02045nas a2200193   4500008004100000022001400041245005700055210005700112260004200169490000700211520149900218653000901717653001701726653002201743653001901765653001601784100002101800856003001821       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100aSocial Acceptance of Wind Energy in Urban Landscapes0 aSocial Acceptance of Wind Energy in Urban Landscapes  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/20200 v103 aAlthough wind energy has high potential as a sustainable energy source to fight climate change, and the post COVID-19 world may require accelerated transition to renewable energy systems, many wind energy projects nevertheless face community resistance. Research on social acceptance of wind energy has increased rapidly, but understanding still lacks regarding the different types of acceptance, whether or not the acceptance correlates with demographics, and what drives acceptance of wind farms in the urban landscape. Our analysis of 2,376 residents in Helsinki, the capital of Finland, focused on the gaps in understanding and identified three groups of people: Protagonists, Centrists, and Antagonists. While Protagonists are highly positive about wind energy projects in the city, Antagonists oppose them, and Centrists adopt a middle-of-the-road approach. Further, three factors matter for social acceptance in urban landscapes: 1) distance, as residents prefer offshore wind farms to be farther away from the city's inhabitants, 2) gender, as women are more accepting of wind energy compared with men, and outright opponents of wind energy are more likely men, and 3) participation, as residents wish to participate in decision-making processes regarding wind farms, but lack interest in having ownership of and responsibility for wind energy projects. The study discusses the implications of these findings for developers and policymakers of wind energy projects in the urban context.10acity10aclean energy10aSocial acceptance10asustainability10awind energy1 aWesterlund, Mika  utimreview.ca/article/138902080nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245009400055210006900149260004200218300001000260490000600270520145000276653000901726653002101735653002201756653002301778653001501801100002101816856003701837       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aFrom Organizations to Organizational Fields: The Evolution of Civic Innovation Ecosystems0 aFrom Organizations to Organizational Fields The Evolution of Civ  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2018  a34-470 v83 aContemporary approaches to urban technology emphasize local “innovation ecosystems”. Two organizational models – living labs and innovation integrators – are commonly used as hubs to broker these ecosystems. Curiously, both coexist in some cities, allowing a comparison of their impact and an analysis of their development over time and in context. The case studies presented in this article suggest that our analytical frameworks for technology policy may fall short, in that they contemplate only the organizations themselves – the living labs or innovation integrators. The dynamics observed in each city are well articulated, however, in the sociotechnical systems literature. The hub can be understood as a “niche”, which fosters radical innovations and new processes. As these prototypes are increasingly deployed and accepted, there is a regime shift, ultimately creating an experimentalist culture that fills the role previously held by the hub. This conclusion is neither a challenge to ecosystem theory nor a critique of innovation policy and its implementation. Rather, I suggest that we must extend these theoretical frameworks, drawing on sociotechnical systems literature to better account for institutions and for systems change as we design policy for urban technology. This article therefore makes a contribution by using a sociotechnical systems lens to explain the evolution of local urban innovation ecosystems.10acity10acivic technology10ainnovation policy10ainnovation systems10aLiving lab1 aClaudel, Matthew  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/116301996nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245005900055210005800114260004200172300001000214490000600224520123700230653000901467653001601476653002901492653001501521653001501536653001301551653002001564653001501584653002101599100001901620700002101639700002101660856003701681       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aTowards Third-Generation Living Lab Networks in Cities0 aTowards ThirdGeneration Living Lab Networks in Cities  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2017  a21-350 v73 aMany cities engage in diverse experimentation, innovation, and development activities with a broad variety of environments and stakeholders to the benefit of citizens, companies, municipalities, and other organizations. Hence, this article discusses such engagement in terms of next-generation living lab networks in the city context. In so doing, the study contributes to the discussion on living labs by introducing a framework of collaborative innovation networks in cities and suggesting a typology of third-generation living labs. Our framework is characterized by diverse platforms and participation approaches, resulting in four distinctive modes of collaborative innovation networks where the city is: i) a provider, ii) a neighbourhood participator, iii) a catalyst, or iv) a rapid experimenter. The typology is based on an analysis of 118 interviews with participants in six Finnish cities and reveals various ways to organize innovation activities in the city context. In particular, cities can benefit from innovation networks by simultaneously exploiting multiple platforms such as living labs for innovation. We conclude by discussing implications to theory and practice, and suggesting directions for future research.10acity10aco-creation10acollaborative innovation10ainnovation10aLiving lab10anetworks10aOpen innovation10asmart city10athird-generation1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aRajahonka, Mervi1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/111801780nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245009500055210006900150260004200219300001000261490000600271520111500277653000901392653001501401653001101416653001901427653001001446100001901456700002001475700001901495856003601514       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aUrban Living Labs for Sustainability in Suburbs in Need of Modernization and Social Uplift0 aUrban Living Labs for Sustainability in Suburbs in Need of Moder  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2016  a27-340 v63 aA number of urban living labs have been set up in recent years, with the aim of developing innovation processes within a multi-stakeholder partnership in an urban context. Several urban living labs focus on sustainable development, which is a visible and urgent issue in less valued suburbs in need of modernization and social uplift. We argue that, when applying the living labs approach in the context of sustainable development in suburbs, the primary focus should be society’s collective goals, as expressed through municipalities and users. The aim of this article is to show examples of how urban living labs can be applied in less valued suburbs in order to contribute to sustainability based on societal goals. We build on analyses from the research project SubUrbanLab, where urban living labs were set up in Alby and Peltosaari, two suburban areas in Sweden and Finland, respectively. We draw lessons regarding how to use urban living labs for sustainable development in order to create favourable conditions for ongoing engagement with the municipality and users towards long-term sustainability. 10acity10aLiving lab10asuburb10asustainability10aurban1 aBuhr, Katarina1 aFederley, Maija1 aKarlsson, Anja  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/958