Transformative thinking and urban living labs in planning practice: a critical review and ongoing case studies in Europe

Figures & data

Figure 1. Urban living labs key stakeholders (UnaLab project).

Table 1. Review of ULL literature.

Study	Classification of ULLs by	Key identifiers in the study
Juujärvi and Pesso (2013)	Types	• Milieu • Activities
Veeckman (2015)	Benefits	• Approach • Principles
Voytenko et al. (2016)	Characteristics	• Actions • Components • Contextual
Scholl and Kemp (2016)	Characteristics	• Components • Approach • Contextual
Steen and van Bueren (2017)	Activities	• Activities
Steen and van Bueren (2017)	Characteristics	• Activities • Components • Contextual
Marvin et al. (2018)	Types	• Strategic • Civic • Organic

Figure 2. Classification of innovation process phase of 90 potential living lab projects in the Amsterdam region (Steen and van Bueren 2017).

Table 2. Methodology.

Case study	# Participants	Aims	Challenges	Follow up
Workshop #1 Genova	35	To deepen the participant’s knowledge and understanding of the urban living lab concept To collect data about the key components of an Urban Living Lab	Governance has been highlighted as the most challenging key component of an urban living lab	Started to form a framework paying attention to the dimension of governance Organized a follow up workshop
Workshop #2 Basaksehir	7	To validate the results obtained in the previous workshop To identify any additional key component in ULL according to the cities’ specific context	The financing and business model have been identified as the most challenging component of a ULL The importance of citizens engagement from the beginning of the NBS development process has been discussed (why, how)	A revised version of the ULL framework was carried out An exploratory online survey was carried out
Online survey	9	To validate the collected data in the two workshops To understand current situation of the cities in terms of NBS development from a ULL perspective	Further insights into how the concept of the urban living lab was understood and implemented (or planned to be implemented) in the cities have been gained	An update framework and tools for ULL are being developed

Figure 3. Participatory brainstorming session in Genova (The Authors).

Juujärvi, S., and K. Pesso. 2013. “Actor Roles in an Urban Living Lab: What Can We Learn from Suurpelto, Finland?” Technology Innovation Management Review 3: 22–27. November 2013: Living Labs. doi:10.22215/timreview/742.

 Google Scholar

Veeckman, C., & S. van der Graaf. 2015. "The City as Living Laboratory: Empowering Citizens with the Citadel Toolkit." Technology Innovation Management Review 5 (3): 6–17. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/877

 Google Scholar

Voytenko, Y., K. McCormick, J. Evans, and G. Schliwa. 2016. “Urban Living Labs for Sustainability and Low Carbon Cities in Europe: Towards a Research Agenda.” Journal of Cleaner Production 123: 45–54. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.053.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scholl, C., and R. Kemp. 2016. “City Labs as Vehicles for Innovation in Urban Planning Processes.” Urban Planning 1 (4): 89–102. doi:10.17645/up.v1i4.749.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Steen, K., and E. van Bueren. 2017. “The Defining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs.” Technology Innovation Management Review 7 (7): 21–33. doi:10.22215/timreview/1088.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marvin, S., H. Bulkeley, L. Mai, K. McCormick, and Y. Palgan. 2018. Urban Living Labs: Experimenting with City Futures. London: Routledge.

 Google Scholar