IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i21p14009-d955378.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review on the Application of the Living Lab Concept and Role of Stakeholders in the Energy Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Sphokazi Phelokazi Mbatha

    (School of Public Leadership, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa)

  • Josephine Kaviti Musango

    (Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7700, South Africa)

Abstract

The living lab concept is identified as having the potential to provide a platform to test technologies and support energy transition. However, the application of the concept to the energy sector is limited, though emerging. This study undertook a systematic literature review to understand the extent of the application of the living lab concept, with the particular aim of informing the processes to establish such a platform in urban Africa. Using a sample of 35 papers, only 17 papers were related to energy-living labs, while 18 papers were outside the energy field. The scale and contexts of the application of living labs were diverse. However, not all initiatives that defined themselves as living labs were characterised by elements typical of the concept of a living lab. Further, how the stakeholders were identified, and the stakeholder recruitment process in energy living labs was unclear in the sampled studies. A recommendation is to improve transparency in the stakeholder identification, engagement, and recruitment process in energy living labs and to incorporate gendered issues into the setup and management of urban energy living labs.

Suggested Citation

  • Sphokazi Phelokazi Mbatha & Josephine Kaviti Musango, 2022. "A Systematic Review on the Application of the Living Lab Concept and Role of Stakeholders in the Energy Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:14009-:d:955378
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14009/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14009/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Veronika Zavratnik & Argene Superina & Emilija Stojmenova Duh, 2019. "Living Labs for Rural Areas: Contextualization of Living Lab Frameworks, Concepts and Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Mukama, Matia & Musango, Josephine Kaviti & Smit, Suzanne & Ceschin, Fabrizio & Petrulaityte, Aine, 2022. "Development of living labs to support gendered energy technology innovation in poor urban environments," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    3. Alexis Habiyaremye, 2020. "Knowledge exchange and innovation co-creation in living labs projects in South Africa," Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 207-222, May.
    4. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    5. Paskaleva, Krassimira & Cooper, Ian, 2021. "Are living labs effective? Exploring the evidence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    6. Paul Save & Belgin Terim Cavka & Thomas Froese, 2021. "Evaluation and Lessons Learned from a Campus as a Living Lab Program to Promote Sustainable Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    7. Dvarioniene, Jolanta & Gurauskiene, Inga & Gecevicius, Giedrius & Trummer, Dora Ruth & Selada, Catarina & Marques, Isabel & Cosmi, Carmelina, 2015. "Stakeholders involvement for energy conscious communities: The Energy Labs experience in 10 European communities," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 512-518.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gerd Lupp & Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Josh J. Huang & Amy Oen & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Living Labs—A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    2. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    3. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    4. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    6. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    7. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    8. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    9. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    10. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    11. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    12. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    13. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    15. Wesam Salah Alaloul & Muhammad Altaf & Muhammad Ali Musarat & Muhammad Faisal Javed & Amir Mosavi, 2021. "Systematic Review of Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement and a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-38, April.
    16. Claudia Peters & Agnessa Kozak & Albert Nienhaus & Anja Schablon, 2020. "Risk of Occupational Latent Tuberculosis Infection among Health Personnel Measured by Interferon-Gamma Release Assays in Low Incidence Countries—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, January.
    17. Sehee Kim & Mihyeon Park & Sukhee Ahn, 2022. "The Impact of Antepartum Depression and Postpartum Depression on Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 31(5), pages 866-880, June.
    18. Habarurema Jean Baptiste & Yan Guang Cai & A. Y. M. Atiquil Islam & Nzabalirwa Wenceslas, 2022. "A Systematic Review of University Social Responsibility in Post-Conflict Societies: The Case of the Great Lakes Region of East Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 439-475, November.
    19. Yafei Shen & Weide Shao, 2022. "Influence of Hybrid Pedagogical Models on Learning Outcomes in Physical Education: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-16, August.
    20. Nicola Andreij Rieg & Birgitta Gatersleben & Ian Christie, 2021. "Organizational Change Management for Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Quantitative Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, June.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:14009-:d:955378. 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.