IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i6p1893-d150904.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co-Creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs

Author

Listed:
  • Emma Puerari

    (Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands
    Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Jotte I. J. C. De Koning

    (Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands
    Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Timo Von Wirth

    (Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Philip M. Karré

    (Research Group City Dynamics, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, 3072 AG Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    Department of Public Administration and Sociology (DPAS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Ingrid J. Mulder

    (Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Derk A. Loorbach

    (Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Citizens and urban policy makers are experimenting with collaborative ways to tackle wicked urban issues, such as today’s sustainability challenges. In this article, we consider one particular way of collaboration in an experimental setting: Urban Living Labs (ULLs). ULLs are understood as spatially embedded sites for the co-creation of knowledge and solutions by conducting local experiments. As such, ULLs are supposed to offer an arena for reflexive, adaptive, and multi-actor learning environments, where new practices of self-organization and novel (infra-) structures can be tested within their real-world context. Yet, it remains understudied how the co-creation of knowledge and practices actually takes place within ULLs, and how co-creation unfolds their impacts. Hence, this paper focuses on co-creation dynamics in urban living labs, its associated learning and knowledge generation, and how these possibly contribute to urban sustainability transitions. We analyzed empirical data from a series of in-depth interviews and were actively involved with ULLs in the Rotterdam-The Hague region in the Netherlands. Our findings show five distinct types of co-creation elements that relate to specific dynamics of participation, facilitation, and organization. We conclude with a discussion on the ambivalent role of contextualized knowledge and the implications for sustainability transitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma Puerari & Jotte I. J. C. De Koning & Timo Von Wirth & Philip M. Karré & Ingrid J. Mulder & Derk A. Loorbach, 2018. "Co-Creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1893-:d:150904
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1893/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1893/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian Scholl & René Kemp, 2016. "City Labs as Vehicles for Innovation in Urban Planning Processes," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(4), pages 89-102.
    2. Roberta Capello & Alessandra Faggian, 2005. "Collective Learning and Relational Capital in Local Innovation Processes," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 75-87.
    3. Sue Kilpatrick & Bruce Wilson, 2013. "Boundary crossing organizations in regional innovation systems," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(1), pages 67-82, March.
    4. Patsy Healey, 2008. "Knowledge Flows, Spatial Strategy Making, and the Roles of Academics," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 26(5), pages 861-881, October.
    5. Victor Pestoff, 2006. "Citizens and co-production of welfare services," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 503-519, December.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, 1998. "The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 195-203, June.
    7. von Hippel, Eric & Tyre, Marcie J., 1995. "How learning by doing is done: problem identification in novel process equipment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 1-12, January.
    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. Gebreeyesus, Mulu & Mohnen, Pierre, 2013. "Innovation Performance and Embeddedness in Networks: Evidence from the Ethiopian Footwear Cluster," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 302-316.
    2. Franz Tödtling & Christoph Höglinger & Markus Grillitsch, 2012. "Knowledge relations and innovation from a regional perspective," Chapters, in: Roberta Capello & Tomaz Ponce Dentinho (ed.), Networks, Space and Competitiveness, chapter 5, pages 107-134, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Agathe Gilain & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Managing Learning Curves In The Unknown: From ‘Learning By Doing’ To ‘Learning By Designing’," Post-Print hal-01900961, HAL.
    4. Arie Y Lewin & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters, 2020. "Absorptive capacity, socially enabling mechanisms, and the role of learning from trial and error experiments: A tribute to Dan Levinthal’s contribution to international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(9), pages 1568-1579, December.
    5. Zbigniew Drewniak & Rafal Drewniak & Robert Karaszewski, 2020. "The Assessment of the Features of Inter-organisational Relationships: Benefits, Duration, Repeatability and Maturity of the Relationship with the Company's Stakeholders," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 443-461.
    6. Cong Cheng & Hongfang Cui, 2024. "Combining digital and legacy technologies: firm digital transformation strategies—evidence from Chinese manufacturing companies," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Pravee Kruachottikul & Pinnaree Tea-makorn & Poomsiri Dumrongvute & Solaphat Hemrungrojn & Natawut Nupairoj & Ornsiree Junchaya & Sukrit Vinayavekhin, 2024. "MediGate: a MedTech product innovation development process from university research to successful commercialization within emerging markets," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-43, December.
    8. Quatraro, Francesco & Scandura, Alessandra, 2020. "Regional patterns of unrelated technological diversification: the role of academic inventors," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 202001, University of Turin.
    9. Ben Klemens, 2021. "Attributing Value to Patents and Trademarks in Complex Production Chains," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 842-875, June.
    10. J H Chen & T S Jan, 2005. "A system dynamics model of the semiconductor industry development in Taiwan," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(10), pages 1141-1150, October.
    11. Luengo, María Jesús & Obeso, María, 2013. "Efeito da hélice tríplice em desempenho de inovação," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 53(4), July.
    12. Mathew, Nanditha & Paily, George, 2020. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," MERIT Working Papers 2020-008, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. Francesco Campanella & Maria Rosaria Della Peruta & Stefano Bresciani & Luca Dezi, 2017. "Quadruple Helix and firms’ performance: an empirical verification in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 267-284, April.
    14. Xiaojun Hu & Xian Li & Ronald Rousseau, 2021. "Mathematical reflections on Triple Helix calculations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8581-8587, October.
    15. Csenkey, Kristen & Bindel, Nina, 2021. "Post-Quantum Cryptographic Assemblages and the Governance of the Quantum Threat," SocArXiv 3ws6p, Center for Open Science.
    16. Paul M. Leonardi, 2014. "Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 796-816, December.
    17. MANUKYAN Izabella, 2022. "To The Question Of The Essence Of Business Clusters: A Literature Review Of Existing Approaches," Management of Sustainable Development, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 14(1), pages 4-9, June.
    18. Osseweijer, Floor J.W. & van den Hurk, Linda B.P. & Teunissen, Erik J.H.M. & van Sark, Wilfried G.J.H.M., 2018. "A comparative review of building integrated photovoltaics ecosystems in selected European countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1027-1040.
    19. De Witte, Kristof & Geys, Benny, 2013. "Citizen coproduction and efficient public good provision: Theory and evidence from local public libraries," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(3), pages 592-602.
    20. Crescenzi, Riccardo & Nathan, Max & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2016. "Do inventors talk to strangers? On proximity and collaborative knowledge creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 177-194.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1893-:d:150904. 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.