Search

University‐based boundary organisations provide academics with an environment where they can interact with a wide variety of societal partners to produce knowledge and work on research projects, often of a transdisciplinary nature. This environment, however, implies that their researchers may be confronted with multiple and sometimes conflicting demands coming from various stakeholders. In this study, we focus on one such case, a Real‐world Laboratory (RwL), set up by the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. This RwL focuses on urban sustainable development challenges. Drawing on boundary work literature, we analyse the boundary work strategies employed by the lab's leading researchers to manage such demands as part of a RwL research project. We observe that the managing researchers buffer several types of boundaries in order not to compromise the transdisciplinary nature of the RwL. They appear to utilise four types of boundary devices when managing boundaries: language, people, objects, and spaces. We conclude that, to reduce tensions, the managing researchers should acknowledge the presence of boundaries early on in their RwL research project, that is, during its conception phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on policy learning has shown that actors can learn in inadequate modes. To better understand policy learning failures and possible remedies, we ask how and why inadequate learning environments occur and how they can be changed. Building on the varieties of learning approach, we distinguish between perceived and functional actor certification and problem tractability. On this basis, we introduce a typology of learning mode misfits and indicative adjustments and revisit previous case studies from this perspective. We then apply the concept to a case of policy learning in a socio-technical transition, arguing that learning environments in socio-technical transitions tend to overvalue actor certification and problem tractability and require recalibration towards reflexivity. Assessing the effects of participatory co-creation interventions on technology development in precision grassland farming in two living labs in Germany, we provide evidence that decentral arenas and participatory experimentation facilitate learning by coequal actors scrutinising problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globally, typical dietary patterns are neither healthy nor sustainable. Recognizing the key role of dietary change in reducing noncommunicable disease risk and addressing environmental degradation, it is crucial to understand how to shift individuals toward a sustainable and healthy diet (SHD). In this literature review, we introduced the concept of a SHD and outlined the dietary behaviors necessary to transition toward SHD consumption; we reviewed the literature on factors that may influence sustainable (and unsustainable) dietary behaviors in adults; and we developed a novel scoring system to rank factors by priority for targeting in future research. Given the significant potential to promote a sustainable and healthy dietary transition on the university campus—where factors that may impact dietary behaviors can be targeted at all levels of influence (i.e., individual, interpersonal, environmental, policy)—we narrowed our focus to this setting throughout. Aided by our novel scoring system, we identified conscious habitual eating, product price, food availability/accessibility, product convenience, self-regulation skills, knowledge of animal ethics/welfare, food promotion, and eating norms as important modifiable factors that may influence university students' dietary behaviors. When scored without consideration for the university population, these factors were also ranked as highest priority, as was modified portion sizes. Our findings offer insight into factors that may warrant attention in future research aimed at promoting SHDs. In particular, the high-priority factors identified from our synthesis of the literature could help guide the development of more personalized dietary behavioral interventions within the university setting and beyond. • We identified factors that may influence sustainable and healthy diet consumption. • Using a novel scoring system, these factors were then ranked by priority. • The scoring system identified high-priority factors to target in future research. • Most high-priority factors were at the environmental level (e.g., product price). • These findings can inform the development of future personalized interventions. This review identified many factors that may influence sustainable and healthy diet consumption. Using a novel scoring system, a number of high-priority factors were further identified. These included conscious habitual eating, self-regulation skills, food promotion, eating norms, and modified portion sizes, among others. Our findings could help guide the development of more personalized interventions to support sustainable and healthy diet consumption in various populations and contexts. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intending to enable a broader collaboration with the scientific community while maintaining privacy of the data stored and generated in Living Labs, this paper presents the Shareable Data Publishing and Access Service for Living Labs, implemented within the framework of the H2020 VITALISE project. Building upon previous work, significant enhancements and improvements are presented in the architecture enabling Living Labs to securely publish collected data in an internal and isolated node for external use. External researchers can access a portal to discover and download shareable data versions (anonymised or synthetic data) derived from the data stored across different Living Labs that they can use to develop, test, and debug their processing scripts locally, adhering to legal and ethical data handling practices. Subsequently, they may request remote execution of the same algorithms against the real internal data in Living Lab nodes, comparing the outcomes with those obtained using shareable data. The paper details the architecture, data flows, technical details and validation of the service with real-world usage examples, demonstrating its efficacy in promoting data-driven research in digital health while preserving privacy. The presented service can be used as an intermediary between Living Labs and external researchers for secure data exchange and to accelerate research on data analytics paradigms in digital health, ensuring compliance with data protection laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical interaction platforms (PIPs) such as living labs, innovation hubs and fab labs can play a key role for complex innovation tasks in the context of grand challenges. Although research focuses predominantly on aspects like collaboration within and organization of these spaces, little research has shed light on the development process of the PIP itself. This paper aims to contribute to innovation literature by identifying essential dimensions for the design and sustainable operation of PIPs. We use and transfer conceptual knowledge and empirical evidence in an iterative taxonomy development process. Five iterations were performed: (1) initial screening of PIPs, (2) an expert workshop, systematic literature reviews on (3) platform classifications and (4) on platform‐mediated value creation, and (5) a taxonomy evaluation by practitioners. The resulting PIP taxonomy consists of 18 design dimensions summarized in five groups: physical architecture, platform actors, key‐value propositions, value creation and revenue logic. It contributes with (1) a tangible framework for PIP concept development building on established design dimensions from platform‐, business model‐ and value creation literature. (2) It emphasizes criteria that require thorough reflection in the design phase (e.g., IP rights), enabling practitioners to identify and overcome critical issues early. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Germany, there are over 32,000 schools, representing great potential for climate protection. On the one hand, this applies to educational work, as understanding the effects of climate change and measures to reduce GHG emissions is an important step to empower students with knowledge and skills. On the other hand, school buildings are often in bad condition, energy is wasted, and the possibilities for using renewable energies are hardly used. In our "Schools4Future" project, we enabled students and teachers to draw up their own CO2 balances, identify weaknesses in the building, detect wasted electricity, and determine the potential for using renewable energies. Emissions from the school cafeteria, school trips, and paper consumption could also be identified. The fact that the data can be collected by the students themselves provides increased awareness of the contribution made to the climate balance by the various school areas. The most climate-friendly school emits 297 kg whilst the school with the highest emissions emits over one ton CO2 per student and year. Our approach is suitable to qualify students in the sense of citizen science, carry out a scientific investigation, experience self-efficacy through one's own actions, and engage politically regarding their concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social housing (SH) upgrade processes have the potential to reduce social costs, improve living conditions, and increase the satisfaction of dwellers. All stakeholders, especially end-users, should participate in such processes to identify needs and problems and evaluate proposals. The Living Lab (LL) approach is recommended to develop solutions in a real-life context, and collaboration among participants. Our study explores this to involve residents of SH in enhancing their neighbourhood, positively influencing their satisfaction with their living environment, and improving their quality of life. We pursued this objective by exploring participatory tools. We present co-creation activities to develop upgrade proposals for communal areas. From our analysis of these co-creation activities, important lessons are learned on resident engagement in social housing upgrade processes. Our contributions include a set of practical advice for conducting co-creation activities in Living Labs for social housing upgrades and a demonstration of how research organisations can utilise Living Labs to empower users in creating their social innovation projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article looks at a challenge-based learning (CBL) approach that aims to engage students in sustainable transitions within urban and regional planning. Drawing on CBL, we focus on how living labs – the idea of using a city as a site for user-driven innovation and development – can be used as a site and methodology in education and research on planning for sustainability. The paper presents insight from teaching planning master’s students and a living lab initiative in Linköping, Sweden. We aim to contribute to research on how to teach sustainable transitions within urban and regional planning by focusing on CBL and propose a methodology using a challenge-driven living lab aimed at supporting sustainable transformation learning. We mean that educational engagement with living lab approaches can be both a study tool and potentially an arena for change. Our experiences from teaching a living lab exercise illustrate the value of working with challenge based-learning approaches and “real-life” challenges, the added value from projects consisting of various actors including external groups, and the need for constructive peer-based and student-led learning. We suggest that a challenge-driven living lab methodology can be useful in teaching sustainable transformation in Geography and Planning and have wider implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing prevalence of dementia demands innovative solutions; however, existing technological products often lack tailored support for individuals living with this condition. The Living Lab approach, as a collaborative innovation method, holds promise in addressing this issue by actively involving end-users in the design and development of solutions adapted to their needs. Despite this potential, the approach still faces challenges due to its lack of recognition as a research methodology and its absence of tailored guidelines, particularly in dementia care, prompting inquiries into its effectiveness. This narrative review aims to fill this gap by identifying and analysing digital health Living Labs focusing on dementia solutions. Additionally, it proposes guidelines for enhancing their operations, ensuring sustainability, scalability, and greater impact on dementia care. Fifteen Living Labs were identified and analyzed. Based on trends, best practices, and literature, the guidelines emphasize user engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration, technological infrastructure, regulatory compliance, transparent innovation processes, impact measurement, sustainability, scalability, dissemination, and financial management. Implementing these guidelines can enhance the effectiveness and long-term impact of Living Labs in dementia care, fostering new collaborations globally.

As major policy actors (e.g. governments, global organisations) grapple with 'wicked' sustainability challenges, the use of demonstration projects or 'living labs' has promise in showcasing potential solutions. However, these projects can struggle to realise enduring change, with initial experimental deliverables tending not to be replicated and remaining as once-offs. As well as demonstrating solutions, projects also need to overcome the considerable inertia in the complex systems of organisations and institutions that govern (or indeed generate) sustainability problems. Here we argue that demonstration projects, while initially impactful, could be more likely to realise transformative change if they were designed more thoroughly as action research projects, working with partners to not only deliver and measure demonstrations of solutions, but also demonstrate changes to organisations and institutions to remove barriers and facilitate replication. We note the important role of both engaged leadership and explicitly-stated theories of change in maximising the potential of projects designed in this way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Berichte aus dem Julius Kühn-Institut is the property of Julius Kuehn Institut and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

While the issue of creating impact in real-world labs for experimenting with sustainability transformation has been studied, little is known about how to assess and understand impact in practice. Deciding on "what counts as impact" is challenging as problem definitions and solutions are political and contested. In our research projects for sustainability transformations in fields such as agriculture, food, and healthcare, we encountered typical questions of creating impact in real-world labs. We established a Community of Practice to explore the different challenges pertaining to these impact questions. We identified four overarching challenges related to impact: 1. measuring the impact of Labs, 2. dealing with positionality and power dynamics, 3. fostering impact within and beyond projects, and 4. ensuring impact across different contexts. This paper offers practical strategies for responding to these challenges: 1. tailor-made training for Labbing, 2. reflexively engaging with power dynamics, 3. forging rich, translocal learning and impact. Sharing learnings from our experience with Labbing may broaden the repertoire of fellow Lab practitioners in enhancing and strengthening their impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we explore the role of real-world experiments in local ition governance, focusing on the negotiation between measurable impacts and the evaluation of localized, tangible outcomes. In our qualitative comparative analysis, we examine three distinct mobility experiments aimed at advancing sustainable transformation in mobility and urban planning, namely the co-creative research project City2Share in Munich, the political program of the Superb/ocks in Barcelona, and the real-world test bed for automated shuttles Digibus Austria in Koppl near Salzburg. Despite the structural limitations of the temporal, spatial, and legal framework and the uncertainties in measuring the impact, all experiments were presented as successful. This success was negotiated and re-framed via five discursive strategies: mobilizing citizen engagement, highlighting small achievements, manifesting institutional embedding, generating political momentum, and delegating responsibility. As we argue, success and scaling are not just the result of scientific proof, but also a matter of negotiating the political issues raised by the experiment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Special Issue is preoccupied with the question: ‘How can citizens play an active role in co-creating sustainable food systems?’. The issue presents four distinct empirical research studies that explore participatory actions, co-creation and citizen science in moving towards more sustainable urban food systems at the intersection of design and sustainability. The various contributions explore the role of co-design with citizens to create sustainable food systems by addressing issues related to food production, processing, transportation and consumption. The issue covers diverse topics in distinct settings, from co-creation with agri-food smallholders in Vietnam to a design-led systemic action against homelessness-related food poverty in Turin, Italy.

Abstract Generating actionable knowledge to meet current sustainability challenges requires unprecedented collaboration across scales, geographies, cultures and knowledges. Intergovernmental programmes and place‐based knowledge–action networks have much potential to mobilize sustainability transformation. Although many research fields have benefited from research networks and comparative sites, the potential of site‐based research networks for generating knowledge at the people–nature interface has yet to be fully explored. This article presents the World Network of biosphere reserves (WNBR) of UNESCO's Man and Biosphere Programme, intentionally established for generating actionable knowledge through comparative sites envisioned as learning spaces for sustainable development. Drawing on experiences over five decades, and we offer six categories of insights. Our intent is to share the story of this network widely, distil the learnings from the network to enhance its potential to support both knowledge co‐production and collaborative action for sustainability and inform wider efforts to establish place‐based sustainability networks aimed at improving human–environment relations through knowledge and action. The WNBR has generated insights on the challenges of creating and supporting an international and inter‐governmental sustainability network to generate and mobilize place‐based interdisciplinary knowledge in the long term. Despite the challenges, site‐ and place‐based research facilitated by this network has been fundamental in creating space for sustainability science, knowledge co‐production and transdisciplinary research at the human–nature interface. We share insights on pathways to the implementation of global sustainability agendas through local networks, and the role of research in supporting learning and experimentation in local sites as they work to adapt global sustainability goals. Research in the WNBR has generated deeper understanding on social–ecological complexity and resilience in place‐based sustainability initiatives, and how collaborative platforms might facilitate collective action across landscapes. The network continues to offer a fundamental learning space on operationalizing pluralistic approaches to biodiversity conservation, for example, through its focus on biocultural diversity, offering a key opportunity for the implementation of the post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. We conclude by arguing that WNBR, and similar place‐based knowledge–action networks, can support interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research related to human–nature relationships and provide opportunities for comparative research that may yield more explanatory power than individual case studies. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

This paper explores the regulatory sandbox regime under the EU's draft Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act. It investigates how useful the sandbox regime is for testing an AI-based skin cancer detection systems in an EU member state. The paper focuses on whether the proposed AI regulatory sandbox regime can resolve tensions between innovation and safety. Although we find considerable potential for the sandbox regime, the proposal also creates several legal issues. It blurs jurisdictional boundaries between the EU and member states, raises concerns of legality and equal treatment, creates liability risks for innovators, and fails to require informed consent from testing subjects. To address these problems, the paper suggests adopting a more targeted legal basis for the sandbox regime that takes inspiration from conventional testing mechanisms such as clinical investigations for medical devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper foregrounds the use of "Living Labs" as instruments for the delivery of just low carbon transformations. Living Labs are commonly understood as stakeholder-centred, iterative and open-innovation ecosystems that involve multiple forms of co-creation and engagement among different actors in a given territory. Over a period of three years, thanks to a unique pan-European action research study, three such Labs were set up in different locations in Europe -- a large North-western European city (Manchester, England), a mid-sized mountainous town in South-eastern Europe (Metsovo, Greece) and a series of rural settlements in Central Europe (Nyírbátor, Hungary). Working closely with local residents and relevant organisational stakeholders, the research teams that led the Labs undertook multiple low-carbon interventions in the homes of low-income residents, while continuously monitoring the broader impacts of intermediation practices on energy equity and sustainability across three consecutive cycles of activity. We present and discuss the results of these activities, so as to uncover the impacts of Living Labs on energy poverty both before and during the Covid-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: When Times Magazine (2006) chose "User" as Person of the Year for its front page, it acknowledged the growing importance of citizen participation in innovation processes. Hence, Europe has shifted its focus to public-private linkages over the past fifteen years by placing citizens at the center of the innovation process. To achieve its goal, the European Commission has proposed living laboratories since 2006. Living labs are one of the newest forms of open innovation networks that provide numerous research opportunities. They are a collaborative innovation approach that has increasingly attracted the attention of innovation researchers, professionals and policymakers. The Living Lab provides a common platform for private and public sector innovation and includes three separate but interwoven layers: the organization, projects, and activities of users and stakeholders. Living urban labs are emerging as a form of collective urban governance and experimentation to address the challenges and opportunities of sustainability arising from urbanization. Living urban labs have different goals, are launched by different actors, and form different types of partnerships. Additionally, living labs explore several disciplines and concepts, such as the transition to low-carbon economies, empirical governance, and new approaches to sustainable development. A living lab emphasizes the role of user participation, prototyping, testing, and validation in creating new technologies, services, products, or systems in real-world environments. Living labs take an experimental approach and involve public-private partnerships in the co-creation process. Urban Living Labs represent places in cities that allow stakeholders to design, test, and learn from social and technical innovations in real time. While urban living labs are rapidly growing as an experimental phenomenon, understanding of their nature and purpose is still evolving. A lot of research has been done on urban living labs. However, for the first time, the present research has attempted to present the theoretical model of urban living labs as a sustainable transition model by using the meta-analysis method. In general, it has two distinct differences from previous research. First, it differs from past research in terms of methodology because the analysis has been done in terms of the time frame of related research, active journals in the field of publishing resources related to urban living labs, methodology, and sources in terms of research model, nature, theory, data collection tools and methods. Second, the current research differs from previous research in terms of content. In fact, the current research has analyzed urban living labs in terms of historical period, spatial distribution, beneficiaries and principles, dimensions, components, contextual factors, goals, principles, process, actors, typology, challenges, consequences and application steps of the final solution. Based on this, the purpose of this research is to distinguish categories for the extraction of urban living labs in order to present its theoretical model and, through that, identify the requirements and challenges of its realization in the cities of the country. Therefore, the main question of the research is: How is the theoretical model of urban living labs realized as a transition model of sustainability? Methods: The current research is classified as applied-developmental research in terms of its purpose. The current research type is secondary, and its philosophical paradigm is interpretation. The research approach is qualitative, and its methodology is sample mining. The data collection method was selected based on the research approach, text-based and documentary methods. The research method is based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The statistical community includes research that has been carried out regarding urban living labs in the period from 2000 to 2023. Since urban living laboratories were proposed in the year 2000, the year 2000 has been chosen as the beginning of the period. In this research, a step-by)step approach was used, which included three stages: data collection, screening of the abstract, and finally the complete review of the article. These steps correspond to common distinctions in review processes including discovery, evaluation, and synthesis, which have been identified by Dixon-Woods et al. In the meantime, several key concepts have been searched, such as living lab, Urban living labs, Urban experimentation, Sustainable transition, Urban living lab, and sustainability. Academic literature has been searched using publicly available online databases such as Web of Science, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, EBSCO Host, and Research Gate. Accordingly, 722 sources were found in the initial review. 58 of them were excluded based on the title. Abstracts from 664 sources were reviewed, and 428 of them were removed from the research process. As a result, 236 sources were fully reviewed, and 193 of them were rejected in terms of content and quality. Finally, 43 articles were selected for final analysis. It should be noted that in the selection of sources, attention was paid to indicators such as up-to-dateness and the selection of articles from reliable databases with high references. Results: Based on the time analysis, the trend of research resources is on the rise, reaching its peak in 2021–2022, and 35% of the resources belong to this period. The percentage shares of research sources are 2009, 2011 (2 percent each), 2012, 2013 (5 percent each), 2014 (2 percent), 2015, 2016 (7 percent each), 2017 (5 percent), 2018 (12 percent), 2019, 2020 (9 percent each), 2021 (16 percent) and 2022 (19 percent). The sources of the current research have been published in 25 quarterly journals, which include: Technology Innovation Management Review, Journal of Sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production, Urban Planning, European Planning Studies, Urban Transformations, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Open Living Lab Days, Policy and Society, Smart Cities, European Urban and Regional Studies, The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and Media, The ISPIM Innovation, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Social Sciences, Regional Studies, Environmental Policy and Governance, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Transportation Research Procedia, Creativity and Innovation Management, Circular Economy and Sustainability and International Journal of Product Development. However, magazines are very active in this field, such as Technology Innovation Management Review, Sustainability Quarterly, and Cleaner Production Quarterly. The largest number of selected sources related to Technology Innovation Management Review (7 items), Sustainability Quarterly (6 items), Cleaner Production Quarterly (5 items), Urban Planning (2 items), European Planning Studies (2 items), and urban developments (2 cases). In the meantime, the most published articles about urban living labs have been mainly related to publications whose main focus is on innovation and sustainable development. Because the living lab concept is in the category of sustainable development and urban innovation. In terms of the research model, the share of content analysis, systematic literature review, descriptive-analytical, comparative, and exploratory is equal to 14, 11, 23, 27, and 25%, respectively. The research pattern of most of the sources is comparative and exploratory, and in total, 52% of the sources have been allocated to themselves. The percentage of research resources in terms of nature is 51% of applied resources and 49% of basic resources. The percentage of research sources in terms of theory is as follows: 35% of the sources are in the category of theorizing, 42% are related to theory testing, and 23% of the sources are in the introduction of theory. In terms of data collection tools, the share of library and document resources, questionnaires, interviews, observation, case studies, and focus groups is equal to 40, 3, 22, 4, 27, and 4 percent, respectively. Therefore, most of the data sources use library and documentary methods, interviews, and case studies. In terms of research method, the share of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed sources is equal to 5, 70 and 25%, respectively. Discussion: 51 codes related to the unique characteristics of urban living labs were extracted and have been classified in 12 categories including historical period (1999-2003, 2003-2008 and 2009 to date), dimensions (environment, stakeholders, type of activities, approach, resources and networks and governance), components (infrastructure, collaborative environment, user)centered, perspective, multiple stakeholders and multi-methodological), background factors (geographical location, learning environment and technology-based environment), goals (innovation, learning, empowering citizens, generating ideas for urban projects and exploring perspectives), principles (co-creation, participation and commitment), process (research, development, testing, evaluation, implementation and commercialization), actors (enablers, providers, users and users), typology (strategic, civil and organic), challenges (temporary, governance, unanticipated results, efficiency, recruitment of user groups and finally sustainability and scalability of their innovative activities), consequences (tangible innovation, intangible innovation and diversity of innovation) and application stages of the final solution (joint research, solution test and correlation). These 12 categories have formed the theoretical model of urban living labs. Also, there are many components in the formation and development of living labs, including an open, comprehensive, and collaborative methodology and approach; A compilation of actors; technological dominance; Information and communication technology infrastructure; innovative and co-creative citizens; and urban context. Urban living labs can complete the transition toward the realization of urban sustainability through these unique features. In addition, among the urban living labs are the cities of Brussels, Birmingham and Rotterdam, Suurpelto (Finland), BlueCity Lab (BCL) and Malmö Innovation Platform, Hiedanranta (Finland), Sint-Anneke Plage, Antwerp (Belgium), Vogelbuurt, Dordrecht (Netherlands) and Frihamnen, Gothenburg (Sweden), Brandevoort II (Netherlands), Housing Innovation Lab, Boston, Smart Citizen Project Amsterdam and Living Lab Turin, Buiksloterham, Amsterdam, kenniswerkplaats Leefbare Wijken, Marconia, Zorgvrijstaat, House Village Lab, Mooi Mooier Middelland, Blue City; Rotterdam, Aspern (Vienna, Austria), Stapeln (Malmö, Sweden); Sarajevo Living Lab; Therefore, their spatial analysis has shown that the largest spatial concentration of living urban lab is in European and then American cities. As a result, developing cities can provide the grounds for the implementation of such labs by recognizing the challenges of their realization. Also, stakeholders play an important role in the realization of urban living labs as sustainable development tools. The role of the enabler in urban living labs is important, as is the unconditional potential role of researchers in organic urban living labs. Therefore, several stakeholders have a role in the transition towards urban sustainability, consisting of the municipality, the government, the market and businesses, and citizens and civil society. Transformation in the field of increasing spatial quality is based on ideas, needs, demand)oriented and local values, and the flexible and deep participation of all stakeholders. The methodology of living labs is based on user-oriented innovation and multiple stakeholders, as innovative solutions are carried out by multiple colleagues in the real-life environment and are based on daily research and practice. In this direction, special attention is paid to the experiences of users in the environment. This issue increases the impact of projects by responding to the real needs of citizens. Also, co-creation helps discover the preferences of residents and reduces the risk of project failure. Because the implemented projects are the result of feedback from users and residents, which has been compiled in the process of testing, validation, development, and co-creation, different strategies and solutions are tested and validated in a live lab environment and a multifaceted approach with the participation of all stakeholders. Therefore, effective solutions will be implemented, and comprehensive policies will be presented to advance different aspects of the city. In general, the set of components in urban living labs has provided a suitable space for examining, testing, exploring, experimenting, and evaluating innovative and creative ideas of citizens to solve neighborhood problems and issues and to respond to the rapid developments of cities in various fields such as energy, transportation, climate change, water, digitization, intelligence, etc. Conclusion: The Living Urban Lab is one of the new innovative and creative initiatives that seeks to realize the true participation of residents in the process of urban decision-making. They seek to adapt cities to the real needs of citizens. Urban Living Lab is a multi-user-oriented system that is open to innovation systems based on the principles of individual communication and research, detailed exploration of issues, and their application in living communities. The Living Urban Lab is a place that brings together all stakeholders—private companies, the public sector, and non-governmental organizations—to achieve the final solution through cooperation and solidarity to achieve sustainable and livable cities. The process leading to the final solution consists of three steps. The initial stage includes joint research that is conducted to identify needs and challenges from the perspective of all stakeholders. In the second stage, which is also called the test stage, the initial sample of the solution is tested and reconstructed. Each time, the solution is improved based on the information obtained from the previous steps. The last stage of this process is the correlation stage, which represents evaluation and implementation, and the final version can be implemented. Nevertheless, the realization of urban living labs in Iranian cities has faced many challenges, such as the lack of financial resources for their development in the budgets of the government and municipalities, the lack of a legal and organizational framework to support their implementation, the lack of promotion and awareness measures for citizens, the conflict between the hierarchical structure of municipalities and the flexible working framework of living labs, as well as the lack of specialized and trained personnel in this field. Therefore, municipalities must prepare the ground for the development of urban living labs by being flexible with the organizational structure, developing the required spaces and infrastructures, considering legal and budgetary mechanisms, and providing human resources. With the application and development of urban living labs, an efficient road map will be created to increase the efficiency and productivity of Iranian cities. So that: 1) In programs, large projects, and innovative activities, all key factors and different actors, including the government and municipality, universities and research institutions, companies, and citizens, come together in a collaborative process. In this way, the mutual and multilateral solutions and feedback of the stakeholders are examined, evaluated, and analyzed. 2) In neighborhood planning, co-creation takes place with users, because this causes an accurate understanding of neighborhood users' behavior and preferences. 3) Action is taken to create, prototype, validate, and test products, services, systems, and technologies in a real environment by different groups of urban residents regarding the challenges facing the sustainability of the country's cities in the fields of smart transportation, urban energy, climate change, water, resilience, digitization, the food system, and waste. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of People & Nature is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract Background Despite the abundant availability of effective medication adherence interventions, uptake of these interventions into routine care often lacks. Examples of effective medication adherence interventions include telephone counseling, consult preparation and the teach-back method. Assessing context is an important step in understanding implementation success of interventions, but context is often not reported or only moderately described. This study aims to describe context-specific characteristics in four living labs prior to the implementation of evidence-based interventions aiming to improve medication adherence. Methods A qualitative study was conducted within four living labs using individual interviews (n = 12) and focus groups (n = 4) with project leaders and involved healthcare providers. The four living labs are multidisciplinary collaboratives that are early adopters of medication adherence interventions in the Dutch primary care system. Context is defined as the environment or setting in which the proposed change is to be implemented. Interview topics to assess context were formulated based on the ‘inner setting’ and ‘outer setting’ domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were deductively analyzed. Results A total of 39 community pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, general practitioners and a home care employee participated in the (focus group) interviews. All four living labs proved to be pharmacy-driven and characterized by a high regard for innovation by staff members, a positive implementation climate, high levels of leadership engagement and high compatibility between the living labs and the interventions. Two living labs were larger in size and characterized by more formal communication. Two living labs were characterized by higher levels of cosmopolitanism which resulted in more adaptable interventions. Worries about external policy, most notably lack of reimbursement for sustainment and upscaling of the interventions, were shared among all living labs. Conclusions Contextual characteristics of four living labs that are early adopters of medication adherence interventions provide detailed examples of a positive implementation setting. These can be used to inform dissemination of medication adherence interventions in settings less experienced in implementing medication adherence interventions.

Intending to enable a broader collaboration with the scientific community while maintaining privacy of the data stored and generated in Living Labs, this paper presents the Shareable Data Publishing and Access Service for Living Labs, implemented within the framework of the H2020 VITALISE project. Building upon previous work, significant enhancements and improvements are presented in the architecture enabling Living Labs to securely publish collected data in an internal and isolated node for external use. External researchers can access a portal to discover and download shareable data versions (anonymised or synthetic data) derived from the data stored across different Living Labs that they can use to develop, test, and debug their processing scripts locally, adhering to legal and ethical data handling practices. Subsequently, they may request remote execution of the same algorithms against the real internal data in Living Lab nodes, comparing the outcomes with those obtained using shareable data. The paper details the architecture, data flows, technical details and validation of the service with real-world usage examples, demonstrating its efficacy in promoting data-driven research in digital health while preserving privacy. The presented service can be used as an intermediary between Living Labs and external researchers for secure data exchange and to accelerate research on data analytics paradigms in digital health, ensuring compliance with data protection laws.

In Germany, there are over 32,000 schools, representing great potential for climate protection. On the one hand, this applies to educational work, as understanding the effects of climate change and measures to reduce GHG emissions is an important step to empower students with knowledge and skills. On the other hand, school buildings are often in bad condition, energy is wasted, and the possibilities for using renewable energies are hardly used. In our “Schools4Future” project, we enabled students and teachers to draw up their own CO2 balances, identify weaknesses in the building, detect wasted electricity, and determine the potential for using renewable energies. Emissions from the school cafeteria, school trips, and paper consumption could also be identified. The fact that the data can be collected by the students themselves provides increased awareness of the contribution made to the climate balance by the various school areas. The most climate-friendly school emits 297 kg whilst the school with the highest emissions emits over one ton CO2 per student and year. Our approach is suitable to qualify students in the sense of citizen science, carry out a scientific investigation, experience self-efficacy through one’s own actions, and engage politically regarding their concerns.

Smart cities have emerged in the hope of solving growing urban problems. In addition, unlike past citizen participation in tokenism, new technologies in smart cities have shed light on creating cities with high levels of civic engagement. However, contrary to expectations, technology-centric smart city development has resulted in a lack of opportunities for citizen participation. Consequently, smart cities are increasingly adopting a citizen-centric living lab methodology. Previous research on living labs has emphasized the significance of civic engagement and the potential as a collaborative platform for governments, businesses, and citizens. However, keeping individuals engaged and motivated during the living lab process might be challenging. This study examined the significance of citizens’ active participation and determined the elements that influence the level of participation in a living lab. In this study, the first citizen-led living laboratory in South Korea was selected as the subject of a case study. An empirical analytic approach was adopted and a survey was conducted among living lab participants regarding their level of participation and the sociocultural elements that may impact it. Our findings revealed that living lab activities were associated with enhanced civic self-esteem and positive attitudes toward smart cities. Moreover, they display the socioeconomic elements that influence the degree of participation. This study offers evidence that living lab activities encourage citizen engagement by giving participants a sense of empowerment during the co-creation process with multiple stakeholders, boosting civic competency through learning activities, and improving a sense of community ownership.

Climate services (CS) are generally recognized as potentially effective tools to communicate climate-related risks to the general public, end-users and other stakeholders. However, empirical evidence indicates that there often is a gap in understanding between the producers of the CS and those that are meant to use them. It is therefore crucial to place the stakeholders in the centre of the process of CS-production to identify their actual needs. Facilitating iterative and collaborative processes that allow stakeholders to provide feedback bridges the process-content gap. This leads to an improvement of each step in the production of CS, and ultimately, helps building engaged communities.One way of minimising the gap between providers and users of CS, is to incorporate evaluations in the co-production process. Our paper presents the evaluation of the co-production of CS at two case study sites, Larvik, Norway and Flensburg, Germany. The study illustrates how the stakeholders are involved in the development of the CS and specifically the use of questionnaires for evaluating the CS as well as the co-production process of developing these CS in the case study sites.These results indicate that the Living Lab workshops, and the active use of questionnaires followed by evaluation, facilitates a more iterative process of developing CS by better involving stakeholders within the co-production of CS. Adequately addressing stakeholder needs and the usability of CS are also essential within the CS co-production process as these aspects give an indication to the uptake of CS to support climate adaptation planning outcomes and longer-term longevity that support climate adaptation policy and ultimately societal impacts.

There is increased recognition that people with lived-experience of mental ill-health ought to be centred in research design, implementation and translation, and quality improvement and program evaluation of services. There is also an increased focus on ways to ensure that co-design processes can be led by people with lived-experience of mental ill-health. Despite this, there remains limited explanation of the physical, social, human, and economic infrastructure needed to create and sustain such models in research and service settings. This is particularly pertinent for all health service sectors (across mental and physical health and social services) but more so across tertiary education settings where research generation occurs for implementation and translation activities with policy and services. The Co-Design Living Labs program was established in 2017 as an example of a community-based embedded approach to bring people living with trauma and mental ill-health and carers/family and kinship group members together with university-based researchers to drive end-to-end research design to translation in mental healthcare and research sectors. The program’s current membership is near to 2000 people. This study traces the evolution of the program in the context of the living labs tradition of open innovation. It overviews the philosophy of practice for working with people with lived-experience and carer/family and kinship group members—togetherness by design. Togetherness by design centres on an ethical relation of being-for that moves beyond unethical and transactional approaches of being-aside and being-with, as articulated by sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. The retrospective outlines how an initial researcher-driven model can evolve and transform to become one where people with lived-experience of mental ill-health and carer/family kinship group members hold clear decision-making roles, share in power to enact change, and move into co-researcher roles within research teams. Eight mechanisms are presented in the context of an explanatory theoretical model of change for co-design and coproduction, which are used to frame research co-design activities and provide space for continuous learning and evolution of the Co-Design Living Labs program.

Background: Despite the abundant availability of effective medication adherence interventions, uptake of these interventions into routine care often lacks. Examples of effective medication adherence interventions include telephone counseling, consult preparation and the teach-back method. Assessing context is an important step in understanding implementation success of interventions, but context is often not reported or only moderately described. This study aims to describe context-specific characteristics in four living labs prior to the implementation of evidence-based interventions aiming to improve medication adherence. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted within four living labs using individual interviews (n = 12) and focus groups (n = 4) with project leaders and involved healthcare providers. The four living labs are multidisciplinary collaboratives that are early adopters of medication adherence interventions in the Dutch primary care system. Context is defined as the environment or setting in which the proposed change is to be implemented. Interview topics to assess context were formulated based on the 'inner setting' and 'outer setting' domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were deductively analyzed. Results: A total of 39 community pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, general practitioners and a home care employee participated in the (focus group) interviews. All four living labs proved to be pharmacy-driven and characterized by a high regard for innovation by staff members, a positive implementation climate, high levels of leadership engagement and high compatibility between the living labs and the interventions. Two living labs were larger in size and characterized by more formal communication. Two living labs were characterized by higher levels of cosmopolitanism which resulted in more adaptable interventions. Worries about external policy, most notably lack of reimbursement for sustainment and upscaling of the interventions, were shared among all living labs. Conclusions: Contextual characteristics of four living labs that are early adopters of medication adherence interventions provide detailed examples of a positive implementation setting. These can be used to inform dissemination of medication adherence interventions in settings less experienced in implementing medication adherence interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]