@article {1466,
	title = {Urban Living Labs and Transformative Changes: A qualitative study of the triadic relationship between financing, stakeholder roles, and the outcomes of Urban Living Labs in terms of impact creation in the city of Groningen, the Netherlands},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {12/2021},
	pages = {73-87},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {73},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Urban Living Labs (ULLs) have become a popular instrument for finding solutions to urban challenges faced by cities. While ULLs have achieved a certain level of normalisation in cities, a general lack of understanding remains regarding the character and purpose of the ULL phenomenon still leaves many challenges open to be overcome. One challenge involves the potential impact of ULLs in contributing to meaningful transformative changes. By combining a literature review with a comparative case study of three ULLs in the city of Groningen, the Netherlands, this study confirms and adds to current theoretical positions taken about how to overcome the challenge in terms of holding a shared ideology and reviewing the concepts of agency and power. It also shows that opportunity comes along with trust-building among stakeholders in ULLs, as a way to enhance their potential in practise. Consequently, this study calls for further research regarding underexplored theories and models of ULLs, power dynamics in ULLs, and into their self-sustaining character, both in terms of social adoption and ownership, as well as financial sustainability.},
	keywords = {Impact Creation, Transformative Changes, Trust Building, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1466},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1466},
	author = {Stefano Blezer and Nurhan Abujidi}
}
@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 {1088,
	title = {The Defining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	pages = {21-33},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The organization of supported and sustainable urban interventions is challenging, with multiple actors involved, fragmented decision-making powers, and multiple values at stake. Globally, urban living labs have become a fashionable phenomenon to tackle this challenge, fostering the development and implementation of innovation, experimentation, and knowledge in urban, real-life settings while emphasizing the important role of participation and co-creation. However, although urban living labs could in this way help cities to speed up the sustainable transition, urban living lab experts agree that, in order to truly succeed in these ambitious tasks, the way urban living labs are being shaped and steered needs further research. Yet, they also confirm the existing variation and opaqueness in the definition of the concept. This article contributes to conceptual clarity by developing an operationalized definition of urban living labs, which has been used to assess 90 sustainable urban innovation projects in the city of Amsterdam. The assessment shows that the majority of the projects that are labelled as living labs do not include one or more of the defining elements of a living lab. In particular, the defining co-creation and development activities were found to be absent in many of the projects. This article makes it possible to categorize alleged living lab projects and distill the {\textquotedblleft}true{\textquotedblright} living labs from the many improperly labelled or unlabelled living labs, allowing more specific analyses and, ultimately, better targeted methodological recommendations for urban living labs.},
	keywords = {characteristics, cities, definition, living labs, TIM Review, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1088},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1088},
	author = {Kris Steen and Ellen van Bueren}
}
@article {972,
	title = {Governing Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {03/2016},
	pages = {22-30},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Growing urbanization puts pressure on both social and ecological systems. This pressure raises complex and multi-facetted challenges that can only be tackled by collaborative and distributed innovation development processes. However, theoretical frameworks that assess such collaborations are often very conceptual, with little focus on the actual governance mechanisms that facilitate them. This article studies the urban living lab concept as an inter-organizational design and multi-stakeholder innovation development process to govern the quintuple helix model for innovation by means of an action research based multidimensional case study design, which focuses on the concepts of innovation democracy, mode 3 knowledge production, the innovation ecosystem as a system of societal subsystems, and socio-ecological transition. In this way, we provide a more profound understanding of such innovation processes to tackle socio-ecological challenges by means of public{\textendash}private interactions driven by eco-entrepreneurship. },
	keywords = {distributed innovation, quintuple helix innovation, social ecology, socio-ecological entrepreneurship, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/972},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/972},
	author = {Bastiaan Baccarne and Sara Logghe and Dimitri Schuurman and Lieven De Marez}
}
@article {952,
	title = {Contextuality and Co-Creation Matter: A Qualitative Case Study Comparison of Living Lab Concepts in Urban Research},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {12/2015},
	pages = {48-55},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Innovation development is key to transforming a product-based economy into an innovative service economy by integrating users as co-creators in real-life environments. User co-creation and user involvement are key elements in living labs. Urban living labs add not only the urban component to the conceptual design, but also societal, political, and technological questions. Fields of analysis in urban research relate to socio-spatial environment, living together, and urban policies. The leading question of this article is: to what extent can urban living labs be used as an instrument to support these fields of investigation? Comparing three different approaches for urban living labs, ranging from socially-centred to more technology-centred, we offer a more nuanced understanding of urban living lab design in diverging research contexts. All three case studies manage to go beyond testing and improving new products, which is normally the aim of existing living labs, by embedding innovation in appropriate social, structural, and institutional frameworks, and targeting civil society involvement. The community benefits from this case study comparison because it contextualizes living labs as research methodology to be applied in future urban research projects. },
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation ecosystem, participation, social innovation, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/952},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/952},
	author = {Yvonne Franz and Karin Tausz and Sarah-Kristin Thiel}
}
@article {947,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (December 2015)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {12/2015},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business models, closed innovation, context, crowdsourcing, innovation networks, living labs, Open innovation, spaces and places, urban living labs, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/947},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/947},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Dimitri Schuurman and Mika Westerlund and Eelko Huizingh}
}
@article {742,
	title = {Actor Roles in an Urban Living Lab: What Can We Learn from Suurpelto, Finland?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {11/2013},
	pages = {22-27},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {There is a growing trend to involve citizens in city development to make urban areas more suitable to their needs and prevent social problems. City centres and neighbourhoods have increasingly been serving as regional living labs, which are ideal platforms to explore the needs of users as residents and citizens. This article examines the characteristics and success factors of urban living labs based on a case study of Suurpelto, Finland. Urban living lab activity is characterized by a practice-based innovation process with diffuse and heterogeneous knowledge production that aims to address urban problems of varying complexity. User involvement is critical for co-creating value, but equally important is collaboration between other living lab actors: enablers, providers, and utilizers. Enabler-driven labs can be successful in creating common goals but they need providers, such as development organizations, to boost development. Proactive networking, experimentation as a bottom-up process, using student innovators as resources, as well as commitment and longevity in development work are success factors for urban living labs.},
	keywords = {innovation, knowledge production, networks, regional development, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/742},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/742},
	author = {Soile Juuj{\"a}rvi and Kaija Pesso}
}
