IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i5p2609-d757259.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co-Creation Hub Is the First Step for the Successful Creation of a Unified Urban Ecosystem-Kaunas City Example

Author

Listed:
  • Akvilė Feiferytė-Skirienė

    (Institute of Environmental Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology, Gedimino St. 50, 44239 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Lina Draudvilienė

    (Institute of Environmental Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology, Gedimino St. 50, 44239 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Žaneta Stasiškienė

    (Institute of Environmental Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology, Gedimino St. 50, 44239 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Sergej Sosunkevič

    (Department of Medical Technology and Dietetics, Kaunas University of Applied Sciences, Muitines St. 15, 44280 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Kastytis Pamakštys

    (Institute of Environmental Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology, Gedimino St. 50, 44239 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Laura Daniusevičiūtė-Brazaitė

    (Faculty of Social Science, Arts and Humanities, Kaunas University of Technology, K. Donelaicio St. 73, 44029 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Inga Gurauskienė

    (Institute of Environmental Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology, Gedimino St. 50, 44239 Kaunas, Lithuania)

Abstract

The identification of the main steps for the creation of a unified ecosystem from the institutional point of view and the framework for ecosystem design is presented and discussed. Based on the expertise and the knowledge gained during the time when the ELISE project had been implemented, a unified Kaunas city ecosystem is being designed using the Ecosystem Map method. As the review of the ELISE project reports helped to identify the main steps of each project partner in building ecosystems’ networks, Kaunas city chose to create a co-Creation Hub (c-CH), which is the first step in developing an ecosystem management model. The main tasks of such a hub are listed, and should involve the preparation of a long-term action plan involving not only the coordination of the stakeholder meetings, organisation of seminars, the preparation of new materials, and methodology but also the development of a clear strategy for each stakeholder based on national economy and government and municipality policies. The role of the c-CH is to ensure the ease of cooperation and knowledge distribution among stakeholders within the city, public authorities, and the national government. This approach could become a fundamental background tool for the regional and/or city municipal and stakeholder-based creation and development of unified ecosystem development.

Suggested Citation

  • Akvilė Feiferytė-Skirienė & Lina Draudvilienė & Žaneta Stasiškienė & Sergej Sosunkevič & Kastytis Pamakštys & Laura Daniusevičiūtė-Brazaitė & Inga Gurauskienė, 2022. "Co-Creation Hub Is the First Step for the Successful Creation of a Unified Urban Ecosystem-Kaunas City Example," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:5:p:2609-:d:757259
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2609/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/5/2609/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jesper Munksgaard & Mette Wier & Manfred Lenzen & Christopher Dey, 2005. "Using Input‐Output Analysis to Measure the Environmental Pressure of Consumption at Different Spatial Levels," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 9(1‐2), pages 169-185, January.
    2. Johan Colding & Matteo Giusti & Andreas Haga & Marita Wallhagen & Stephan Barthel, 2020. "Enabling Relationships with Nature in Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Jian Peng & An Wang & Yanxu Liu & Weidong Liu, 2015. "Assessing the Atmospheric Oxygen Balance in a Region of Rapid Urbanization: A Case Study in the Pearl River Delta, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-18, September.
    4. Granstrand, Ove & Holgersson, Marcus, 2020. "Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 90.
    5. Jan K. Kazak, 2018. "The Use of a Decision Support System for Sustainable Urbanization and Thermal Comfort in Adaptation to Climate Change Actions—The Case of the Wrocław Larger Urban Zone (Poland)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.
    6. Gabriele Cepeliauskaite & Zaneta Stasiskiene, 2020. "The Framework of the Principles of Sustainable Urban Ecosystems Development and Functioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-15, January.
    7. Nan Cui & Chen-Chieh Feng & Rui Han & Luo Guo, 2019. "Impact of Urbanization on Ecosystem Health: A Case Study in Zhuhai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Jing Zhang & Xueming Li & Tongliga Bao & Zhenghai Li & Chong Liu & Yuan Xu, 2021. "Linking Demographic Factors, Land Use, Ecosystem Services, and Human Well-Being: Insights from an Sandy Landscape, Uxin in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-16, April.
    9. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    10. Oosterbroek, Bram & de Kraker, Joop & Huynen, Maud M.T.E. & Martens, Pim, 2016. "Assessing ecosystem impacts on health: A tool review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 237-254.
    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. Johan Colding & Karl Samuelsson & Lars Marcus & Åsa Gren & Ann Legeby & Meta Berghauser Pont & Stephan Barthel, 2022. "Frontiers in Social–Ecological Urbanism," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Lepore, Dominique & Frontoni, Emanuele & Micozzi, Alessandra & Moccia, Sara & Romeo, Luca & Spigarelli, Francesca, 2023. "Uncovering the potential of innovation ecosystems in the healthcare sector after the COVID-19 crisis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 80-86.
    4. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    5. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    6. Shuangqing Sheng & Wei Song & Hua Lian & Lei Ning, 2022. "Review of Urban Land Management Based on Bibliometrics," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.
    7. Ghazinoory, Sepehr & Nasri, Shohreh & Afshari-Mofrad, Masoud & Taghizadeh Moghadam, Negin, 2023. "National Innovation Biome (NIB): A novel conceptualization for innovation development at the national level," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.
    9. Dorota Ciołek & Anna Golejewska & Adriana Zabłocka‐Abi Yaghi, 2022. "Innovation drivers in regions. Does urbanization matter?," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 1933-1960, December.
    10. Federico Caviggioli & Alessandra Colombelli & Antonio De Marco & Giuseppe Scellato & Elisa Ughetto, 2023. "Co-evolution patterns of university patenting and technological specialization in European regions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 216-239, February.
    11. Ghazinoory, Sepehr & Phillips, Fred & Afshari-Mofrad, Masoud & Bigdelou, Nasrin, 2021. "Innovation lives in ecotones, not ecosystems," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 572-580.
    12. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    13. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    14. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    15. Yulei Xie & Ling Ji & Beibei Zhang & Gordon Huang, 2018. "Evolution of the Scientific Literature on Input–Output Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis of 1990–2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    17. Vasileios A. Tzanakakis & Andrea G. Capodaglio & Andreas N. Angelakis, 2023. "Insights into Global Water Reuse Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-30, August.
    18. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    19. Somajita Paul & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Factors Influencing Perceptions and Use of Urban Nature: Surveys of Park Visitors in Delhi," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.
    20. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.

    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:19:y:2022:i:5:p:2609-:d:757259. 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.