APRILab
Action Oriented Research
on Planning, Reglation and Investment Dilemmas
in a Living Lab Experience
Deliverable 1.4
THE URBAN LIVING LAB
Guidelines for APRILab
Sirkku Wallin
To cite this report: Wallin, S. (2014) APRILab: Guidelines to Define and Establish an
Urban Living Lab
Published by: University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Institute of Social Science
Research
Contacts: sirkku.wallin@aalto.fi - f.savini@uva.nl - m.p.markus@uva.nl
© 2014 Authors. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from the
proprietor.
Guidelines to Define and Establish an Urban Living
Lab
(editors)
Maarten Markus
Sirkku Wallin
YTK/Department of Real Estate, Planning and GeoInformatics
School of Engineering
Aalto University
Tel: +358 50 5124625
E-mail: sirkku.wallin@aalto.fi .
APRILab
2Guidelines: Urban Living Lab
1. APRILab
APRILab is the acronym for the research project: ‘Action oriented
planning, regulation and investment dilemmas for innovative urban
development in living lab experiences’. The research is funded by the
Joint Programming Initiative Urban Europe. The Netherlands
Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) is a participant and key
funder for this research.
Principal Investigator
Prof. Willem Salet
Chair programme group Urban Planning
University of Amsterdam
Scientific Partners
University of Amsterdam (Centre for Urban Studies), the Netherlands
Prof. Willem Salet, Dr. Stan Majoor, Dr. Federico Savini, Maarten
Markus
Aalborg University, (National Building Research Institute), Denmark
Director of Research Hans Thor Andersen, Senior Researcher Lars
Engberg, Jesper Rohr Hansen
Yildiz Technical University, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Zeynep Enlil, Prof. Dr. İclal Dinçer, Burcu Can Çetin, Ceren
Akyos, Merve Çelik,
Aalto University, Finland
Prof. Raine Mäntysalo, Dr. Liisa Horelli, Dr. Aija Staffans, Sirkku
Wallin,
Professional Partners
Amsterdam Municipality Project Management Office (PMB)Contents
2. Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
2.
5
Acknowledgements
5
The Living Lab Concept
6
2.1
Three types of the living lab approach
2.1.1 Urban living lab as a technology-driven research environment
2.1.2 Urban living lab as a provider of knowhow and tools
2.1.3 Urban living lab as an arena for self-organizing groups
6
7
7
8
2.2
Guidelines for the Establishment and Assesment of the Urban Living Lab
Approach
8
2.2.1 The potential characteristics and stakeholders of APRILab Case Studies 9
3.
Summary – the work in progress
11
References
12
APPENDIX I
13
APRILab
4
Guidelines: Urban Living Lab
1. Introduction
The JPI Urban Europe research project ‘APRILab’ focuses on planning
dilemmas for the transformation of city areas in the urban fringe. This
Working Document describes how to define and establish an urban living
lab within the APRILab research framework. The objectives of APRILab
are theoretical, methodological and practical. The living lab approach
provides a way to explore and analyze the participatory structures and
stakeholders, as well as the communication and learning processes in the
APRILab case-studies.
The paper provides a definition of the urban living lab and introduces
three typologies based on a litterature analysis and an exploration of
action research methodologies, which YTK/Aalto University has
developed for urban planning and development. Secondly, it presents
guidelines for the APRILab research groups to describe, initiate, and
perform the living lab approach in their case studies on the three
dilemmas of self-organizing urban planning and development. Later on,
these guidelines will be used as criteria to monitor the adoption of the
living lab approach in the different case studies. The monitoring task will
be carried out by YTK/Aalto University.
In urban planning research, the concept of Living lab is context-driven.
This paper seeks to clarify:



What is a living lab?
What kind of examples exist around urban living labs? How do living labs
serve the development of urban space?
How to establish an urban living lab?
1.1
Acknowledgements
The partners of APRILab would like to thank the JPI Urban Europe as
well as the respective national research councils for coordinating and
financing this research project. The national research councils are DCSR
(The Danish Council for Strategic Research), NWO (The Netherlands),
TÜBITAK (Turkey) and Tekes (Finnish national funding agency for
Technology and Innovation).
APRILab
5
Guidelines: Urban Living Lab
2. The Living Lab
Concept
2.1
Three types of the living lab approach
A living lab is a conceptual research approach. As a concept and an
approach to urban development, it requires a relevant urban planning
methodology.
The term living lab was developed in computer science in the 1980´s. It
was promptly adopted in human-computer interaction and participatory
design which emerged in the so called Scandinavian School in the 1980´s
and 1990´s (Bodker & al., 2000). In the 2000´s the user-experience and
research on co-evolving systems made their mark on social and political
sciences as well as on economics and regional studies under the umbrella
of innovation studies (Mitchell, 2000; Wallin, 2010; Sotarauta &
Srinivas, 2006).
The literature analysis made in early June 2013 revealed that there were
over 400 publications in refereed scientific journals which used the living
lab as their research approach (see the list of analyzed publications).
Almost half of them were still in computer science and one fourth in
engineering. The rest represented studies from all possible fields of
science, from social and decision sciences to medicine and economics.
Thus, the living lab is transdiciplinary by nature.
According to the literature, the living lab means any kind of user-centred
research and development in an open-innovation ecosystem that has a
territorial context (e.g. city, agglomeration, region) and that integrates
concurrent research and innovation processes within a public-privatepeople partnership. (Von Hippel, 1986; Chesbrough, 2003; Pallot, 2009).
In addition, “the concept of living lab is based on a systematic user cocreation approach integrating research and innovation processes. These
are integrated through the co-creation, exploration, experimentation and
evaluation of innovative ideas, scenarios, concepts and related
technological artefacts in real life use cases.” (Kusiak & Tang, 2006:
65).
As the concept of living lab is context-driven in urban planning research,
the question arrises, what the actual implementation site of the living lab
is? What is the connection between the everyday urban environment and
the living lab? What kind of examples are there around urban living labs?
From the analysis of scientific journal databases, and the sample of
litterature, three types of urban living labs emerged.
APRILab
6
Guidelines: Urban Living Lab
2.1.1 Urban living lab as a technology-driven research
environment
The first type is a technology-driven urban living lab. It is a research
environment which creates the basis for the living lab. For example, MIT
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology) has been the leading and most
acknowledged developer of technology-driven living labs. The variety of
this type of living lab ranges from augmented reality-assisted research
environments to city-wide test laboratories. In the first mentioned, it is
possible to replicate housing concepts or architecture and monitor userbehavior and user-experience with sensor-based methods. In the latter,
the living lab comprises web pages and their active users who agree to
use certain 2.0 services. The idea is to collect information about the users
or the artifact which has been used. For example, in Montreal, there is a
service
design
targeted
to
bicyclists
(see,
http://bixi.notrewiki.net/Mission).
In Finland, there are similar experiments in public transportation. The
Helsinki Region Transport has developed and tested their mobile
services with a similar concept as in Montreal. A still on-going
experiment, called “KutsuPlus” tests the use of shared vehicles in
Helsinki (http://www.ajelo.com/). In the technology-driven living lab, the
collected information is used to improve the urban environment and/or
local services. At the same time, technology provides a new layer on the
city space, in some cases a new kind of access to the city. However, in
this type of living lab, the role of the users is that of an observed subject
and not an engaged citizen in the co-creation of ideas and breakthrough
scenarios.
2.1.2 Urban living lab as a provider of knowhow and tools
In the second type of living lab, technology is a tool for reaching the
users and transforming the real urban environment. The goal of this
living lab is to encourage the users to develop and produce urban
artefacts. For example, a number of cases on self-organizing local
development initiatives have been studied at Aalto University.
Researches of urban planning and particiaptory e-planning have provided
tools and mediation processes to local inhabitants. They have co-created
urban spaces together, based on the planning knowledge produced with
e-planning tools. For example, a shared community yard was developed
in the Roihuvuori neighbourhood in a year (Saad-Sulonen & Horelli,
2010). The local inhabitants planned the park, and also participated in the
design of green spaces. Currently, they are maintaining the park together
with the City of Helsinki. Aalto University has developed a toolkit for
the self-organizing city dwellers together with the Helsinki
Neighbourhood Association. There are also publications on the tools and
methods that are suitable for participatory e-planning and community
development (http://www.kaupunginosat.net/kansalaisen_tyokalupakki/ ,
https://wiki.aalto.fi/display/Palco/Publications).
APRILab
7
Guidelines: Urban Living Lab
2.1.3 Urban living lab as an arena for self-organizing
groups
The third type of urban living lab is also an approach for the
development of urban spaces for everydaylife. Therefore, this type
comprises planning processes and tools that engage participants into
urban development processes. Technology can be part of this living lab,
if it is suitable, but not necessary. The living lab can be based on the
actual everyday environment, for example in community centers, schools,
playgrounds and shopping malls. The main goal of the living lab is to
facilitate the vision-making and other stages of planning processes, or to
increase the access and mutual learning of stakeholders. The adopted
methodology produces knowledge for researchers, although the
verification of the living lab experiment is not the main point in this
R&D-work. The idea is to provide stakeholders a platform to perform
and to participate in planning initiatives, as well as to increase their
access to the city administration and decision-making.
This type of urban living lab is more of an arena for deliberation and a
space for self-organizing groups (Wallin & Horelli, 2010; Wallin &
Horelli 2012; Jarenko, 2013). Aalto University has also experience with
these living labs within the so called ‘expanded urban planning’ that is
embedded in community development and local co-governance (Horelli,
2013). For example, the living lab in the Herttoniemi neighbourhood of
Helsinki consisted of quite traditional methods of participatory planning
and community development, but they were implemented together with
new models of local governance. Self-organizing groups, which are
normally detached from urban planning were reached with the assistance
of community informatics. The latter included web- and mobile tools that
were used and produced by stakeholders, local NGOs and activists, not
by researchers. This kind of a living lab was driven by action research
that lasted several years. In addition to the methodology of participatory
planning, it required ethnographic methods.
2.2
Guidelines for the Establishment and
Assesment of the Urban Living Lab Approach
The objectives of the APRILab research project are theoretical, practical
and methodological. The living lab approach provides a relevant
perspective for the exploration and analyses of the participatory
structures and stakeholders, communication and learning processes in the
otherwise independent case studies of APRILab.
The typology presented in the previous chapter does not limit the number
or the nature of other living labs that could be created in the APRILab
Project. However, the definition and typology presented here provide
guidelines, which help to define the potential characteristics and
stakeholders of urban living labs (figure 1).
APRILab
8
Guidelines: Urban Living Lab
Figure 1. Stages to establish the urban living lab approach in APRILab Project.
The guidelines will assist in the description, initiation and
implementation of the case studies on the specific living labs of the
APRILab research groups.
As the living lab approach is context-driven, the definition and the three
types of the living labs, presented above, may not be suffient for the
APRILab case studies. Therefore, the case study should start with a
critical analysis of the context. The following questions could be
pertinent:



Is the case study a living lab? If not, how might it become one?
What is the actual implementation site and procedure of the living lab in the
case study (methods and tools of urban planning & development)?
What is the relationship between the case study and the everyday urban
environment (stakeholders and their objectives)?
2.2.1 The potential characteristics and stakeholders of
APRILab Case Studies
The APRILab research partners are invited to evaluate the possibility to
adopt a living lab approach in their case studies. This could take place in
two stages:
Firstly, the initiation of the living lab- approach in a case study begins
with the analysis of its characteristics and the context. All the cases
should be described and initiated in a way which follows the basic
principles of the living lab. It means that the cases should be user-centred
APRILab
9
Guidelines: Urban Living Lab
(even user-driven, if possible). They should be part of an ecosystem,
connected with the real urban envirnoment and they should support open
innovation (table 1).
Table 1. The potential characteristics of the living lab.
User-centered
Users/participants have a role in the
planning procedure. There is an actual
participatory process in planning: People
take part in the planning, do the actual
planning work or participate in the
development process in some other way.
Supportive of open innovativeness
The knowledge and artefacts of APRILab
R&D work is relevant and transferable to
other planning cases (practices, artefacts
or other professional knowledge are
transportable).
Part of an ecosystem
The studied case is part of the normal
planning system and planning practices.
Urban ecosystem is a metaphor for cities,
humans and their urban structures. It can
also cover the surrounding areas and
elements of natural landscapes. Quite
often, urban ecosystems can be divided
into smaller units including e.g.
transportation system or some business
sector.
Connected with the real urban
environment
See the Living lab description (Wallin
2013). Is the urban living lab study
producing new urban environments, new
urban practices, patterns or something
else?
The description of the characteristics of the living lab should be filled in
Table A (Appendix I). If some characteristics are difficult to describe or
they are non-existent, the reason for this should also be described.
Secondly, each research group should describe the typology of
stakeholders in their case study (see the typology of relevant
stakeholders in table 2.). The description of the stakeholders should be
filled in Table B (Appendix I).
Table 2. Typology of potential living lab stakeholders, (Adapted from Orava 2009:13).
Enablers
In charge of infrastructure and
practices
Position in a public office or status as
a civil servant
not actively involved in a living lab
Providers
Development of products and
services with user-centred methods
An enterprise or other public
organization
For example: decision-makers, urban
planners, civil servants
End-users
Inhabitants and other everyday life
users of the urban environment
Willingness to provide honest
information
For example: housing associations,
corporate developers
Developers
Provision of tools, methods and
technical resources to the living lab
Processing information from endusers and stakeholders
For example: inhabitants, local
enterprises, NGOs
For example: researchers, software
developers
APRILab
10
Guidelines: Urban Living Lab
3. Summary – the work
in progress
The APRILab research begun in May 2013, and the Kick-off Meeting
was held in July 2013. The APRILab Research Group is encouraged to
describe and analyse the concept of urban living lab in their case studies.
YTK/Aalto University will assist this task, if other project partners
provide them information. This can be done by using the tables A and B
(see the Appendix I), which follows the guidelines of the urban living lab
approach presented in this paper.
All the material and questions for discussion can be adrressed to
Researcher Sirkku Wallin at YTK/Aalto University.
APRILab
11
Guidelines: Urban Living Lab
References
Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Sjögren, D. & Sundblad, Y.(200). Co-operative Design — perspectives on 20
years with‘the Scandinavian IT Design Model. CID-104, KTH, Stockholm.
http://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/cid_104.pdf
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from
technology. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32,
791–805.
Horelli, L., Wallin, S., Kuoppa, J., Jarenko, K & Saad-Sulonen, J. (2013). New Approaches to
Urban Planning. Aalto University: Espoo.
Kusiak, A., Tang, C.-Y. (2006). Innovation in a requirement life-cycle framework, In
Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, IMS’2006,
Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey, 2006, 61-67.
Mitchell W. (2000). E-topia. “Urban Life, Jim--But Not As We Know It". MIT Press:
Massachusets
Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Complexity Research – Approaches and Methods: The LSE
Complexity
Group Integrated Methodology. In A. Keskinen, M. Aaltonen, & E.. Mitleton-Kelly (Eds.),
Organisational Complexity. Finland Futures Research Centre:Turku. pp. 55-74.
Nelson. R.R., (Ed.)(1993). National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis, Oxford Univ.
Press: New York.
Orava, J. (2009). Livin Lab toiminta Suomessa. (Living Labs in Finland). Aluekeskusohjelman
verkostojulkaisu 3/2009. Seinäjoen Teknologiakeskus: Vaasa.
http://www.kommunerna.net/fi/asiantuntijapalvelut/tuke/palvkeh/innovatiivisetpalvelut/innovaatiopolitiikka/Living%20Lab/Documents/Living%20Lab%20toiminta%20Suomessa%20-julkaisu.pdf
Pallot, M. (2009). Engaging Users into Research and Innovation: The Living lab Approach as a
User Centred Open Innovation Ecosystem. Webergence Blog. http://www.cweprojects.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/1760838?id=715404_1760838
Saad-Sulonen, J. & Horelli, L. (2010) The value of Community Informatics to participatory urban
planning and design: a case-study in Helsinki. The Journal of Community Informatics. Vol. 6, No.
2. Retrieved March 20, 2011 from http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/579/603
Sotarauta. M. and S. Srinivas. (2006). Co-evolutionary Policy Processes: Understanding
Innovative Economies and Future Resilience, Futures 38:3 April,
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1099518
Wallin, S. & Horelli, L. (2012). Playing with the Glocal Through Participatory e-Planning.
Journal of Community Informatics, 8(3), http://www.cijournal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/883
Wallin, S. & Horelli, L. (2010) Methodology of a user-sensitive service design within urban
planning. Journal of Environment and Planning B, 37(5), 775-791.
Wallin, S. (2010). The co-evolvement in local development - From the triple to the quadruple
helix model. Conference Paper at Triple Helix VIII, Madrid, October 2010, on the theme: “Triple
Helix in the Development of Cities of Knowledge, Expanding Communities and Connecting
Regions” www.triplehelix8.org
APRILab
12
Guidelines: Urban Living Lab
APPENDIX I
Please fill in the tables A and B.
Table A. Case Study Card for the characteristics of the living lab
Name of the case study:
Analysis of the
characteristics
Is / is not,
and why?
The role
technology?
of
Examples
User-centred
Supportive
of
open
innovativeness
Part of a larger
ecosystem
Connection with
the real urban
environment
Table B. Typology of stakeholders and their procedures in the case study
Typology of
(name of the
case)
Who
(affiliations)?
Why/what for
(Their
rationale
&
objectives)?
How
(type
and amount
of resources
& methods )?
Examples
Enablers
Providers
End-users
Developers
APRILab
13
Guidelines: Urban Living Lab
APRILab
More information
http://www.jpi-urbaneurope.eu/
University of Amsterdam
Project Management
Federico Savini
f.savini@uva.nl
Maarten Markus
m.p.markus@uva.nl