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

References

• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baccarne, B., P. Mechant, D. Schuurman, P. Colpaert, and L. De Marez. 2014. “Urban Socio-Technical Innovations with and by Citizens.” Interdisciplinary Studies Journal 3 (4): 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5854-4
   Google Scholar
• Balducci, A. (2013). “‘Trading Zone’: A Useful Concept for Some Planning Dilemmas.” In Urban Planning as a Trading Zone, edited by A. Balducci and R. Mantysalo, 23–36. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Balducci, A., and R. Mäntysalo. 2013. Urban Planning as a Trading Zone. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., C. Eriksson, A. Ståhlbröst, and J. Svensson. 2009. “A Milieu for Innovation: Defining Living Labs.” ISPIM Innovation Symposium, December 6–9. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1004774
   Google Scholar
• Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., and A. Ståhlbrost. 2008. “Participatory Design: One Step Back or Two Steps Forward?” Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008, 102–111.
   Google Scholar
• Bergvall-Kareborn, B., and A. Stahlbrost. 2009. “Living Lab: An Open and Citizen-Centric Approach for Innovation.” International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1 (4): 356–370. doi:10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022727.
   Google Scholar
• Bjerknes, G., and T. Bratteteig. 1995. “User Participation and Democracy: A Discussion of Scandinavian Research on System Development.” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 7 (1): 73–98. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol7/iss1/1
   Google Scholar
• Björgvinsson, E., P. Ehn, and P.-A. Hillgren. 2010. “Participatory Design and ‘Democratizing Innovation.’.” Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, 41–50. doi:10.1145/1900441.1900448.
   Google Scholar
• Bohm, D., and F. Peat. 2000. Science, Order, and Creativity. New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brenner, N. 2009. “Open Questions on State Rescaling.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 2 (1): 123–139. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsp002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briefs, U., C. Ciborra, and L. Schneider. 1983. “Systems Design For, With, and By the Users.” Proceedings of the Ifip Wg 9.1 Working Conference on Systems Design For, With, and by the Users, Riva Del Sole, 20–24 September 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Bulkeley, H., and V. Castán Broto. 2013. “Government by Experiment? Global Cities and the Governing of Climate Change.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38 (3): 361–375. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00535.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulkeley, H., L. Coenen, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Hartmann, A. Kronsell, L. Mai, S. Marvin, et al. 2016. “Urban Living Labs: Governing Urban Sustainability Transitions.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22: 13–17. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulkeley, H., S. Marvin, Y. Palgan, K. McCormick, M. Breitfuss-Loidl, L. Mai, T. von Wirth, and N. Frantzeskaki. 2019. “Urban Living Laboratories: Conducting the Experimental City?” European Urban and Regional Studies 26 (4): 317–335. doi:10.1177/0969776418787222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bylund, J., J. Riegler, and C. Wrangsten. 2020. “Are Urban Living Labs the New Normal in co-Creating Places?” In Co-Creation of Public Open Places. Practice – Reflection – Learning, edited by C. Smaniotto Costa, M. Mačiulienė, M. Menezes, and B. Goličnik Marušić, 17–21. Lisbon: Lusófona University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Calvaresi, C., and L. Cossa. 2013. “A Neighbourhood Laboratory for the Regeneration of a Marginalised Suburb in Milan: Towards the Creation of a Trading Zone.” In Urban Planning as a Trading Zone, edited by A. Balducci and R. Mäntysalo, 95–109. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Caprotti, F., and R. Cowley. 2017. “Interrogating Urban Experiments.” Urban Geography 38 (9): 1441–1450. doi:10.1080/02723638.2016.1265870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chronéer, D., A. Ståhlbröst, and A. Habibipour. 2018. “Towards a Unified Definition of Urban Living Labs.” ISPIM Innovation Symposium, 1–13, Manchester. https://search.proquest.com/docview/2076295160/abstract/C436365E60044007PQ/1
   Google Scholar
• Davidoff, P. 1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31 (4): 331–338. doi:10.1080/01944366508978187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell’Era, C., and P. Landoni. 2014. “Living Lab: A Methodology Between User-Centred Design and Participatory Design.” Creativity and Innovation Management 23 (2): 137–154. doi:10.1111/caim.12061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EC. 2015a. Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities. Brussels: EC.
   Google Scholar
• EC. 2015b. “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economicand Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.” Closing the Loop – An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. European Commission, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. 2011. “Resilience, Ecology and Adaptation in the Experimental City.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36 (2): 223–237. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00420.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frantzeskaki, N., S. Borgström, L. Gorissen, M. Egermann, and F. Ehnert. 2017. Nature-Based Solutions Accelerating Urban Sustainability Transitions in Cities: Lessons from Dresden, Genk and Stockholm Cities, 65–88. Germany: Springer. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-214441
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. 1993. “Toward a Non-Euclidian Mode of Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 59 (4): 482–485. doi:10.1080/01944369308975902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galison, P. 1997. “Material Culture, Theoretical Culture and Delocalization.” In Science in the Twentieth Century, edited by J. Krige and D. Pestre, 669–682. Paris: Harwood.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, J. 2003. “Agon’izing Over Consensus: Why Habermasian Ideals Cannot be Real’.” Planning Theory 2 (1): 37–59. doi:10.1177/1473095203002001005.
   Google Scholar
• 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
• Karvonen, A., and B. Van Heur. 2014. “Urban Laboratories: Experiments in Reworking Cities.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (2): 379–392. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katsou, E., C. Nika, D. Buehler, B. Marić, B. Megyesi, E. Mino, J. Babí Almenar, et al. 2020. “Transformation Tools Enabling the Implementation of Nature-based Solutions for Creating a Resourceful Circular City.” Blue-Green Systems 2 (1): 188–213. doi:10.2166/bgs.2020.929.
   Google Scholar
• Klosterman, R. 1985. “Arguments for and Against Planning.” Town Planning Review 56 (1): 5–20. doi:10.3828/tpr.56.1.e8286q3082111km4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lafortezza, R., and G. Sanesi. 2019. “Nature-based Solutions: Settling the Issue of Sustainable Urbanization.” Environmental Research. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201900104251
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, C. 1959. “The Science of Muddling Through.” PublicAdministrationReview 19 (2): 79–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/973677
   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
• Mäntysalo, R., A. Balducci, and J. Kangasoja. 2011. “Planning as Agonistic Communication in a Trading Zone: Re-Examining Lindblom’s Partisan Mutual Adjustment.” Planning Theory 10 (3): 257–272. doi:10.1177/1473095210397147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., and V. Kanninen. 2013. “Trading Between Land use and Transportation Planning: The Kuopio Model.” In Urban Planning as a Trading Zone, edited by A. Balducci and R. Mäntysalo, 57–73. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mensink, W., F. Birrer, and B. Dutilleul. 2010. “Unpacking European Living Labs: Analysing Innovation’s Social Dimensions.” Central European Journal of Public Policy 4 (1): 60–85. ISSN: 1802-4866.
   Google Scholar
• Moroni, S. 2019. “Constitutional and Post-Constitutional Problems: Reconsidering the Issues of Public Interest, Agonistic Pluralism and Private Property in Planning.” Planning Theory 18 (1): 5–23. doi:10.1177/1473095218760092.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Pekkola, S., N. Kaarilahti, and P. Pohjola. 2006. Towards Formalised End-user Participation in Information Systems Development Process: Bridging the Gap Between Participatory Design and ISD Methodologies, 21–30. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Puerari, E., J. De Koning, T. Von Wirth, P. Karré, I. Mulder, and D. Loorbach. 2018. “Co-creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs.” Sustainability 10 (6): 1–18. doi:10.3390/su10061893.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzo, A. 2017. “Managing the Energy Transition in a Tourism-Driven Economy: The Case of Malta.” Sustainable Cities and Society 33: 126–133. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzo, A., B. Ekelund, J. Bergström, and K. Ek. 2020. “Participatory Design as a Tool to Create Resourceful Communities in Sweden.” In Co-Creation of Public Open Places. Practice – Reflection – Learning, edited by C. Smaniotto Costa, M. Mačiulienė, M. Menezes, and B. Goličnik Marušić, 95–108. Lisbon: Lusófona University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rizzo, A., and M. Galanakis. 2015. “Transdisciplinary Urbanism: Three Experiences from Europe and Canada.” Cities 47: 35–44. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzo, A., and M. Galanakis. 2017. “Problematizing Transdisciplinary Urbanism Research: A Reply to ‘Seeking Northlake’☆.” Cities 64: 98–99. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. 1999. “The Rationality Issue in Land-use Planning.” Journal of Management History 5 (2): 87–107. doi:10.1108/13552529910249869.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. 2019. “Populists and Planners: ‘We Are the People. Who Are You?’” Planning Theory 19 (1): 80–103. doi:10.1177/1473095219864692.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savini, F., and L. Bertolini. 2019. “Urban Experimentation as a Politics of Niches.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 51 (4): 831–848. doi:10.1177/0308518X19826085.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaffers, H., M. Cordoba, P. Hongisto, T. Kallai, C. Merz, and J. Van Rensburg. 2007. “Exploring Business Models for Open Innovation in Rural Living Labs.” In 2007 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE), June, 1–8. IEEE.
   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
• Schuurman, D. 2015. “Bridging the Gap Between Open and User Innovation?: Exploring the Value of Living Labs as a Means to Structure User Contribution and Manage Distributed Innovation.” Diss., Ghent University. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-5931264
   Google Scholar
• Star, S., and J. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ståhlbröst, A. 2008. “Forming Future IT – The Living Lab Way of User Involvement.” Doctoral diss., Luleå tekniska universitet.
   Google Scholar
• Ståhlbröst, A., and B. Bergvall-Kåreborn. 2013. “Voluntary Contributors in Open Innovation Processes.” In Managing Open Innovation Technologies, 133–149. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31650-0_9
   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
• Taylor, N. 1998. Urban Planning Theory Since 1945. Sage. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218648
   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
• Willis, K., and A. Aurigi. 2020. The Routledge Companion to Smart Cities. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Woodhead, R., P. Stephenson, and D. Morrey. 2018. “Digital Construction: From Point Solutions to IoT Ecosystem.” Automation in Construction 93: 35–46. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2018.05.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar