes in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Frans Sengers

    (Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Alexander Peine

    (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

A variety of innovative pilot projects are being implemented to improve the life-course resilience of existing and newly built home environments. We refer to these projects as “socio-technical experiments” that embody different kinds of promising futures and provide direction to current developments in the emerging domain of age-friendly homes. To take stock of this diversity within Europe; this paper provides an overview of 53 ongoing socio-technical experiments that are being conducted in the Netherlands, France, Ireland and Poland. We find that, besides the variation between European countries, there is a more important type variation in terms of the character of the experiments themselves and the differences in development direction that they propose. Our findings suggest that most of the innovations tested in these experiments are not primarily material or technical but primarily social or conceptual in character (i.e., new organizational modes or everyday practices that re-arrange social relations or new housing concepts that bridge the divide between ageing in place individually and a nursing home). This variety of innovations tested in the experiments can be categorized into seven distinct innovation pathways: (1) Showcasing Technology, (2) Innovation Ecosystem, (3) Sheltered Elite, (4) Specific Community, (5) Conscious Retrofitting, (6) Home Sharing and (7) Retrovation Challenge.

Suggested Citation

  • Frans Sengers & Alexander Peine, 2021. "Innovation Pathways for Age-Friendly Homes in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-25, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:3:p:1139-:d:488402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/3/1139/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/3/1139/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katja M. Rusinovic & Marianne E. van Bochove & Suzanna Koops-Boelaars & Zsuzsu K.C.T. Tavy & Joost van Hoof, 2020. "Towards Responsible Rebellion: How Founders Deal with Challenges in Establishing and Governing Innovative Living Arrangements for Older People," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Smith, Adrian & Raven, Rob, 2012. "What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1025-1036.
    3. Joost Van Hoof & Jan K. Kazak & Jolanta M. Perek-Białas & Sebastiaan T. M. Peek, 2018. "The Challenges of Urban Ageing: Making Cities Age-Friendly in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Brett R. Smith & Christopher E. Stevens, 2010. "Different types of social entrepreneurship: The role of geography and embeddedness on the measurement and scaling of social value," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(6), pages 575-598, October.
    5. Sengers, Frans & Wieczorek, Anna J. & Raven, Rob, 2019. "Experimenting for sustainability transitions: A systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 153-164.
    6. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    7. Douthwaite, Boru & Kuby, Thomas & van de Fliert, Elske & Schulz, Steffen, 2003. "Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 243-265, November.
    8. Pettigrew, Andrew M., 1997. "What is a processual analysis?," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 337-348, December.
    9. Breschi, Stefano & Malerba, Franco, 2001. "The Geography of Innovation and Economic Clustering: Some Introductory Notes," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(4), pages 817-833, December.
    10. Andrew Karvonen & Bas Heur, 2014. "Urban Laboratories: Experiments in Reworking Cities," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 379-392, March.
    11. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joost van Hoof & Hannah R. Marston, 2021. "Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-13, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    2. Gloria Rose & Mirjam Stocker & Michael Ornetzeder, 2022. "The Learning City: Temporary Housing Projects as Urban Niches for Sustainability Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, April.
    3. Nafiisa Sobratee & Rashieda Davids & Chuma B. Chinzila & Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi & Pauline Scheelbeek & Albert T. Modi & Alan D. Dangour & Rob Slotow, 2022. "Visioning a Food System for an Equitable Transition towards Sustainable Diets—A South African Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    4. Sillig, Cécile, 2022. "The role of ideology in grassroots innovation: An application of the arenas of development framework to organic in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Sobratee, N. & Davids, R. & Chinzila, C. B. & Mabhaudhi, Tafadzwanashe & Scheelbeek, P. & Modi, A. T. & Dangour, A. D. & Slotow, R., 2022. "Visioning a food system for an equitable transition towards sustainable diets—a South African perspective," Papers published in Journals (Open Access), International Water Management Institute, pages 1-14(6):328.
    6. Laatsit, Mart & Grillitsch, Markus & Fünfschilling, Lea, 2022. "Great expectations: the promises and limits of innovation policy in addressing societal challenges," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/9, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    7. Jonas Torrens & Phillip Johnstone & Johan Schot, 2018. "Unpacking the Formation of Favourable Environments for Urban Experimentation: The Case of the Bristol Energy Scene," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-28, March.
    8. Sengers, Frans & Wieczorek, Anna J. & Raven, Rob, 2019. "Experimenting for sustainability transitions: A systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 153-164.
    9. Brem, Alexander & Radziwon, Agnieszka, 2017. "Efficient Triple Helix collaboration fostering local niche innovation projects – A case from Denmark," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 130-141.
    10. André Sorensen & Anna-Katharina Brenner, 2021. "Cities, Urban Property Systems, and Sustainability Transitions: Contested Processes of Institutional Change and the Regulation of Urban Property Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Jain, Sanjay, 2020. "Fumbling to the future? Socio-technical regime change in the recorded music industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    12. Hellsmark, Hans & Frishammar, Johan & Söderholm, Patrik & Ylinenpää, Håkan, 2016. "The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technology development and innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1743-1761.
    13. Anthony McLean & Harriet Bulkeley & Mike Crang, 2016. "Negotiating the urban smart grid: Socio-technical experimentation in the city of Austin," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(15), pages 3246-3263, November.
    14. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    15. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    16. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    17. Nesari, Mohammad & Naghizadeh, Mohammad & Ghazinoori, Soroush & Manteghi, Manoochehr, 2022. "The evolution of socio-technical transition studies: A scientometric analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    18. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    19. John Holmberg & Johan Larsson, 2018. "A Sustainability Lighthouse—Supporting Transition Leadership and Conversations on Desirable Futures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-25, October.
    20. Walrave, Bob & Talmar, Madis & Podoynitsyna, Ksenia S. & Romme, A. Georges L. & Verbong, Geert P.J., 2018. "A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 103-113.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:3:p:1139-:d:488402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.