@article {1465,
	title = {Rural Living Labs: Inclusive Digital Transformation in the Countryside},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {12/2021},
	pages = {59-72},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {59},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Digital transformation (DT) has received increasing attention in recent years. Up until now, most of the current studies focus on digital transformation in advanced and dense societies, especially urban areas and technologies. Hence, the phenomenon of DT is under-researched in the context of rural and sparsely populated contexts. This study aims at exploring how a rural living lab (RLL) can be shaped and how this approach can be designed to support digital transformation processes in rural contexts. In so doing, following a design science research methodology (DSRM) approach, we have made an artefact (that is, RLL framework) that is an "instantiation" that supports user centric digitalization of rural areas. The designed framework is developed based on the key components of "traditional" and "urban" living labs, as well as empirical data which was collected within the context of the DigiBy project. The DigiBy project aims at conducting DT pilots in rural areas to elevate peoples{\textquoteright} understanding of digitalization and the application of digitalization opportunities for service development in rural areas in the north of Sweden. As a result of these studies, five key components that guide the design of digital transformation pilots in rural areas emerged, namely: 1) rural context, 2) digitalization, 3) governance, control, and business mode, 4) methods facilitating DT processes, and 5) quintuple helix actors. We also offer an empirically derived definition of the rural living lab concept, followed by avenues for future research.},
	keywords = {Components, digital transformation, Living lab, Rural living lab, Rural residents, user engagement},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1465},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1465},
	author = {Abdolrasoul Habibipour and Johanna Lindberg and Mari Runardotter and Yomn Elmistikawy and Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Diana Chron{\'e}er}
}
@article {1220,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs (March 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {03/2019},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {accelerators, business models, frameworks, innovation, living labs, Open innovation, stakeholders, sustainability, tools, UN Sustainable Development Goals, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1220},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1220},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Abdolrasoul Habibipour and Mari Runardotter and Diana Chron{\'e}er}
}
@article {1224,
	title = {Urban Living Labs: Towards an Integrated Understanding of their Key Components},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {03/2019},
	pages = {50-62},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In today{\textquoteright}s ongoing urbanization and escalating climate change, there is an increasing demand on cities to be innovative and inclusive to handle these emerging issues. As an answer to these challenges, and in order to generate and adopt sustainable innovations and nature-based solutions in the urban areas, the concept of urban living labs has emerged. However, to date, there is confusion concerning the concept of the urban living lab and its key components. Some interpret the urban living lab as an approach, others as a single project, and some as a specific place {\textendash} and some just do not know. In order to unravel this complexity and better understand this concept, we sought to identify the key components of an urban living lab by discussing the perspective of city representatives in the context of an urban living lab project. To achieve this goal, we reviewed previous literature on this topic and carried out two workshops with city representatives, followed by an open-ended questionnaire. In this article, we identify and discuss seven key components of an urban living lab: governance and management structure; financing models; urban context; nature-based solutions; partners and users (including citizens); approach; and ICT and infrastructure. We also offer an empirically derived definition of the urban living lab concept.},
	keywords = {definition, innovation, key components, Living lab, nature-based solutions, NBS, ULL, UNaLab, urban living lab},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1224},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1224},
	author = {Diana Chron{\'e}er and Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Abdolrasoul Habibipour}
}
@article {1155,
	title = {A Taxonomy of Factors Influencing Drop-Out Behaviour in Living Lab Field Tests},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {05/2018},
	pages = {5-21},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The concept of a {\textquotedblleft}living lab{\textquotedblright} is a relatively new research area and phenomenon that facilitates user engagement in open innovation activities. Studies on living labs show that the users{\textquoteright} motivation to participate in a field test is higher at the beginning of the project than during the rest of the test, and that participants have a tendency to drop out before completing the assigned tasks. However, the literature still lacks theories describing the phenomenon of drop-out within the area of field tests in general and living lab field tests in particular. As the first step in constructing a theoretical discourse, the aims of this study are to present an empirically derived taxonomy for the various factors that influence drop-out behaviour; to provide a definition of {\textquotedblleft}drop-out{\textquotedblright} in living lab field tests; and to understand the extent to which each of the identified items influence participant drop-out behaviour. To achieve these aims, we first extracted factors influencing drop-out behaviour in the field test from our previous studies on the topic, and then we validated the extracted results across 14 semi-structured interviews with experts in living lab field tests. Our findings show that identified reasons for dropping out can be grouped into three themes: innovation-related, process-related, and participant-related. Each theme consists of three categories with a total of 44 items. In this study, we also propose a unified definition of {\textquotedblleft}drop-out{\textquotedblright} in living lab field tests.},
	keywords = {drop-out, field test, Living lab, taxonomy, user engagement, user motivation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1155},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1155},
	author = {Abdolrasoul Habibipour and Annabel Georges and Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Dimitri Schuurman and Birgitta Bergvall-K{\r a}reborn}
}
