StevenCurtis_Thesis_LivingLabsforSustainability

IIIEE Theses 2015:21

Innovation and the Triple Bottom Line
Investigating Funding Mechanisms and Social Equity Issues of Living
Labs for Sustainability
Steven Curtis
Supervisor
Yuliya Voytenko
Thesis for the fulfilment of the
Master of Science in Environmental Management and Policy
Lund, Sweden, September 2015

© You may use the contents of the IIIEE publications for informational purposes only. You may not copy, lend, hire, transmit or redistribute these
materials for commercial purposes or for compensation of any kind without written permission from IIIEE. When using IIIEE material you must include
the following copyright notice: ‘Copyright © Steven Curtis, IIIEE, Lund University. All rights reserved’ in any copy that you make in a clearly visible
position. You may not modify the materials without the permission of the author.
Published in 2015 by IIIEE, Lund University, P.O. Box 196, S-221 00 LUND, Sweden,
Tel: +46 – 46 222 02 00, Fax: +46 – 46 222 02 10, e-mail: iiiee@iiiee.lu.se.
ISSN 1401-9191

I
Acknowledgements
Challenge Your Perspectives has been a mantra I have adopted during my two-year stay in Sweden.
It is curious to think how much a single decision can impact the trajectory of one’s life. On a
crisp fall day in October of 2012, I made a decision to attend the Idealist Grad Fair in
Chicago, IL. There, I had the pleasure to meet Maria Lindblad, International Marketing
Manager at Lund University. In that meeting, I learned of a scholarship competition called
Challenge Your Perspectives, open to all US residents to study in Sweden. In just over a month, I
had gone from a place in my life with great ambition but no clear path to having been awarded
the single scholarship to attend the Environmental Management and Policy Master’s
programme at the International Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics. I am
grateful for the opportunity to experience such diverse and varying perspectives from my host
country, my professors and classmates in the EMP programme, my Swedish friends and my
international friends who call Sweden their second home. I am appreciative to my host
country, which has taught me so much about acceptance of all people. I want to thank the
Swedish Institute for sponsoring the scholarship competition, the financial support that
allowed me to come to Sweden, and the host of activities I was able to partake in which
shaped my perspective. I will continue to challenge my perspectives in everything I endeavour to
do.
I want to thank my family for their constant support. In particular, I want to thank my
mother, Betty-Ann, a self-made woman who inspires me to be a better and more courageous
person. She raised me with the notion to always be complete in the work that I do. Her
insightful words guide me through my quest to be a better person and make a positive impact.
She reminds me to “be the change you wish to see in the world” and suggests, “your greatest
strength is your greatest weakness.” It is her unconditional love and support that allows me to
let my passion drive my work, giving me confidence to always be true to myself.
I appreciate the efforts of Yuliya Voytenko, my thesis supervisor, in her time and support she
offered throughout the process. Moreover, I want to thank Kes McCormick for his support. It
was a presentation he provided in October 2014 that sparked my interest in living labs. I am
thankful for this inspiration.
A special thank you to those willing interviewees and survey respondents. Your input and
perspective is appreciated and valued!
I want to thank my “Lund friends” Lotta Dahl, Zach Mooney and Nicholas Kaminski for
their friendship and understanding during this “crazy” Master’s programme. Further, thank
you to Lotta and Zach for securing accommodation during the last two months of the
Master’s programme! Whether it was an extra apartment, a couch, or bed, I am grateful that
you let me crash just about anywhere.
Lastly, I want to thank my friends within the EMP Programme. Your culture, knowledge,
perspective, friendship and acceptance have meant the world to me. I am truly grateful for this
experience and look forward to the many more memories we will have together.

Steven Curtis, IIIEE, Lund University
II
Abstract
Cities face a host of challenges including urbanisation and climate change and must quickly
adapt and integrate sustainability solutions to deal with these challenges. One platform seen as
a mechanism to support innovation for sustainability in cities is the concept of the living lab.
A living lab is a user-centred, open innovation ecosystem that seeks to engage academia,
industry and municipalities along with the community in the processes of co-creation and co-
generation of products, processes or services in a real-world context. On-going research seeks
to measure the potential of living labs to support innovation for sustainability as they are often
regarded as a mechanism to support rapid social and technological transformations.
The triple bottom line perspective guides this investigation to examine the environmental,
financial and social aspects of living labs. Several methods are used in this study to analyse and
triangulate data as it relates to the triple bottom line, namely, literature analysis of 118 living
labs, thirteen respondents to a survey of living labs, five semi-structured interviews of funding
partners and relevant stakeholders, and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis of
living labs in the Netherlands, England and Wales.
Living labs for sustainability offer the promise of sustainability transformations in cities; yet,
issues plague the viability of living labs as a platform to usher such transitions. The results
show that living labs most often engage in projects in the fields of energy efficiency and smart
city solutions; yet, they do not communicate the decarbonisation and environmental impacts
of their actions. In examining the extent to which the funding regime supports living labs, it is
clear that the current funding strategy focuses on the financing of short-term projects as
opposed to platforms or processes such as living labs. Consequently, the current funding
regime needs to develop mechanisms that support platforms and ecosystems for sustainable
innovation that would allow for long-term commitment and trust to be built between living
labs and the community. Lastly, while living labs are often embedded in disadvantaged
communities, it appears that living labs tend to only engage those willing participants who
represent a non-diverse and privileged section of society. This analysis suggests that living labs
for sustainability shall seek to engage all people impacted and included in their sustainability
purview in the development of sustainability solutions.
Keywords: living labs, innovation for sustainability, triple bottom line, funding of innovation,
geospatial analysis

III
Executive Summary
This thesis investigates the funding mechanisms and social equity issues of living labs for
sustainability. Living labs are described as a structured and organised multi-disciplinary
network of actors and users that seek to develop products, processes or services through the
process of co-creation within a real-world environment. While living labs can engage in any
variety of fields including Information and Communication Technology (ICT), healthcare,
tourism, among others, living labs for sustainability are elevated as a potential platform to
drive urban sustainability transformations.
Despite this potential, efforts to measure and assess the impacts, both direct and indirect, of
living labs for sustainability is needed. In doing so, researchers can begin to understand best
practices and mechanisms to allow for the proliferation of living labs that may aid in such
urban sustainability transformations. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to contribute
to the on-going work surrounding living labs for sustainability by investigating the economics,
the social mechanisms and the sustainability impacts associated with living labs for
sustainability.
The triple bottom line perspective of sustainability serves as a powerful window to frame the
research design and analysis. With a focus on Planet, Profit and People, this thesis seeks to ask
research questions pertaining to these aspects of the triple bottom line:
Planet –RQ1: How do living labs engage with sustainability?
Profit – RQ2: How does the current funding regime support living labs?
People – RQ3: To what extent does social equity issues arise in the implementation of living labs?
This thesis seeks to employ various methods in the research and analysis of living labs, which
allows for results triangulation. Firstly, literature analysis is performed as the primary means to
identify living labs for sustainability. This serves as the foundation for the following research
as it relates to the above research questions. Further, the literature analysis includes assessing
the sustainability aspects of the living labs and projects for sustainability under consideration.
A survey of living labs seeks to gather in-depth, qualitative data from those identified living
labs; in total, thirteen respondents offered their candid perspectives and experiences. The
survey questions are structured to collect biographical data about the living lab, the funding
process and the user-engagement strategies from the perspective of the living lab. Five
interviews with funding partners and relevant stakeholders took place to examine the current
funding strategy of living labs. Finally, this research appears to be the first in using geographic
information systems (GIS) to analyse living labs. In particular, this work seeks to perform
community-based research to investigate the communities in which living labs for
sustainability are embedded.
RQ1: Living Labs for Sustainability
Living labs for sustainability were found to exist throughout Europe with a focus on a variety
of sustainability aspects. In total, 118 living labs for sustainability were identified, investigated
and analysed. Further, these living labs for sustainability serve as the reservoir for the survey
of living labs and GIS analysis.
Investigated living labs tend to focus on energy efficiency and smart city solutions. This aligns
with current literature, which correlates the proliferation of living labs to the rise in ICT
development. Interestingly, while many living labs engage in projects that benefit from ICT

IV
development, the potential decarbonisation and environmental benefits are rarely discussed or
highlighted as motivation for their activities. Instead, financial savings and innovation are
among the leading motivations of living labs to engage in energy efficiency and smart city
projects. However, living labs engage in a wide-variety of sustainability aspects across different
sectors including transport, construction, low carbon futures, renewable energy, urban
gardening, etc. Furthermore, living labs employ a wide-range of participatory methodologies
to engage with end-users including co-creation workshops, interviews, surveys and email
correspondence.
RQ2: Funding of Living Labs
Funding of research and innovation in the European Union (EU) is largely motivated by the
need to increase global competitiveness, create employment opportunities and improve the
standard of living. Literature analysis, interviews with funding partners and survey of living
labs demonstrate the wide range of actors willing to fund living labs. EU-wide research and
innovation funding from mechanisms such as FP7 or Horizon 2020 finance living labs
throughout Europe. However, Joint Programming Initiatives, national funding agencies,
municipalities, industry and private partners all fund living labs. Among the survey responses
and literature analysis, no clear funding actor dominates the financing of living labs.
The current funding regime supports the financing of short-term projects, often three to four
years. Projects seek to deliver a single outcome without the inherent ability to drive processes
of change. The biosphere works in a cyclical and iterative process, while the funding of
innovation for sustainability does not. Given the data and analysis, it appears that the funding
regime does not adequately support living labs for sustainability. Living labs require “lots of
trust from end-users,” which is a timely process, requiring long-term commitments. However,
projects that are funding on a short-term basis do not enable living labs to make these
commitments, nor do they allow living labs to develop trust within the communities in which
they serve. Therefore, funding partners need to reassess their funding strategies as it relates to
living labs should they seek to develop truly transformative vehicles for urban sustainability
transitions.
RQ3: Social Equity of Living Labs
This work appears to be the first of its kind to use GIS in performing community-based
research that investigates the communities in which living labs for sustainability are embedded.
Using GIS in this manner allows for a broader perspective in investigating social equity issues.
As disadvantaged communities are most susceptible to the growing impacts of urbanisation
and climate change, it is important to ensure solutions in cities benefit these communities and
not only those with the financial means and higher levels of education who tend to be
engaged.
Living labs in the Netherlands, England and Wales are investigated using demographic data
that look at average household income, population density, level of education, crime, access to
healthcare, etc. The community representing a two-kilometre radius around the investigated
living labs were characterised using available geospatial data. Of those communities
investigated, nearly all of the living labs (16 of 18) were found to be in disadvantaged
communities in comparison to the average community in each respective country. Yet, in
comparing the GIS data with the survey results, those living labs that responded admit that
their activities struggle to engage diverse, low-income and less-educated community members.
Further, men and more-established (older) individuals tend to be involved in living lab
activities.

V
Recommendations
The analysis suggests that living labs do indeed have potential to lead to sustainability
transformations in cities. However, living labs still struggle to proliferate throughout Europe
and abroad. In order to increase the effectiveness of living labs, this thesis offers
recommendations to improve the implementation of living labs.
§ Emergence of People as Driver of Innovation: Our Common Future (1987) highlights
the problems of urbanisation, resource depletion and environmental stress as it relates
to social and economic disparities. The well-being of all people shall be a condition in
which innovation is sought and developed, especially, in regards to environmental
justice and sustainability. Current innovation theory builds on the concepts of open
innovation and social innovation. Living labs, described as a quadruple helix consisting
of public-private-people partnerships, are seen as a platform supporting open social
innovation. However, findings suggest living labs need to be more inclusive to ensure
tested solutions work for those communities that are most at need. Further, living labs
focusing on citizen-centred innovation can promote sustainability transitions through
increased knowledge integration and social learning.
§ Redevelopment of Funding Mechanisms to Support Living Labs: An improved
funding strategy of living labs shall include more stable and long-term funding
mechanisms that allow living labs to develop rich networks, deep trust within the
community and long-term commitments. A mechanism that supports long-term
conditional funding or co-financing on the basis of a living lab meeting annual targets
is an option funding partners were open to; however, funding agencies suggest that a
platform that would receive such funding would need to have already been established
with a long and successful track record. Further, as it relates to the motivation of
funding partners (competiveness, employment, innovation, well-being), there is an
incentive to ensure success of a funded living lab. The funding partners may serve as a
receptacle of best practices to aid in the development of self-sustaining business
models among living labs. Lastly, open and agile processes of funding are needed to
suit the real-world context in which living labs experiment.
While living labs represent a pathway towards urban sustainability transformation, existing
governance structures and regimes must possess the capacity to integrate and maintain
sustainability initiatives in cities. It is important to continue to test a variety of pathways
towards sustainability in cities; living labs only represent one tool to tackle the global and
urban challenges we face as a society.

VI
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................................................I

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................III

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................ VIII

LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................. VIII

ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ VIII

1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1

1.1
PROBLEM DEFINITION ............................................................................................................................................ 2

1.1.1
Living Labs for Sustainability.............................................................................................................................. 2

1.1.2
Funding of Living Labs........................................................................................................................................ 2

1.1.3
Social Equity Issues.............................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2
RESEARCH QUESTIONS............................................................................................................................................ 3

1.3
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 4

1.4
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................................ 4

1.5
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................................................... 5

1.6
AUDIENCE.................................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.7
DISPOSITION.............................................................................................................................................................. 6

2
CONTEXT AND THEORY: LINKING URBANISATION, KNOWLEDGE AND
INNOVATION....................................................................................................................................7

2.1
URBAN CHALLENGES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 7

2.2
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PARTICIPATORY METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 9

2.3
KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING.............................................................................................................................11

2.4
GEOGRAPHY, PROXIMITY AND ACCESSIBILITY.................................................................................................12

2.4.1
Geography ..........................................................................................................................................................13

2.4.2
Proximity ...........................................................................................................................................................13

2.4.3
Accessibility........................................................................................................................................................14

2.5
INNOVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION IN CITIES ...........................................................................................14

3
LIVING LABS: A COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW.......................................................................17

3.1
HISTORY OF LIVING LABS.....................................................................................................................................17

3.2
“WHAT DO YOU CALL IT?” ....................................................................................................................................18

3.3
LIVING LAB - DEFINITION....................................................................................................................................20

3.4
EXAMPLES OF LIVING LABS FOR SUSTAINABILITY ...........................................................................................23

3.4.1
Corridor Manchester...........................................................................................................................................23

3.4.2
EVOMOBILE................................................................................................................................................23

3.4.3
Go:Smart / UbiGo............................................................................................................................................24

3.5
EXISTING LIVING LAB ACTORS............................................................................................................................24

3.5.1
European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)...................................................................................................24

3.5.2
Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions (GUST)..................................................................................25

3.6
POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES, DRAWBACKS AND KNOWLEDGE GAPS .........................................................25

3.6.1
Potential Opportunities.......................................................................................................................................25

3.6.2
Social Equity Issues............................................................................................................................................26

3.6.3
Issues with Current Funding Regime for Living Labs..........................................................................................26

3.6.4
Rationalisation of Research Questions and Future Research ................................................................................27

4
METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................28

4.1
LITERATURE ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................................28

4.1.1
European Network of Living Labs ....................................................................................................................29

VII
4.1.2
Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions (GUST)..................................................................................29

4.2
SURVEY OF LIVING LABS.......................................................................................................................................30

4.3
INTERVIEWS WITH FUNDING PARTNERS AND RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS ................................................32

4.4
GIS ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................................................................33

4.4.1
Sample GIS Living Lab Analysis......................................................................................................................34

4.5
METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................35

5
RESULTS.............................................................................................................................................36

5.1
RESULTS FROM LITERATURE ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................36

5.2
RESULTS FROM SURVEY OF LIVING LABS ...........................................................................................................37

5.2.1
Living Lab Information......................................................................................................................................37

5.2.2
User Involvement ................................................................................................................................................38

5.2.3
Funding of Living Labs......................................................................................................................................39

5.3
RESULTS FROM INTERVIEWS WITH FUNDING PARTNERS AND RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS ....................40

5.3.1
Funding of Living Labs......................................................................................................................................40

5.3.2
Social Equity of Living Labs..............................................................................................................................41

5.3.3
Future of Living Labs ........................................................................................................................................41

5.4
RESULTS FROM GIS ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................................42

5.4.1
Netherlands........................................................................................................................................................42

5.4.2
England and Wales............................................................................................................................................43

5.5
LIVING LAB SOCIAL EQUITY ANALYSIS – EXAMPLES ......................................................................................45

5.5.1
Maastricht-LAB................................................................................................................................................46

5.5.2
Amsterdam City-Zen..........................................................................................................................................47

5.5.3
Greater Manchester Low Carbon Hub ...............................................................................................................48

6
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................50

6.1
LIVING LABS – PLANET .........................................................................................................................................50

6.2
LIVING LABS – PROFIT...........................................................................................................................................52

6.3
LIVING LABS – PEOPLE .........................................................................................................................................55

7
REFLECTIONS ..................................................................................................................................58

7.1
EMERGENCE OF PEOPLE AS DRIVER OF INNOVATION ...................................................................................58

7.2
THE FUNDING BATTLE: PROJECT VS. PROCESS.................................................................................................61

7.2.1
Making the Case................................................................................................................................................61

7.2.2
Improving Funding of Processes and Platforms.....................................................................................................62

7.2.3
Open and Agile..................................................................................................................................................64

7.3
REFLECTIONS ON METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................64

7.4
FURTHER RESEARCH..............................................................................................................................................66

8
CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................68

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................................70

APPENDIX I. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS................................................................................79

INTERVIEWS WITH FUNDING AGENCIES AND RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS...........................................................79

INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS AND EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ........................................................................................79

APPENDIX II. SURVEY OF LIVING LABS...........................................................................................80

APPENDIX III. EMAIL TO LIVING LABS WITH SURVEY................................................................86

APPENDIX IV. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE .............................................................88

APPENDIX V. LIVING LABS FOR SUSTAINABILITY........................................................................90

VIII
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. World Population Living in Cities Over Time................................................................8

Figure 2-2. Processes of Knowledge Integration..............................................................................11

Figure 3-1. Test and experimentation platform (TEP) framework................................................21

Figure 5-1. Sustainability Aspects of Investigated Living Labs ......................................................36

Figure 5-2. Map of Maastricht, Netherlands Illustrating Social Equity.........................................47

Figure 5-3. Map of Amsterdam, Netherlands Illustrating Social Equity.......................................48

Figure 5-4. Map of Manchester, England Illustrating Social Equity..............................................49

Figure 7-1. Integrating the Triple Bottom Line and Public-Private-People Partnerships..........59

List of Tables
Table 1-1. Research Questions and Sub-questions.............................................................................4

Table 3-1. Table of Various Terms Used to Describe Largely Similar Interventions.................19

Table 4-1. Overview of Research Questions and Corresponding Methodology.........................28

Table 4-2. Living Lab Survey Respondents .......................................................................................32

Table 5-1. Living Labs Investigated in the Netherlands..................................................................43

Table 5-2. Living Labs Investigated in England and Wales ............................................................45

Abbreviations
ENoLL – European Network of Living Labs
ERA – European Research Area
EU – European Union
FP7 – 7th Framework Programme for Research
GDP – Gross Domestic Product
GIS – Geographic Information Systems
GUST – Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions
ICT – Information and Communication Technology
IIIEE – International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics
JPI - Joint Programming Initiative
LSOA – Lower layer Support Output Area
RDI – Research, Development and Innovation
TEP – Test and Experimentation Platform
VINNOVA - Verket För Innovationssystem (Swedish agency for innovation systems)
WCED – World Commission on Environment and Development

1
1 Introduction
The first real discussion of the role of sustainable development in addressing our common
future and challenges is credited to the Brundtland Report (1987), titled Our Common Future, as
a result of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. The
report outlined common challenges including population growth, food security, biodiversity,
ecosystem services, energy, industry and urbanisation (WCED, 1987). Not long after,
sustainability and sustainable development began to permeate throughout cultural and political
discourses. In 1994, John Elkington coined the term ‘triple bottom line’ and suggested that
businesses and corporations need to take into account the three P’s: people, planet and profit
(“Triple bottom line,” 2009). In doing so, corporations (and society at large) could measure
the financial, social and environmental performance over time. He defines the triple bottom
line as a view of sustainable development that “involves the simultaneous pursuit of economic
prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity” (Elkington, 1997, p. 397).
While triple bottom line reporting has traditionally been reserved for business and
corporations to reimagine business as usual, the triple bottom line perspective is being applied
to other aspects of society. This perspective demonstrates the need, opportunity and ability of
cities and communities to focus on social and environmental sustainability in addition to
economic development (Rogers & Ryan, 2001). Literature has begun to develop a framework
to evaluate community-based initiatives that address social and environmental challenges
facing our global society (Fredline, Raybould, Jago, & Deery, 2005; Rogers & Ryan, 2001).
Among the greatest challenges, urbanisation is poised to continue throughout the 21st
century.
Megacities, those cities with twenty million or more people, are expected to continue to grow
at impressive rates (Childers, Pickett, Grove, Ogden, & Whitmer, 2014). In fact, population
centred in cities will grow from approximately 50% today to nearly 80% of the population
living in cities in some parts of the world by 2050 (UN DESA, n.d.). The 600 largest cities
globally generate 60% of global gross domestic product (GDP) and 75% of global carbon
dioxide emissions (Lööf & Nabavi, 2013). The global population is expected to increase from
seven billion to nine billion by 2050 with the total number of people living in cities doubling
within a period less than four decades (Lööf & Nabavi, 2013). However, much of the
forecasted population growth will occur in areas not yet urban or unaccustomed to such
population growth (Childers et al., 2014).
With the concentration of people in cities increasing, issues such as transport, housing and
production methods, which make up a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions, can be
tackled due to greater proximity and centralisation of governance (Lööf & Nabavi, 2013).
Cities must quickly adapt and integrate sustainability solutions to deal with their growing
populations.
With growing population, the threat of climate change and worsening social inequality, new
and innovative approaches are required to transition and transform cities towards
sustainability (Murray, Caulier-Grice, & Mulgan, 2010). Sustainability transformation requires
the creation and implementation of previously untested and unproven solutions which spur a
fundamentally new way of living within the ecological, economic and social spheres (Westley
et al., 2011). However, Westley et al. (2011, p. 772) posit, “… traditional, expert-driven,
centralised, and top-down approaches to problem solving are not nimble enough to effectively
address convergent, nonlinear, and rapidly changing global problems characterised by high
uncertainty.” In other words, systemic change that includes solutions supported by
government, industry and civil society must work in tandem to address complex sustainability
issues. This requires that many solutions need to be generated, experimented, developed and

2
scaled. To do so, test cases in cities represent a best-case scenario from which broader lessons
may emerge (Childers et al., 2014).
One such approach, under investigation here, is the concept of a Living Laboratory. Many
definitions permeate throughout literature (discussed in Chapter 3) but, conclusively, they
agree that a living lab must consist of a structured and organised multi-disciplinary network of
actors who involve users in the co-creation and co-generation of products, processes and/or
services within a real-world environment (Mensink, Birrer, & Dutilleul, 2010). For example,
SubUrbanLab is a living lab platform based in Botkyrka, Sweden and Riihimäki, Finland that
brings together the municipalities with local business and communities. Example living lab
projects include engaging youth in an urban gardening project, testing energy efficiency
products and preferences in residents’ homes, and developing community housing that is
smart and sustainable.
1.1 Problem Definition
Living labs are heralded as an innovative approach to solve the urban sustainability crisis
(Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013; Mensink et al., 2010; Veeckman, Schuurman, Leminen, &
Westerlund, 2013). Evans and Karvonen (2011) suggest that living labs may be a method to
inspire rapid social change towards technical and sustainable transitions. However, future
work is needed to understand the impacts, both direct and indirect, of living labs in their local
communities. Further, after understanding the types of interventions, their effectiveness in
given contexts and their impact on social transformation, the living lab methodology can be
scaled up and applied to a wider-range of sustainability challenges in more cities (Bulkeley &
Castán Broto, 2013).
1.1.1 Living Labs for Sustainability
Living labs are described as “popping up” in cities; this is to say that, thus far, there is little
coordinated effort to use living labs as an innovative strategy for sustainability (Veeckman &
van der Graaf, 2015). While networks of living labs, such as the European Network of Living
Labs (ENoLL), have attempted to capture these interventions occurring throughout Europe
and the World, the variable and uncoordinated nature of living labs makes it difficult to do so.
While literature focuses on living labs as case studies, it appears that a comprehensive database
of living labs for sustainability is needed to serve as a reservoir of tested and accepted living
labs for sustainability in order to answer conceptual questions and advance the living lab
methodology.
Identifying living labs for sustainability allows further research in the evaluation of living labs
as a mode of urban transition and sustainable development. In identifying living labs for
sustainability, best practices can be determined and a living lab methodology focusing on
sustainable transitions can be created. Such a repository will shed light on what aspects of
sustainability living labs are working in, which actors are involved and how living labs engage
with end-users. Moreover, more specific areas of investigation can occur including the impact
of living labs on consumer behaviour, governance, alternative economic models, etc.
However, no coordinated and comprehensive effort to catalogue living labs for sustainability
has occurred to allow for further research in the potential of living labs for sustainability.
1.1.2 Funding of Living Labs
The greening of cities towards sustainability is complex; sustainability is not an outcome or
endpoint of a project but an iterative and adaptive process (Childers et al., 2014). Meanwhile,
the funding regime for sustainability in cities tends to dominate financing projects over
processes. The technosphere in which we increasingly depend on to transition towards a more

3
sustainable society does not operate in the same cyclical nature as of the biosphere (Westley et
al., 2011). Yet, funded projects are constrained in scope, time and space. In other words, the
funding regime is linear in its sponsoring of complex, nonlinear sustainability issues. Would a
more comprehensive and adaptive funding protocol of living labs benefit cities? In order to
address these issues, an investigation is needed into the funding mechanisms sponsoring living
labs for sustainability in order to assess to what extent the funding regime supports living labs
and how it may be improved. This is especially relevant against the backdrop of the current
underfunding and devolution of municipal governments (Childers et al., 2014).
1.1.3 Social Equity Issues
Laboratories in the traditional sense are seen as privileged spaces in society, often able to
control the flows in and out of a system (Evans & Karvonen, 2011). Often, the privilege of
creating a living lab within a community comes down to the ability to finance such projects. In
interviews with municipalities in Estonia, Lepik, Krigul and Terk (2010) found that
municipalities, countries and regions with more economic wealth could afford to test and
experiment in cities while others could not. Not only is it a matter of which cities can benefit
from living labs, but the questions arise as to who is engaged in living labs and who is
benefiting. Innovations in cities tend to be stratified on the basis of ethnic and racial
characteristics, income, education, age, gender, disabilities, etc. (Wolch, Byrne, & Newell,
2014).
Communities of colour, low-income residents and otherwise disadvantaged citizens are among
the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and other environmental issues
impacting cities (Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013; Wolch et al., 2014). Further, Evans &
Karvonen (2014, p. 415) observe that “demonstration projects are simply ‘dropped into’ urban
areas rather than integrated with their local contexts.” If this is the case, community-based
research is needed to examine who is being included and who is benefiting from living labs in
cities. This enables research to understand the ways in which innovation in cities for
sustainability include and benefit some while neglecting others (Bulkeley & Castán Broto,
2013).
Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the growing body of work
investigating living labs, in particular, by understanding the economics, social mechanisms and
impacts associated with living labs to advance those living labs for sustainability.
1.2 Research Questions
With this background in mind, this thesis takes a three-pronged approach to assess and
evaluate the viability of living labs for sustainability. Much like the triple-bottom line view of
sustainability in looking at environmental, economic and social aspects, the thesis addresses
three questions targeting these three components of living labs for sustainability (Table 1-1).

4
Table 1-1. Research Questions and Sub-questions
Planet
RQ1 How do living labs engage with sustainability?
Sub-questions
- Which living labs engage with sustainability?
- What is the sustainability focus of living labs?
- How do they engage with end-users?
- Who are the actors and what is the power structure among them?
Profit
RQ2 How does the current funding regime support living labs?
Sub-questions
- Who funds living labs?
- Why do they fund living labs?
- How do they measure success?
- What happens at the end of funding?
People
RQ3 To what extent do social equity issues arise in the implementation of living labs?
Sub-questions
- How can the community in which living labs are embedded be
characterised?
- Who is engaged in living labs?
- Who is benefiting from living labs?
1.3 Overview of Methodology
This thesis uses a number of approaches to answer the proposed research questions. Keeping
in mind people, planet and profit, the thesis employs literature analysis to identify living labs for
sustainability and highlight in which aspects of sustainability they concentrate. A survey is
sent to all identified living labs for sustainability to examine their funding history and user
engagement patterns. Interviews with funding agencies, living labs and other stakeholders are
conducted to understand the current level of support provided by the funding regime. Finally,
geographic information systems (GIS) tools are used to explore the spatial characteristics
of the communities in which living labs are embedded. For a more thorough explanation of
methods, see Chapter 4.
1.4 Scope and Limitations
Research seeks to examine a system; as such, the system boundaries and scope need to be
defined. For the purpose of this research, the focus is on interventions in cities for

5
sustainability. The method for identification of these interventions serves as the primary
scoping mechanism while the main limitation is introduced as a result of the interventions
identified. Undoubtedly, there are numerous types of interventions for sustainability
transpiring in cities across Europe. However, only those contained within the European
Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) and identified by the research team of the Governance of
Urban Sustainability Transitions (GUST) are included in this study. This limits the number of
living labs for sustainability investigated and excludes potential data points of interest for this
study.
The definition of a living lab varies between disciplines, academics and practitioners. For the
purpose of this study, it is chosen not to deal with the complexity of the term in filtering living
labs under investigation; instead, only those interventions in cities that could be identified as
living labs among any definition are included.
Living labs in cities and the subsequent field of research are evolving quickly. Information that
exists online is static and may not represent what is happening in reality. Further, information
pertaining to individual living labs is difficult to verify. Therefore, this study is limited to the
secondary information provided online and the subsequent language translation that, in some
cases, was necessary. When possible, information was verified through interviews and survey
results.
Of course, limitations and the need to scope arise through the methodological choices that are
made in any research design. For a more detailed discussion, please see Chapter 4.5.
1.5 Ethical Considerations
This thesis strives to honour and respect all survey respondents’ and interviewees’ anonymity
unless they consented to information disclosure. Yet, comparing and correlating survey
response data to interviews with funding agencies proved to be sensitive. There was a
conscious effort to ensure that no information provided in the survey anonymously by living
labs could impact their funding through conversations with their funding partner.
In working with socio-demographic data, the resolution of the dataset is often high, between
500 m and 5 km. As a result, it is important to acknowledge that the data does not describe a
homogenous population but looks to generalise the population under investigation. Moreover,
using data such as income, education and household value in no way seeks to make any
characterisations about particular individuals other than to allow for an understanding of who
may or may not be included and benefiting from living labs.
1.6 Audience
This thesis is written as part of the final semester for the Master of Science programme in
Environmental Management and Policy at the International Institute for Industrial
Environmental Economics (IIIEE) at Lund University in Lund, Sweden. The research
conducted and conclusions purported support the Governance of Urban Sustainability
Transitions (GUST) Project, of which researchers at the IIIEE are involved. The GUST
Project is funded by JPI Urban Europe and includes partners from Lund University (Sweden),
Dutch Research Institute for Transition (the Netherlands), University of Durham (the United
Kingdom) and Joanneum Research (Austria) with the aim to examine, inform and advance
governance and sustainability transitions through living labs (“Governance of Urban
Sustainability Transitions,” n.d.).

6
The research questions proposed in Chapter 1.2 seek to address conceptual questions
associated with particular knowledge gaps regarding living labs. Answers to these questions
have wide-ranging relevant audiences. For example, identifying living labs for sustainability
and their areas of focus is relevant to other local, national and regional governments and
networks in determining the usefulness in applying such methods to address societal issues
within their own jurisdiction. Funding partners benefit in understanding various perspectives
to better design funding models for nonlinear innovation ecosystems in cities. Social equity
issues plague living labs; practitioners’ benefit from understanding how pervasive this problem
is in order to develop strategies to avoid it. Lastly, the knowledge generated benefits
researchers who look to understand and advance the role living labs play within society to
foster new mechanism for urban sustainability transitions.
1.7 Disposition
The thesis is a comprehensive account of many areas of study regarding living labs. As a result
of quite specific and disjointed tasks associated with this research, a thorough literature review
to aid in the understanding of living labs and subsequent analysis is presented in Chapter 2. In
particular, emphasis on theory pertaining to knowledge integration, public participation,
geography and innovation is discussed.
Chapter 3 unravels the complexity of the living lab concept and provides a history of the term,
current schools of thought and specific examples while summarising the advantages and
disadvantages of living labs as a tool for open innovation in cities.
Chapter 4 presents the four methods for data collection and analysis – literature analysis,
surveys, interviews and GIS – that comprise the methodology used in this study.
Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 present relevant findings and contribute to the discussion in
evaluating living labs against the triple bottom line.
Chapter 7 makes the case of integrating the triple bottom line with the concept of public-
private-people partnerships, realising the focus on people is paramount to the future of
sustainability transformation. Further, recommendations are provided to funding agencies and
future research is considered.
Finally, Chapter 8 provides a summary of the conclusions found as a result of this thesis
research.

7
2 Context and Theory: Linking Urbanisation, Knowledge
and Innovation
Through public consultations, the European Union has identified priorities for future
sustainable cities. A strategy for urban cities will include: to enhance competitiveness,
innovation and research within the knowledge economy; to promote active labour markets;
and to elevate sustainable development, greenhouse gas reductions and energy efficiency
(Schaffers et al., 2011). This strategy forms the basis for the construction of future urban
environments in Europe. In 2002, the Budapest Manifesto, a declaration from the attendees at
the workshop Science for Reduction of Risk and Sustainable Development of Society, called for a
European network that promotes social innovation with a citizen-centric participatory process
(European Commission, 2014a). Many see living labs as such a mechanism to support the
strategy of the European Union for sustainable urban futures with a focus on citizen-centred
innovation.
To lay the groundwork for further understanding of living labs, this section includes a
discussion surrounding the important theoretical disciplines that shape the future
development and impact of living labs. First, this section seeks to contextualise on-going and
future challenges within an urban environment. Next, a description of participatory
methodology alludes to some tools used by living labs to engage end-users. This engagement
leads to the exchange of knowledge, something that is intangible and needs further
description. The role of place in cities is important to understand the impacts and
development of experimentation and innovation in cities, something to be discussed at the
end of this chapter.
2.1 Urban Challenges and Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is promoted as the cornerstone of the most recent Environmental
Action Program by the European Union (European Commission, 2015). One of two priority
objectives for the European Union is to make cities more sustainable (European Commission,
2015). However, the concept of sustainable development is not new. Widely recognised as the
first mainstream definition of sustainable development, a report from the World Commission
on Environment and Development (WCED) called Our Common Future was published in 1987
in dozens of languages (Pezzoli, 1997).
Our Common Future defines sustainable development as “the development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43). The report goes on to discuss pressing sustainability issues
pertaining to food security, biodiversity, ecosystem services, energy, industrial development,
water scarcity, poverty, etc. while proposing institutional and legal changes to transition
towards common action for sustainability (WCED, 1987). To exacerbate these problems,
increased urbanisation challenges sustainable development where innovative and integrative
policy tools are needed and needed quickly (United Nations, Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, & Population Division, 2014).
The share of the world population found in cities is steadily on the rise, projected to increase
to 66% of the total global population by 2050 (United Nations et al., 2014). Moreover,
between 2014 and 2050, the world is expected to add 2.5 billion people to the planet; 90% of
the growth is expected to occur in Asia and Africa (United Nations et al., 2014). Therefore,
these cities will be expected to adapt quickly over the coming decades to transition
infrastructure and lifestyles to support an increased population.

8
Figure 2-1. World Population Living in Cities Over Time
Source: United Nations et al., 2014; WCED, 1987
In Europe, as of 2014, the percentage of the population living in urban areas is 73% (United
Nations et al., 2014). The European Commission estimates that number will grow to 80% of
the population by 2050 (European Commission, 2013).
Industrialised cities of the past faced ecological and human-health issues due to their rampant
and previously unchecked production; however, many of these cities have transitioned
towards more comfortable and environmentally-friendly cities (Childers et al., 2014). This
process has primarily occurred through end-of-pipe engineering solutions with substantial
government involvement and significant public and private investments (Childers et al., 2014).
Due to these centralised and rigid solutions, this approach is not inherently adaptive (Childers
et al., 2014; Grove, 2009). As populations continue to rise rapidly and cities continue to grow,
strategies that have worked in the past will not be able to solve future problems.
The generic city of today faces growing challenges including waste management, scarcity of
resources, air pollution, human health issues, traffic congestion, poor infrastructure and, in
particular, climate change (Chourabi et al., 2012). Increasing impacts of climate change trigger
heat waves and drought, increased severe weather events, runoff and flooding, causing cities
to reimagine existing infrastructure for future climate and urbanisation (Evans & Karvonen,
2011). Climate change is spurring the drive for innovative solutions within cities where new
techniques of governance, processes and products are being cultivated.
With broad challenges, there are many opportunities for innovation in sustainability (Westley
et al., 2011). These opportunities for innovations are important to harness at the local level
(European Commission, 2014a), moulding solutions to the specific needs of local
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1950 1985 2000 2014 2050
World
Population
Living
in
Cities
(%)

9
communities taking into account culture, context and creativity. However, the large number of
challenges touching numerous sectors and stakeholders make it difficult to coordinate and
develop an integrated, systematic approach to addressing these challenges (Bulkeley & Castán
Broto, 2013).
To address the challenges for the future, an urban systems perspective is required to examine
urban ecosystems through an interdisciplinary lens focusing on biophysical and social-cultural
exchanges (Childers et al., 2014). Therefore, in order to set the stage for experimentation and
innovation in cities, this thesis looks to uncover some of the underlying theory driving the
uptake of living labs in cities and the process and need for urban sustainability
transformations.
2.2 Public Participation and Participatory Methodology
Increasingly, citizens expect public involvement in the decision-making process (Welp, 2001).
With such engagement, access to information underpins the participation process; in other
words, well-informed citizenry enables useful contributions in the decision-making process
(Kranz, Ridder, & Patel, 2006). Access to information and public participation is closely tied
to human-rights issues. Acknowledged in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, later with the Aarhus Convention and other international human-rights
organisations in Europe and Asia, public participation is a cornerstone to a successful
democracy (Ebbesson, 2011).
Public participation is defined by Rowe & Frewer (2000, p. 6) to include all “…procedures
designed to consult, involve, and inform the public to allow those affected by a decision to
have an input into that decision.” It seeks to improve the decision-making process by
including various stakeholders, raise awareness among those involved as to the issues and
challenges facing society, and increase acceptance and commitment among those involved
(Bush, Gillson, Hamilton, & Perrin, 2005). The public possesses local knowledge and expertise
that is of interest to decision-makers and researchers, often with a more long-term view of a
problem than politicians or businesses (Bush et al., 2005). It is this local knowledge that is of
utmost important when seeking to develop context-specific solutions to urban challenges.
Further, public participation seeks to adhere to the subsidiarity principle: that decisions should
be taken as close as possible to those affected/impacted by a decision (Kastens & Newig,
2008).
Effective public participation requires a variety of resources to be in place: ability to have an
open discussion; various tools and technologies for engagement; monitoring and evaluation of
effectiveness; mutual trust among stakeholders; and long-term commitments (Kranz et al.,
2006). Public participation has been described to be institutional (ex. voting, public
consultations, town hall meetings, etc.) or non-institutional (ex. self-organised citizen activities,
NGO activities, etc.) (Welp, 2001).
Various forums have been created and used to advance the participation among citizenry in
the name of deliberative or participative democracy (M. Lee & Abbot, 2003). Among the most
common, public consultations seek to gather public knowledge to inform decision-making
process (Bush et al., 2005). Other forums for participation include road shows, stakeholder
forums, workshops, electronic or telephone surveys, public meetings, among other methods.
(Bush et al., 2005; Kranz et al., 2006; Lennard, 2005; Welp, 2001). The involvement of
municipalities in funding and operating living labs suggest they see living labs as another
forum to inform decision-making.

10
Numerous tools and toolboxes have been developed for public participation, namely,
information and communication tools and decision-support tools (Kranz et al., 2006; Welp,
2001). These tools seek to develop methods that involve material resources, devices or
software to support the engagement process with stakeholders (Kranz et al., 2006). Examples
include scenario simulations, modelling, visualisations, role plays, gaming and mapping (Kranz
et al., 2006; Welp, 2001).
The successful implementation of such participatory methodology and tools requires early
engagement, clear information, transparency and mutual trust, understanding that effective
participation does not transpire immediately but is a process (Kranz et al., 2006; Louka, 2008).
Practitioners must be serious of the process and work to demonstrate commitment and build
trust among those engaged (Kastens & Newig, 2008). Further, it is important to illustrate
adequate feedback loops in which participation leads to noticeable impacts within a
neighbourhood or community (Louka, 2008). If this is not achieved, stakeholders may become
disillusioned by the process leading to lower levels of future engagement and lack of
compliance to future policy tools (Kastens & Newig, 2008).
While public participation is an ideal to strive for, in reality, it is difficult to develop effective
and inclusive participation. Participation can be fickle; factors such as weather, time, location
and topic can impact who chooses to be involved (Lennard, 2005). Moreover, public
participation is becoming proceduralised in environmental and social policy instruments (M.
Lee & Abbot, 2003). Therefore, there is a growing concern of participation fatigue – an
overall lack of enthusiasm among citizenry to engage in public participation due to the
overwhelming ways in which to be involved (Louka, 2008). Participation fatigue is enhanced
when the public already views the State as operating in the best interest of society and/or does
not want to be actively engaged in decision-making (Louka, 2008). This is highlighted by the
citizenry’s view of the State in many European countries.
Inclusive governance seeks to involve the entire citizenry in an equitable and representative
manner (Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013). However, true inclusivity is often unattainable
(Lennard, 2005). Traditionally, public participation has suffered from a lack of inclusivity.
Often, consultations and other participatory methods see predominantly white, middle to
upper-middle class people taking part in participatory campaigns in cities (Lennard, 2005;
Louka, 2008; Wolch et al., 2014). Participants often have a history of long-term public sector
involvement, which leads to similar ways of thinking in decision-making (Louka, 2008).
Further, there is often a lack of minority groups among participants (Louka, 2008; Wolch et
al., 2014). With a lack of diversity, efforts to overcome this are being made; however, this
raises the debate as to which stakeholder groups to seek, what incentives to offer and who is
responsible for such social engineering (Louka, 2008). Ultimately, whose knowledge should be
included (or excluded) in the participatory process?
Social equity issues can be enhanced when participation leads to co-opting. Co-opting sees
interest groups or individuals taking command of a participatory approach to serve their own
agenda (Louka, 2008). In particular, this creates an environment where engagement is stifled
leading to a fear among a minority or a silent majority to speak up for their beliefs, making
differences among stakeholder groups more pronounced (Louka, 2008).
Ultimately, participatory methods seek to engage, educate, empower and encourage local
communities in a way that spurs resourcefulness and innovation (Edwards, 2009). In
particular, excavating social learning and social memory through participatory methodology
which relinquishes control but instead seeks to develop collaboration greatly enhances
innovation to challenges and disasters (Barthel, Folke, & Colding, 2010; Westley et al., 2011).

11
2.3 Knowledge and Learning
Knowledge and democracy are being transformed by advancements in information
communication and technology (Delanty, 2001). Broadly, knowledge is a precondition shaping
a person’s behaviour (Frick, Kaiser, & Wilson, 2004). We know that in order to address urban
sustainability, individuals must be equipped with the knowledge of the inherent risk of doing
nothing in order to change behaviour (Shiroyama et al., 2012). Therefore, the facilitation of
knowledge transfer and learning is important to sustainability transitions.
Recognised as among the first frameworks to facilitate learning, the Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives was published in 1956 (Krathwohl, 2002). The taxonomy, known as Bloom’s
taxonomy, introduced three domains of learning: cognitive (i.e. knowledge) – relating to the
process of processing and applying knowledge; affective – the way one reacts and feels; and
psychomotor – manual or physical skills (Bloom, 1956).
Since, Bloom’s taxonomy has been researched and revised. The most recent and renowned
revision to the original work came in 2001. They further examined the cognitive dimension of
learning suggesting four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive knowledge (Kranz et al., 2006).
The cognitive dimension
creates a hierarchy of
knowledge and cognitive
processes including
remember, understand, apply,
analyse, evaluate and create
(Figure 2-2) (Anderson,
Krathwohl, Airasian, &
Bloom, 2001). This hierarchy
illustrates that learning
processes such as analyse,
evaluate and create better
allow individuals to
completely process and
integrate knowledge.
Another important aspect of
learning in society is social
learning theory. Pioneered by
Albert Bandura in the 1960s
and 1970s, social learning
theory reinforces that learning
is a cognitive process but suggests that it takes place within a social context (Bandura, 1977).
For example, one can learn by observing a behaviour or by observing the consequences of
that behaviour, known as vicarious reinforcement (Bandura, 1977). Social learning is facilitated
by modelling of behaviour including live modelling (an actual observation of behaviour),
verbal modelling (vocal description of behaviour), and symbolic modelling (behaviour
observed via movies, TV, internet, literature, etc.) (Bandura, 1977).
Social learning theory has been applied in many contexts including criminology, psychology,
childhood education and business management. More recently, social learning theory has been
applied to environmental considerations. For example, the European Commission funded a
project called HARMONIsing COllaborative Planning (HarmoniCOP) with the express aim
Figure 2-2. Processes of Knowledge Integration
Source: Anderson, Krathwohl, Airasian, & Bloom, 2001

12
to examine social learning theory in relation to river basin management planning (Kranz et al.,
2006). The European Union Water Framework Directive seeks to include public participation
in the development of river basin management plans. The HarmoniCOP project examined the
role of social learning in the development of these regional plans. The study found that social
learning theory applied to public participation in environmental management plans to be more
adaptive and trust-building among stakeholders (Kranz et al., 2006). Interactions provided a
good flow of information through open discussion and thought exchanges with all
stakeholders viewed equally (Kranz et al., 2006). Kranz et al. (2006) show that social learning
provides improved interactions between stakeholders and suggests social learning may support
institutional change.
Efforts to conceptualise environmental knowledge have also been made. Environmental
knowledge has been conceptualised as three forms of knowledge. The first, systems
knowledge, describes environmental processes, ecosystems and environmental problems
(Frick et al., 2004). Action-related knowledge describes the knowledge of behavioural
processes and courses of action when faced with environmental damage or harm (Frick et al.,
2004). Lastly, environmental knowledge is composed of effectiveness knowledge, meaning
knowledge of the relative harm or benefit to the environment of our actions (Frick et al.,
2004).
Public consultation events (discussed above) and living labs share similar questions of
significance: whose knowledge to seek and engage? Again, this highlights the social equity
issues inherent in knowledge transfer facilitating decision-making within cities. Keep in mind,
the process of knowledge transfer differs greatly between private and public institutions where
private companies are, for example, less incentivised to share innovations. (Massard & Mehier,
2005).
Geography plays a large role in knowledge transfer and integration. Knowledge transfer is
increased due to physical/geographical proximity (Lagendijk & Lorentzen, 2007). In other
words, knowledge exchange occurs more readily when the physical distance between the
parties is reduced. Moreover, knowledge interaction is facilitated by participating parties when
located in the same cultural boundaries or within the same local economy (Lööf & Nabavi,
2013). The role of geography, proximity and accessibility is discussed in the proceeding
section.
With the large number of challenges facing our cities, there is an important need for
knowledge integration among experts from interdisciplinary perspectives to address the
multifaceted risks (Shiroyama et al., 2012). Integrating this understanding of the learning
hierarchy (Anderson et al., 2001) and the concept of social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) in
conceptualising living labs, it is clear they represent a powerful tool in facilitating knowledge
transfer and integration to transition towards sustainability.
2.4 Geography, Proximity and Accessibility
The role of place and people is important in the designing and implementation of urban
futures. In particular, this arises when discussing the inclusion, involvement and accessibility
of urban public facilities (Tsou, Hung, & Chang, 2005). Spatial equity is a conglomeration of
these ideas defined as equal access to basic pubic facilities, often measured in distance (Tsou et
al., 2005). Often, measurements of spatial equity also include the freedom of choice including
educational institutions, cultural events and job opportunities (Tsou et al., 2005). Tsou et al.
(2005, p. 425) states “[t]he general connotation of spatial equity is that all residents should be
equally treated, wherever they live. This idea is, theoretically, an extended form of social
equity.”

13
Much literature focuses on the role of geography, proximity and accessibility in understanding
social equity issues in cities. This section looks to expound on these concepts, linking them to
previous discussions surrounding knowledge integration, willingness of the public to engage,
and issues of urbanisation.
2.4.1 Geography
Geography is, broadly, the study of the earth and its physical features as well as human activity
including the distribution of populations and resources within political, economic and social
boundaries. Geography is a powerful field of study that allows for the beginning of
understanding how the spatial distribution of people and environmental features impact and
relate to each other (Morton, Peterson, Speer, Reid, & Hughey, 2012).
Geographic information systems (GIS) is a growing trend in the social sciences of
incorporating geographical elements of analysis. GIS refers to the suite of programs and tools
used to investigate and visualise spatial and geographic data (Morton et al., 2012). It has been a
valuable tool over the last two decades as a means to model a combination and variety of
variables and data types including land characteristics, built environment, socioeconomic data
and a variety of geographical attributes (Morton et al., 2012). More recently, GIS is seen as a
tool to be integrated in community-based research as a method to investigate the nuanced
impacts and correlations between community and individual activities and their physical
environment and spatial attributes (Morton et al., 2012).
Along these lines, Lee & Wong (2001, p. 78-79) highlight the first law of geography, that
“everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things.”
However, just because something is geographically close does not mean they are related. This
forms the basis for the following discussion on proximity.
2.4.2 Proximity
Proximity is most simply defined as “nearness.” Therefore, proximity can be thought of in
many ways. Physical proximity may be the most common conceptualisation of proximity, the
premise that two things are close enough to each other to interact and observe (Lagendijk &
Lorentzen, 2007). Geographical proximity takes this thought a step further by describing
distance between two things denoted by actual mobility and ease of interaction (Lagendijk &
Lorentzen, 2007). Physical proximity, while important, can be overcome with the great
advances in IT (Lööf & Nabavi, 2013). Therefore, two people that are not close to each other
can still interact in a similar manner to as they would have if they were located physically near
each other.
However, physical or geographical nearness does not imply interactions of ease. Other forms
of proximity impact the ability for people to observe, engage and interact. For example,
cultural proximity sees people of similar cultural, ethnic or religious backgrounds able to
interact more easily than those with a different background (Lagendijk & Lorentzen, 2007).
Proximity can describe cognitive, organisational, institutional, social and economic nearness
among people and places (Lagendijk & Lorentzen, 2007). For example, a study on spatial
equity in Tel Aviv, Israel found that, although residents lived closer to one park, they would
travel a greater distance to another park that was located in their neighbourhood boundaries
defined by their religious and cultural beliefs (Omer, 2006).
Municipalities and public authorities try to leverage proximity to promote innovation and
diffusion of knowledge. For example, cities often see the clustering or localisation of
innovative companies into zones, hence the term innovation cluster (Massard & Mehier,
2005). A motivation in doing so may be to reduce knowledge and technological externalities;

14
that is, reduce the gap between social return and private return of innovation (Massard &
Mehier, 2005). However, this is not enough. Geographical proximity alone is not sufficient to
induce technological spillovers (Massard & Mehier, 2005). This means that efforts, often
complex and costly, need to support knowledge and technological spillovers of innovation in
cities (Massard & Mehier, 2005).
2.4.3 Accessibility
Accessibility is a measure of spatial separation; in other words, it describes the relative ease
associated with nearness or proximity of one place to another (Tsou et al., 2005). Spatial
separation can be measured and quantified using GIS, often by looking at distance travelled
via street network or by a straight-line distance, known as Euclidean distance, emanating from
the location under study (Tsou et al., 2005). In assessing accessibility in urban environments,
urban planners turn to a complicated measure of service and impact ranges of public facilities
taking into account residents’ needs, preferences and service standards (Tsou et al., 2005).
Types of public facilities will have varying service and impact ranges: site-noxious facilities like
landfills or abandoned sites; site-neutral facilities like schools; and site-positive facilities such
as parks and museums (Tsou et al., 2005).
Further, public facilities are expected to provide for a varying number of people depending on
their purpose, which dictates the service range for each facility. In other words, the public
facility has a service range that describes the accessibility / spatial separation measured in
distance. Municipal facilities, including town parks and universities, provide for a larger area
and have a service range covering much of the city (Tsou et al., 2005). Community facilities,
such as high schools and swimming pools, have a more restricted service range of roughly two
kilometres (Tsou et al., 2005). Lastly, neighbourhood facilities include playgrounds and
elementary schools. These types of facilities have a service range near one kilometre (Tsou et
al., 2005). These service ranges vary slightly depending on the size of the facility and the traffic
network (Tsou et al., 2005).
Growing urban centres face upcoming challenges as population expands rapidly. In particular,
the existing built environment makes it difficult for urban planners to ensure accessibility and
spatial equity to all citizens. Therefore, approaches to overcome this inability are needed and
must also be inclusive in their nature.
2.5 Innovation and Experimentation in Cities
The role of innovation in our society has gradually changed overtime through the
Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution eras (Westley et al., 2011). Once, where
continuity and tradition were valued, innovation and change have become the dominant
preference within society (Westley et al., 2011). However, over this period of time, innovation
has shifted from demand-driven to supply-driven; corporations and researchers innovate with
the hope of stimulating and creating need (Westley et al., 2011). Moreover, new innovations
rely on existing technology and product-delivery platforms. As a result, as ecological and social
problems arise, existing path dependency and technological reliance compromise the ability to
deliver technologies targeting these issues (Westley et al., 2011).
A recent shift in experimentation places the city at the centre of innovation and inquiry where
the city becomes the object and venue being investigated and draws on both the field-site and
laboratory approaches to experimentation from the scientific method (Gieryn, 2006). The city
is increasingly seen as a testing-ground for innovative solutions to address the growing
challenges facing cities (Chourabi, et. al., 2012; Evans, 2011).

15
Tantamount in the discussion surround innovation in cities is the growing concept of open
innovation. Pioneered by Henry Chesbrough with his 2003 book Open Innovation: The New
Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, the concept has become widely adopted and
accepted in the innovation literature. Open innovation describes “the use of purposive inflows
and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for
external use of innovation, respectively” (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West, 2006, p. 1). In
other words, innovators make greater use of external perspectives and technologies to
innovate while making unused internal ideas and innovations available to other external
innovators.
Within the realm of open innovation, another integral concept of understanding innovation in
cities is (open) social innovation. Social innovation is described as a product of an emerging
social economy (Murray et al., 2010), but academics and practitioners do not have one set
agreeable definition (Pol & Ville, 2009). The Centre for Social Innovation (n.d.) defines social
innovation as:
…the creation, development, adoption, and integration of new concepts and practices
that put people and the planet first. Social Innovations resolve existing social, cultural,
economic, and environmental challenges. Some social innovations are systems-
changing – they permanently alter the perceptions, behaviours, and structures that
previously gave rise to these challenges.
In examining this definition, social innovation seems to focus on developing innovations and
solutions that improve the public good. In fact, the ultimate outcome of social innovation is to
create a better future (Pol & Ville, 2009). While business innovation and social innovation do
overlap, it is often described that social innovation addresses the “needs ignored by the
market” (Pol & Ville, 2009, p. 880). Later, these concepts become important in understanding
living labs as spaces for open innovation.
The discussion of open and social innovation highlights the changing mantra of innovation in
business. Traditionally, business innovation is steered by high importance placed on profits,
especially by investors and shareholders (Westley et al., 2011). This limits businesses to focus
on innovations to those with satisfactory financial returns and less on the potential positive
societal impact (Westley et al., 2011). Yet, with increased attention on open and social
innovation, we are seeing an increasing number of companies relying on these innovation
methodologies. For example, we see a growing trend among start-ups and small and medium
size enterprises (SMEs) to address these societal challenges while fulfilling a need in the
market. Even more so, there is an emergence of experimentation and innovation occurring in
grassroots and collaborative spaces, especially within cities, to address these issues (i.e. living
labs).
SMEs and other municipal actors in cities are engaged in experimentation for sustainability in
cities through demonstration projects and test pilots (Ballon, Pierson, & Delaere, 2005; Evans
& Karvonen, 2014). Evans (2011, p. 226) suggests that “cities have always been experimental,
in the sense that new knowledges are tested in order to alter the way in which the city is
administered.” However, there is an increasing focus on cities to develop open innovation
systems in the form of innovation clusters, living labs, learning alliances and other
demonstration projects (European Commission, 2014a; Massard & Mehier, 2005; Robrecht,
2015). Meanwhile, it is important to recognise that these experimental capacities are not evenly
distributed among the city (Evans & Karvonen, 2014).

16
To help foster a market for these innovations, collaboration amongst government, business
and other civil society members is necessary (Westley et al., 2011). Westley et al. (2011, p. 771)
find that “[i]nnovation occurs most readily where experimentation and exploration are
encouraged and where innovative ideas, projects, designs, processes are connected to the
institutional resources and opportunities that can give them broad impact and durability.”
Lastly, despite the growing impetus on innovation, a growing paradox exists between
innovation and (un)sustainability. That is, innovation is seen as the solution to sustainability;
yet, it is often contributing to the current cause of unsustainability (Westley et al., 2011).
Nonetheless, it will require clever and unique strategies proliferated by governments and civil
society to incentivise business and others to innovate and to create enhanced social value over
economic value (Loorbach, van Bakel, Whiteman, & Rotmans, 2010).
In this Chapter, we have discussed a wide-ranging set of knowledge and theory, including
urbanisation and sustainable development, public participation, knowledge and learning
theory, the role of geography, proximity and accessibility, and innovation in cities. This
framework will lay the foundation for understanding and conceptualising living labs. Further,
this knowledge will supplement the discussion of living labs in addressing the funding regime
support and social equity issues surrounding living labs.
§ 73% of Europeans live in cities, which is expected to rise to 80% by 2050. Cities must
adapt quickly and sustainably to address growing societal challenges.
§ There is growing importance for public participation in decision-making with a vast
set of participatory methods discussed. However, public participation often is not
socially equitable in that those participating do not accurately reflect the community.
§ Cognitive learning theory develops a hierarchal process for learning: remember,
understand, apply, analyse, evaluate and create. The last three – analyse, evaluate and
create – are the processes that most impact learning and are paramount processes in
living lab methodology.
§ Social learning theory suggests that observing a person’s behaviour or the
consequences of that behaviour can lead to cognitive learning.
§ GIS is a widely used tool in community-based research and can take into account
proximity and accessibility in examining social and spatial equity issues.
§ Open and social innovation theory is challenging existing business theory with the
promise of more open, inclusive innovation for the betterment of society.

17
3 Living Labs: A Comprehensive Overview
Evans and Karvonen (2011, p. 12) write that living labs are “hugely powerful yet poorly
defined.” This characterisation seems accurate. In discussing living labs with people who are
unfamiliar with the term, many envision a physical space in which people are living /
inhabiting while others study their behaviour. This view is not entirely far from reality.
However, there are many nuances and inconsistencies when understanding the definition of a
living lab. This Chapter seeks to provide historical context, explore the many taxonomies used
to describe similar types of interventions, provide tangible examples of living labs, highlight
the reason for employing this approach and elaborate on existing knowledge gaps relevant to
this thesis.
3.1 History of Living Labs
The concept of a living laboratory first appeared in academic literature in the 1990s
(Veeckman et al., 2013). William Mitchell, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, is often credited with first explaining and conceptualising the living lab (Mensink
et al., 2010). His vision was to combine the growing use of sensory technology and computing
power to execute in vivo (Latin for ‘in the living’) experimentation (Mensink et al., 2010).
Early definitions saw the living lab as a space for product designers and academic researchers
to observe users in order to test a hypothesis through experimentation (Mensink et al., 2010).
Such experiments sought to harness experimentation methodology in combining the benefits
of working within a laboratory and at a field-site. Field-sites allow scientists to investigate
reality but lack the precision and control afforded by laboratory studies (Gieryn, 2006). In
contrast, laboratories allow complete control over variables under analysis where research
materials are selectively chosen, filtered and manipulated to suit the scientists’ needs.
However, laboratories are often criticised for not representing reality (Gieryn, 2006).
These early definitions focused on living labs as a method for testing and experimenting with
new products and services for commercial use. Early on, Ballon, Pierson, & Delaere (2005)
situate the living lab approach as a part of the product testing platforms available including
prototyping, test-beds, field trials, market pilots and societal pilots. At that point, living labs
were different from other product testing platforms because the commercial maturity of
products or services was less than in the other methods with a greater focus on product design
(Ballon et al., 2005).
The use of living labs were spurred by contemporary trends including the increasing role of
the consumer (from a consumer to a prosumer); shortened innovation iterations as a result of
increased global competitiveness; and the development in the field of ICT (Ståhlbröst &
Holst, 2012). But this early vision of a living lab has evolved over the years and was recognised
as a mechanism to spur innovation and address social and environmental issues.
The European Union has placed a significant emphasis on global competitiveness,
employment and innovation. The Lisbon Strategy, also known as the Lisbon Agenda, was
outlined at the Lisbon European Council in 2000. The Strategy is motivated by the perceived
difference in growth and innovation of the EU compared with the USA and Japan
(Directorate General for Internal Policies, 2010, p. 11). Technological capacity and innovation
were the driving force recognised to ensure EU competitiveness (Directorate General for
Internal Policies, 2010). To do so, the EU sought the synchronisation and coordination of on-
going and upcoming structural reform, building on the Luxembourg Process (European
employment strategy), the Cardiff Process (integrating environmental issues in EU policy) and
the Cologne Process (establishing social and macro-economic dialogue) (Directorate General

18
for Internal Policies, 2010). The Lisbon Strategy and underlying motivations set the stage for
future policy prescriptions.
The Budapest Manifesto on Risk Science and Sustainability (2002) calls on scientists and
researchers to involve and engage with the public to address global environmental challenges.
The European Commission recognised the framework outlined in the Budapest Manifesto, a
framework that calls for the creation and development of a European network that promotes
social and territorial innovation with an underlying emphasis on citizen-centric participatory
processes (European Commission, 2014a).
With the express interest in harmonising the European Union innovation system, the Helsinki
Manifesto was issued as a result of the conference Networked Business and Government: Something
Real for the Lisbon Strategy Conference (Finland’s EU Presidency, 2006). The overarching call-to-
arms states “…that new, concrete measures are needed for turning the Lisbon Strategy into a
living reality and making Europe more competitive and innovative in a human-centric way”
(Finland’s EU Presidency, 2006, p. 1). The Manifesto outlines a seven-step roadmap that seeks
to harmonise innovation pathways and financial eServices, harness ICT in enabling efficient
working environment and increase EU interoperability of digital standards (Finland’s EU
Presidency, 2006). However, most importantly, the Helsinki Manifesto called for the creation
and financing of the European Network of Living Labs (See Chapter 3.5.1).
Living labs have proliferated much more successfully in Europe; in part, they are seen as a
mechanism to overcome the European Paradox (Veeckman et al., 2013). That is, the gap that
exists in research leadership of innovation and sustainability with limited commercial success
of innovation (Veeckman et al., 2013).
3.2 “What do you call it?”
The academic literature seeks to define a living lab but fails to agree on any one definition
(Liedtke, Jolanta Welfens, Rohn, & Nordmann, 2012; Salter & White, 2014; Ståhlbröst &
Holst, 2012; Veeckman et al., 2013). Not only is there a lack of a cohesive definition, the
terms used to describe a living lab vary amongst academics and practitioners. Academics and
practitioners conceptualise living labs through many terms including:
• Urban Living Labs
• Urban Labs
• Change Labs
• Urban Sustainability Transition Labs
• Urban Transition Labs
• City Labs
• Smart City Initiatives
• Community-Based Initiatives
• Territorial Living Labs / Cross-Border Living Labs
The lack of a clear term and definition is often alluded to in the literature with academics
going as far to say that the advancement of living labs is inhibited due to the lack of clear
definition and lack of research focus (Veeckman et al., 2013). These terms are explored in
further detail in Table 3-1. Each term seeks to explain a type of socio-technical intervention.
The following section (Chapter 3.3) seeks to break down the terms and agree upon many of
the characteristics that make up a living lab.

19
Table 3-1. Table of Various Terms Used to Describe Largely Similar Interventions
Term Definition Source
Living Lab “A Living Lab is a real-life test and experimentation
environment where users and producers co-create
innovations. Living Labs have been characterised by the
European Commission as Public-Private-People
Partnerships (PPPP) for user-driven open innovation. A
Living Lab employs four main activities:
1. Co-Creation: co-design by users and producers
2. Exploration: discovering emerging usages,
behaviours and market opportunities
3. Experimentation: implementing live scenarios
within communities of users
4. Evaluation: assessment of concepts, products and
services according to socio-ergonomic, socio-
cognitive and socio-economic criteria.”
(ENoLL, n.d.-a)
Urban Living Lab “It is a forum for innovation, applied to the development
of new products, systems, services, and processes,
employing working methods to integrate people into the
entire development process as users and co- creators, to
explore, examine, experiment, test and evaluate new ideas,
scenarios, processes, systems, concepts and creative
solutions in complex and real contexts.”
(JPI Urban Europe,
2012)
Urban Lab “In urb@exp, we use the generic term ‘urban labs’ to refer
to City Labs and Living Labs.” Urban labs are an approach
“in which local governments engage in solving problems
together with other stakeholders in urban development.”
(urb@exp, n.d.)
Change Lab “… change labs offer a place for creative, cross-sector and
cross-disciplinary decision-making and innovation. The
process is supported by careful design and facilitation and is
resourced by research geared to the decision maker’s needs.
The focus is on those ‘‘wicked problems’’ that seem
insoluble, and reconciling seemingly antithetical elements
such as the need to grow the economy and to maintain
environmental services, or to maximize both short term
profitability and long-term sustainability
(Westley et al., 2011)
Urban Sustainability
Transition Lab
“…they develop, test, and implement initiatives of
significant change aimed at achieving sustainability in and
across urban domains ranging from housing, land-use, and
transportation to social cohesion and education.”
(Wiek, Kay, & Forrest,
in press)

20
Term Definition Source
City Lab “City Labs are projects in which local governments and
other stakeholders jointly seek to learn about and be
involved in new ways of dealing with urban challenges …
by emphasizing co-creation and joint learning….”
(urb@exp, n.d.)
Smart City Initiative An opportunity that sees “[c]itizens … becoming actively
encouraged to see the city as something they can
collectively "tune", in a manner that it is efficient,
interactive, adaptive, and flexible” and that “shifts the role
of the citizen from a mere passive subject into an engaged
actor.”
(Veeckman & van der
Graaf, 2015)
Community-Based
Initiative
“…are place-based efforts that target a geographically
bounded area to engage multisector stakeholders in
fostering partnerships, enhancing local capacity for change,
and working to improve outcomes such as education,
health, employment, and poverty for local residents.”
(Huber, Egeren,
Pierce, & Foster-
Fishman, 2009)
Territorial Living Lab
/ Cross-Border
Living Lab
“…integrally applies the [living lab] approach to a territory
and its citizens, its model of governance and its strategic
plans for the future: in essence, it can be conceived of as a
new model for regional development.”
(“TLL-Sicily,” n.d.)
Learning Alliance “Multi-stakeholder partnerships designed to enhance a
process of shared learning and understanding in situations
with a high degree of complexity and unpredictability. In a
[Learning Alliance], researchers work closely together with
stakeholders from the public, private sector and civil society
to break down barriers between science, policy and
practice.”
(Robrecht, 2015)
3.3 Living Lab - Definition
Arguably, the rise of living labs in Europe is a direct consequence of the emphasis placed on
innovation and employment to enhance and maintain European competitiveness. As
discussed, advancements in ICT and the importance placed on innovation in today’s society
helped to steer development of living labs in Europe (Ståhlbröst & Holst, 2012; Westley et al.,
2011). In the original context, living labs were seen as an approach at structuring research and
commercialising products through the process of real-world testing for innovation (Ballon et
al., 2005; Veeckman et al., 2013). In characterising the ICT sector in 2005, Ballon et al. (2005)
described a system of various test and experimentation platforms (TEPs) for collaborative
innovation including testing, prototyping and co-creating products for consumer use. Their
study describes prototyping platforms, test beds, field trials, living labs, market pilots and
societal pilots, and places them all within the context of in-house research, development and
innovation (RDI), open innovation platforms or pilot testing (Figure 3-1).

21
Figure 3-1. Test and experimentation platform (TEP) framework
Source: Ballon et al., 2005
The TEP Framework presented by Ballon et al. (2005) helps to distinguish a living lab from
other experimentation platforms such as prototyping, field trials and test beds. This is
important as many stakeholders (practitioners, academics, funding agencies) do not fully
understand the term as something other than prototyping (Veeckman et al., 2013, p. 7);
however, this is an important distinction. Living labs are a part of an open and user-driven
innovation ecosystem or platform that are characterising socio-technical innovations
(Schaffers et al., 2011). Although sometimes employed by companies and governments as an
in-house approach to research, development and innovation (RDI), living labs are more than
just testing and prototyping.
Living labs have been conceptualised as an environment, a methodology, an approach to
innovation, a network and a system (Veeckman et al., 2013). For the purpose of clarity, in
consulting with academic literature, living labs can be conceptualised as both an arena and/or
an approach (Lepik, Krigul, & Terk, 2010; Mensink et al., 2010; Schaffers et al., 2011; Schliwa,
2013; Veeckman et al., 2013).
The living lab as an arena describes the environment in which co-creation and co-generation
of solutions transpires (Mensink et al., 2010). For example, a living lab environment may
describe a collective/public space (ex. airport, shopping centre, town square), private space
(ex. user’s home, office), experimental space (ex. creative space or laboratory) or as a digital

22
platform (ex. cell phone application, web portal) (Mensink et al., 2010). One can describe the
living lab environment by looking at the technical infrastructure, the level of openness, the
lifespan of the intervention and the size / scale of activities (Veeckman et al., 2013).
The living lab as an approach is a set of methodologies specific to the project within an
environment being carried out (Veeckman et al., 2013). These methodologies describe how a
living lab evaluates interactions and engages with end-users in a real-life environment through
the process of co-creation (Veeckman et al., 2013). Living labs as an arena or environment can
carry out one or more projects that use the living lab approach. The terms living lab approach
and living lab methodology are often used synonymously.
In examining existing literature and reviewing several other research projects pertaining to
living labs, Voytenko, McCormick, Evans, & Schliwa (2015) identify key characteristics that
are essential to effectuate living labs in cities:
• Geographical embeddedness
• Experimentation and learning
• User engagement and co-creation
• Leadership and ownership
• Evaluation and refinement
These traits, along with the premise of user and stakeholder co-creation and co-generation of
solutions, seem to be a common thread among the terms to describe various socio-technical
interventions similar to that of living labs listed in Table 3-1. Co-creation is an important
component, defined “as the act of creating value to the mutual benefit of two or more actors,
beyond creating actual product or service innovation in a collaborative way” (Veeckman et al.,
2013, p. 6) Further, the living lab sees co-creation as an engagement of the four P’s, Public-
Private-People Partnership, constituting a quadruple helix of actors (European Commission,
2014a; Schaffers et al., 2011; Veeckman et al., 2013). The quadruple-helix constituting the
public-private-people partnership will form the basis of future recommendations in Chapter 7.
The definition provided by the European Commission (2014, p. 64) nicely summarises the
discussion of a living lab, defining it “as user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on a
systematic user co-creation approach integrating research and innovation processes in real life
communities and settings.” For the purpose of this research, the term living lab is defined
broadly to include socio-technical interventions in cities that could be classified as a living lab.
Maybe it is justified to paint living labs in such a broad stroke. They contain contextual
elements that describe the environment (ex. community, technical infrastructure, lifespan, etc.)
and methodological aspects describing the approach used in projects (ex. co-creation, role of
the user, evaluation, etc.) (Veeckman et al., 2013).
The issue of multiple definitions and various terminologies to describe similar interventions
arose at the 2nd
European Climate Change Adaptation Conference. Jonas Bylund of JPI Urban
Europe illustrated the benefit of an unstructured definition of a living lab. He argued, if the
term is rigidly defined, the very innovative and adaptive nature of living labs would be
impacted; in other words, living labs need to evolve to meet the needs of the communities
they serve and shall not be measured, and are actually harmed, using such a formal definition
(personal communication, May 12, 2015).

23
3.4 Examples of Living Labs for Sustainability
The role of the living lab in the open innovation system, in particular, when discussing
sustainability, appears to have occurred much more recently. Living labs are highly variable in
the arena in which they operate. For example, living labs can emerge on an undeveloped plot
of land, a home or experimental space, a transportation corridor or a new city (Evans &
Karvonen, 2011).
Living labs focus on many issues, not just sustainability, often leveraging recent advancements
in ICT. For example, living labs are described by the European Network of Living Labs to
conduct themselves within the following domains: digital cities, e-Manufacturing, energy
efficiency and smart energy systems, e-Participation, future media and content delivery, health
and wellbeing, and tourism (Mulvenna et al., 2011).
In drawing on literature regarding public participation, living labs are unique venues for public
participation because they can operate both as institutional and non-institutional platforms for
public participation (see Chapter 2.2). In other words, they can be municipality-driven, user-
driven, research-driven, industry-driven, etc. and do not institutionalise the public
participation process but allow for adaptive and iterative processes of innovation.
To further enhance one’s understanding of a living lab, it is valuable to provide a few tangible
examples to clarify what characterises a living lab. In this section, three brief examples will be
presented: Corridor Manchester, Evomobile and Go:Smart / UbiGo.
3.4.1 Corridor Manchester
The City of Manchester, United Kingdom has the goal to reduce carbon emissions by 41%
compared to 2005 levels by 2020. This endeavour has spurred innovation within Manchester,
in particular, along the Oxford Road corridor within the city. This lifeline within the city
accounts for 22% of total carbon emissions in Manchester and houses the University of
Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan University, Central Manchester Hospital, an innovation
science park and numerous places of cultural significance. (Evans & Karvonen, 2014)
In 2008, the Corridor Manchester Partnership was established between local government,
universities and industry. The goal of the partnership was to pool resources, monetary and
otherwise, to develop solutions for transport, environment and infrastructure, research and
innovation, employment, and business and skills. The partnership sees the corridor as an
experimental space with which to create ties between decision-makers promoting low-carbon
along the corridor and those who will use the space. The project relies heavily on wireless data
collectors for climatological data and user engagement with space along the corridor. Among
many projects using the living laboratory methodology, the i-trees project works with citizens
to explore which trees, grasses and soils reduce runoff while meeting citizen preferences of
aesthetics and functionality. (Evans & Karvonen, 2014)
3.4.2 EVOMOBILE
Evomobile is a living lab based in Valencia, Spain. The project is based at the Science Park of
the University of Valencia with local partners including Nissan and Renault car dealerships
and support from the Municipality of Valencia, the Energy Agency of Valencia and the
Institute for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (IDAE). Evomobile seeks to promote
electric vehicles as a sustainable mode of transport, to analyse existing and new business
models that spur electric vehicle use and to test solutions at the University of Valencia that
upscale electric vehicle usage. (Science Park of the University of Valencia, n.d.)

24
With partners at the University, Municipality and local car dealerships, the living lab provided
university students, researchers and faculty the opportunity to use electric cars, scooters and
bikes throughout Valencia. With significant input from participants, researchers looked at the
impacts of electric modes of transport on people’s behaviour. Together, they developed
solutions to make charging stations accessible, to select the preferred charging point
technology and to test business models for electric vehicle sharing. This living lab exemplifies
the quadruple helix, Public-Private-People Partnership, for seeking solutions for sustainability.
(Science Park of the University of Valencia, n.d.)
3.4.3 Go:Smart / UbiGo
UbiGo is a service developed as a result of the Go:Smart living lab. This living lab is based in
Gothenburg, Sweden and seeks to "develop and test innovative services that facilitate and
reward sustainable travel in urban environment." The project is led by Lindholmen Science
Park, and partially funded by the Swedish research, development and innovation agency
Vinnova along with dozens of participating parties including the Municipality of Gothenburg,
Gothenburg Traffic Authority, Chalmers University, Volvo and PayEx. (“Go: Smart |
UbiGo,” n.d.)
The living lab has worked with partners and citizens to develop and test a mobility service
housed within an easy-to-use cell phone application. The application allows users to charter
vehicles among other users of the application. This reduces the overall need and number of
cars needed within a city. The living lab relied on users to share experiences and make
suggestions through surveys, interviews, travel diaries and focus groups. The living lab allowed
users to make real-time suggestions to allow for improved successive app iterations. The
application is expected to be upscaled within the region in the coming years. (UbiGo, 2015)
3.5 Existing Living Lab Actors
Numerous actors in academia and government are looking to expound on the miraculous
promises offered by proponents of living labs. The European Commission (2014) has issued
documents promoting the funding of living labs. Further, the European Commission initiated
and financially supports the European Network of Living Labs. Research grants from regional
and national governments continue to flow for those academics seeking to understand open
innovation ecosystems, in particular, living labs.
For the purpose of this thesis, two initiatives are highlighted: the European Network of Living
Labs (ENoLL) and the Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions (GUST) Project.
These groups will serve in providing a comprehensive, but non-exhaustive, list of living labs to
investigate for this thesis (discussed in Chapter 4).
3.5.1 European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)
The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) launched in 2006; the first phase included
twenty living labs from fifteen Member States (Finland’s EU Presidency, 2006). ENoLL was
launched by the EU Presidency and supported by the European Commission (European
Commission, 2014a; Mensink et al., 2010). ENoLL calls itself an “international federation of
benchmarked Living Labs in Europe and world-wide” (ENoLL, n.d.-a). It operates as a
platform for coordination and learning of best practices while serving as a repository of
economically viable and socially acceptable examples of living labs (European Commission,
2014a). To date, ENoLL has had nine membership calls, known as waves, with more than 370
living labs operating in a variety of sectors including ICT, energy, elderly care and healthcare,
mobility, rural development, etc. ENoLL is seen as the largest and most comprehensive living
lab initiative in the world (Veeckman et al., 2013).

25
Through it’s membership waves, ENoLL offers three membership levels: associated – for
those organisations that support living labs but are not living labs themselves paying 5000
EUR/yr; adherent – living labs who wish to be a part of the ENoLL network but have no
voting rights and pay an administration fee of 500 EUR/yr; and effective members – receive
differentiation among other living labs, promoted via ENoLL, have voting rights in ENoLL
governance decisions and pay 5000 EUR/yr (ENoLL, n.d.-b). ENoLL seeks to support living
labs and offers services including communication and promotion, project development,
brokering, policy and governance, and learning and education services (ENoLL, n.d.-b). Along
with this, members are afforded the right to use the “Living Lab” label signalling proof of
certification as a living lab by ENoLL (ENoLL, n.d.-b).
3.5.2 Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions (GUST)
This project, funded by the Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) Urban Europe, runs through
2017 with the primary aim to examine, inform and advance living lab methodology and how it
impacts governance of urban centres (“Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions,”
n.d.). To do so, the researchers look to create a systematic framework to evaluate the design,
practices and processes of living labs (“Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions,” n.d.).
The project engages researchers at Lund University (Sweden), Dutch Research Institute for
Transition (the Netherlands), University of Durham (the United Kingdom) and Joanneum
Research (Austria).
Full disclosure: this thesis is conducted in collaboration with lead researchers associated with
GUST including Dr. Yuliya Voytenko (Postdoctoral Researcher) and Dr. Kes McCormick
(Associate Professor) at the International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics,
Lund University.
3.6 Potential Opportunities, Drawbacks and Knowledge Gaps
Living labs are being placed at the forefront of the European innovation agenda (European
Commission, 2014a). There are many potential opportunities, yet unintended consequences, to
using such an approach to spur economic development, increase employment, drive
innovation and address sustainability issues facing cities.
3.6.1 Potential Opportunities
Living labs create a network of connected stakeholders, often complex and only possible to
leverage through organic, meaningful dialogue (European Commission, 2014a; Mensink et al.,
2010). Further, innovation research suggests that cooperation networks will form the
backbone of future urban innovation (Schaffers et al., 2011). Networking of stakeholders
within and between cities leads to high knowledge spillover effects with low transaction costs
(Cooke, Davies, & Wilson, 2002). Living labs increase the cost efficiency of encouraging tacit
and codified knowledge transfer between end-users and stakeholders (Mensink et al., 2010).
This makes living labs a tangible tool that may be employed by municipal or regional
governments with a limited budget to have real implications for sustainability.
Living labs are seen as creating niches that shelter innovations from political or economic
pressures (Evans & Karvonen, 2011). Moreover, these interventions in cities are often highly
visible and, thus, regarded as mechanisms to support rapid social and technological
transformations (Evans & Karvonen, 2011). Given the appropriate conditions, living labs as
special niches supporting innovation for sustainability can challenge regime dominance and
impact urban governance structures in cities (Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013).

26
Among the successes of living labs, the inclusion of people in the creation and realisation of a
shared vision for their city leads to more successful implementation of sustainability initiatives
(Veeckman & van der Graaf, 2015). This form of participatory governance sees the changing
role of the citizen from a passive subject to an active and engaged actor (Veeckman & van der
Graaf, 2015). This seems to be connected to the wider trend of inclusion, participation and
social equity in governance (Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013; Veeckman & van der Graaf,
2015). Moreover, living labs are seen as a solution to avoid path dependency and lock-in to
existing socio-technical regimes (Mensink et al., 2010).
3.6.2 Social Equity Issues
While living labs are seen to provide immense benefits within cities, the benefits of
innovations and living labs are not geographically or socially distributed evenly (Childers et al.,
2014; Evans & Karvonen, 2014; Mensink et al., 2010; Wolch et al., 2014). Similar to those
social equity issues that arise in the pursuit of public participation – as discussed in Chapter
2.2 – this same problem seems to hold true for living labs.
Living labs are seen as privileged spaces within cities (Evans & Karvonen, 2011); with low-
income urban communities most susceptible to urban challenges including climate change
(Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013), one may expect living labs to prioritise or at least address
solutions for sustainability that help disadvantaged communities. However, this may not be
the case.
As mentioned previously, living labs have been described as being “dropped into”
communities, which local residents strongly resist (Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013). In part,
Evans and Karvonen (2014) suggest that this is because there is often little effort to adapt to
the local contexts of the community at large. Anecdotal evidence from the Corridor
Manchester living lab sees the dominance of power being reinforced by using the traditional
and existing networks of actors (Evans & Karvonen, 2014). While living labs promise to
promote social and technical transformations for sustainability, it may be argued that they do
not challenge the entrenched, unequal societal / structural issues that initially lead to
unsustainability (Evans & Karvonen, 2014).
Meanwhile, living labs may only be seen as a suitable model in wealthy countries; these
countries can afford to experiment and test with wide-ranging methods for sustainable urban
development (Lepik et al., 2010). This includes investing both from the national/municipal
governments as well as industry within the countries. This only further enhances the current
discussion regarding social equity in living labs and innovation to transition cities towards
urban sustainability.
3.6.3 Issues with Current Funding Regime for Living Labs
The European Commission (2014) is motivated to fund public interventions, including living
labs, to push innovation and technology to improve standard of living and increase
employment. The Commission (2014) sees this as a means to breakdown “compartmentalized
approaches” between research institutions and innovation, aiding in the commercialisation
and uptake of solutions. However, the funding regime supporting living labs has been
described as responsive and “patchwork” (Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013).
What motivates funding from year to year changes: for example, a flood one year may
correspond to an uptick in funding for water runoff solutions; the next year, a city sees
migration protests in which cities respond with addressing social inclusion and assimilation;
another year, there is a political scandal involving taxpayer money which prevents increased
funding of initiatives. The unreliability of the funding regime supporting living labs makes it

27
difficult for these interventions to count on continued support (Schaffers et al., 2011). While
living labs may seize on a “window of opportunity” (Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013), there is
a real need for funding regimes to support the development of funding schemes or business
models that institute long-term viability of living labs (Schaffers et al., 2011)
Social equity issues also arise in how living labs are being funded; low-income communities or
communities of colour receive less funding for initiatives impacting their neighbourhoods
(Wolch et al., 2014). Further, the growing emphasis placed on living labs within Europe and
elsewhere sees a large number of projects that identify as living labs applying for funding.
Unfortunately, many of these living labs have little end-user engagement and co-creation
(Veeckman et al., 2013).
3.6.4 Rationalisation of Research Questions and Future Research
A cascade of other issues surrounding living labs exists, primarily, the role of management,
strategies for effective communication, building the right network, transparency and
uncertainty. While issues exist, these issues are often highlighted in an attempt to address and
overcome them in order to develop a set of best practices for living labs. The transformative
potential in socio-technical innovation and governance, although still unknown and not yet
quantified, makes living labs an area of extreme interest for academics, industry and
governments.
With this literature review in mind, the research questions arrived at for the purpose of this
thesis are relevant and founded. Living labs for sustainability need to be identified and
investigated (RQ1) in order to further research the potential of living labs to aid in urban
sustainability transformations. Moreover, issues pertaining to the long-term financial viability
(RQ2) and inclusiveness (RQ3) threaten to derail the proliferation of living labs for
sustainability. Addressing these questions seek to respond to criticisms of living labs while
seeking to advance living labs in cities.
Existing research projects, including GUST and others, seek to answer these questions and
more. The answers provided through this research seek to lay the foundational framework in
which to answer more complex and comprehensive questions far beyond what is feasible
within this thesis:
§ How do living labs impact urban governance?
§ How do living labs in cities become internalised/incorporated into decision-making
process?
§ Crisis, collapse and societal transition all incentivise urban sustainability (Childers et
al., 2014), but in what combination and to what extent do these represent sustainability
triggers in cities?
§ Can living labs as niche experiments “be scaled up to generate widespread changes in
existing processes of urban development” (Evans & Karvonen, 2011, p. 12)?
§ Which experiments lead to sustainability transformations/transitions (Bulkeley &
Castán Broto, 2013)?
§ How do experiments lead to sustainability transformations/transitions (Bulkeley &
Castán Broto, 2013)?
§ Broadly, how do aspects of ownership and access impact effectiveness (Westley et al.,
2011)?
§ How do living labs ensure transferability and interoperability in other contexts and
urban settings (Westley et al., 2011)?

28
4 Methodology
The research questions proposed in Chapter 1.2 outline three distinct areas of investigation
with overlapping methodology: the identification of living labs for sustainability; the
investigation of funding partners; and the addressing of social equity issues. These three tasks
lead to distinct deliverables with appropriate analysis and conclusions; however, the tasks
complement and supplement each other throughout the research process, as discussed in this
chapter.
Table 4-1 illustrates the three posed research questions, the sub-research questions and the
methods used in addressing each question. This section discusses each method used as found
in the table.
Table 4-1. Overview of Research Questions and Corresponding Methodology
Research Question Method(s)
1. How do living labs engage with sustainability?
- Which living labs engage with sustainability?
- What is the sustainability focus of living labs?
- How do they engage with end-users?
- Who are the actors and what is the power structure among them?
Literature Analysis
Survey of Living Labs
2. How does the current funding regime support living labs?
- Who funds living labs?
- Why do they fund living labs?
- How do they measure success?
- What happens at the end of funding?
Interview of Funding Partners
Literature Analysis
3. To what extent do social equity issues arise in the implementation of living
labs?
- How can the community in which living labs are embedded be
characterised?
- Who is engaged in living labs?
- Who is benefiting from living labs?
GIS Analysis
4.1 Literature Analysis
This method refers to the analysing of academic articles, books, grey literature and other
online sources to identify and investigate living labs for sustainability. The purpose of this
analysis is twofold: first, living labs for sustainability must be identified in order to steer the
following research; second, living labs are investigated to determine the ways in which they
engage with sustainability.
While living labs act in many fields, only those living labs for sustainability are included in this
analysis. The current narrative about living labs looks to determine the impacts and
transformative potential of living labs in addressing urban sustainability challenges. Using the
definition for sustainable development alluded to in Chapter 2.1, living labs for sustainability
will be selected to scope the analysis in looking at social equity issues as well as make up a
segment of those living labs interviewed and surveyed regarding funding mechanisms.

29
To date, it is difficult to locate living labs for sustainability. In the past, living labs tended to
originate organically driven by one or multiple actors in a city or region. More recently, efforts
have been made to identify and catalogue living labs by governments, associations and
research programs. Living labs for sustainability under analysis here will draw from the
European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) and those living labs identified by the GUST
Project.
For the purpose of this examination, no determination as to whether a living lab meets the
current academic definition was made; instead, any living lab that identifies itself as such was
included. The sheer number of living labs under examination and the difficulty in assessing
their organisational structure and engagement limited the ability to determine whether living
labs meet the formal definition. Further, as discussed in Chapter 3, living labs are an emerging
concept of urban innovation and defining the term too narrowly may limit or curb the current
narrative and innovative potential of living labs.
Only those living labs within geographical Europe were included as the primary development
of the living lab methodology is occurring within Europe and where much of the current
literature is focusing. The living labs identified via ENoLL and GUST project represent a large
geographical scope within Europe with a variety of actors, approaches and successes. Many of
these living labs are regarded as leaders of the methodology within their respective cities and
countries.
4.1.1 European Network of Living Labs
In order to determine those living labs for sustainability, an individual investigation of each
living lab within the ENoLL database (http://openlivinglabs.eu/livinglabs) was required.
Within the ENoLL database, each living lab contained a description of the concept, an
elaboration to their past and current projects along with a link to the living lab’s website. Not
all living labs within ENoLL had descriptions and/or websites. When this occurred or when
limited information was included within the database, a cursory Internet search was conducted
in which the first ten results in an Internet search was explored. Further, social media sites
such as Facebook and Twitter were consulted to potentially provide missing information.
Each living lab was investigated using these search methods; living labs were separated based
on their focus or field in which they operate. To determine this, keywords were used to search
their online content and included sustainability, sustainable, environment and green. More specific
words were used to identify a particular sustainability focus: energy, efficiency, transport, climate and
carbon.
Living labs for sustainability were determined based on this search; if the descriptions
contained any of these keywords, further investigation took place to verify they were living
labs for sustainability. These living labs were noted and biographical data was collected
including city, country, physical address, website, contact information and sustainability focus.
The investigation took place from February 25 - March 4, 2015. During the investigation, no
attempt was made to contact any of the living labs investigated to verify activities for
sustainability.
4.1.2 Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions (GUST)
The GUST project looks to understand and advance living lab methodology as a means to
impact urban sustainability and governance. In doing so, the team of researchers seek to
provide snap-shots or summaries of living labs within their geographical purview. The project

30
has collated approximately fifty living labs to investigate as a part of their on-going research.
In working with the team based at Lund University, this thesis aims to support their on-going
efforts. Therefore, those living labs collected as a part of the GUST project were included in
the analysis. The project had put together a preliminary list of living labs for sustainability with
a primary focus on those in Sweden, United Kingdom, Netherlands and Austria as project
collaborators are based in these countries.
With the living labs for sustainability identified, research followed to determine how living labs
engaged with sustainability. This included looking at which aspects of sustainability living labs
focus on, keeping in mind that many living labs have multiple projects and may focus on more
than one sustainability aspect. In consulting academic literature and experts in the field, the
sustainability aspects identified include: transport/mobility; smart city solutions / ICT;
renewable energy; energy efficiency; construction; recycling/waste; low carbon
futures/climate; housing; equity and societal issues; and other. Living labs and their projects
were investigated and catalogued as to which sustainability aspects they focused on.
4.2 Survey of Living Labs
The aim of the survey was to seek qualitative data pertaining to the funding of living labs and
the strategies they use for user-engagement. The survey took the form of a qualitative
structured online questionnaire. In doing so, the survey sought to further understand the
living lab/funding partner dichotomy, targeting practitioners of living labs to get a sense of
what is happening “on the ground.” Moreover, the survey provided the opportunity to gather
qualitative anecdotes pertaining to social equity to be used to supplement and triangulate
future analysis.
The survey was developed over the course of weeks using the methods suggested by Arlene
Fink in How to Ask Survey Questions (2003). The survey was administered in English and sought
to avoid slang, technical jargon or other idioms that may be difficult for non-native English
speakers. While there is much to learn about living labs, the survey has been designed to be
concise with the hopes of reducing nonresponse. Prior to sending the survey to living labs, the
survey was piloted and tested with researchers working on living labs and refined to ensure
answerability among a varying field of living labs. The survey can be found in Appendix II.
The survey targeted those living labs identified as living labs for sustainability from the
ENoLL database and the GUST project. Given the relatively large number of living labs
targeted, the survey was administered via email. Two challenges exist when conducting mail
interviews: getting to the respondent via accurate contact information and inducing the
respondents to complete the task of filling out the survey (Fowler, 1993).
Securing the proper contact information was essential to ensure reliable survey results and to
eliminate non-response. For those living labs identified, the primary mechanism in securing
contact information was through the living labs online presence, most often via their website.
When a living lab had no website, contact information may be found on social media, within
application material to ENoLL and funding bodies or through professional connections
within the field. This contact information was often to a generic contact email address such as
info@livinglab.org; however, all attempts were made to direct the survey to a particular person
(i.e. living lab coordinator, project manager, etc.). Contact information for some living labs
was not available; therefore, these living labs could not be included in the survey.
Inducing the respondents to complete the survey often proves difficult in mail and email
surveys. Fowler (1993) suggests a variety of ways to increase response rate: professional look;

31
personalised; attractive and easy to read; legitimate partners or endorsements; and the promise
of something in return. Moreover, confidentiality may be important to survey respondents.
Nonresponse is inevitable in email survey methodology. Fowler (1993) suggests three
mechanisms to correct for nonresponse including proxy respondents (i.e. survey another
individual within the living lab), statistical adjustments and surveying non-respondents by
statistically selecting a sample of non-respondents to represent those that did not answer.
Apart from requesting the receiver of the email, if necessary, to forward the email to a more
appropriate person, for the purpose of this thesis, it was chosen not to correct for
nonresponse. In part, many of the answers provided by respondents are qualitative, not
quantitative, and do not seek to make conclusions about the population.
The survey consisted of twenty-three open-ended questions and twelve close-ended questions,
consisting of four pages of questions. As emphasised, these questions serve to begin to
understand living labs for sustainability. It was not the intent of this survey or research to
characterise the population of living labs for sustainability. The high number of open-ended
questions is valid for a handful of reasons, as discussed by Fowler (1995). For example, the
survey answers were expected to be varying and dependent on the respondent’s ability to
answer (knowledge, language, proximity to issues asked, etc.). For this reason, the plethora of
choices for questions was unknown and could not be reduced to a few words in the form of a
closed-ended question. Further, open-ended questions allowed the gathering of more
comprehensive answers of relatively unresearched and complicated concepts facing living labs.
This justification for open-ended questions in this survey design is supported by Fowler
(1995). Further, given the large number of open-ended questions in a semi-structured way,
Flick (2006) reframes this online survey as a structured online interview.
The survey sent to living labs was open for participation from July 6th
– September 5th
. An
initial email to living labs was sent using an HTML template that enables the email to look
professional and attractive. The email included introductory text and suggested why response
was important. Also, the email drew connections to GUST project and Lund University to
help legitimise the survey. The email included a link to a web survey tool with a modern feel
and intuitive design while still maintaining professionalism. The survey tool used is offered by
Lund University through the Artologik Survey & Report software.
In total, 134 email addresses were collected representing 101 unique living labs. Of the 134
total email addresses, eight emails were no longer active and did not reach the intended
respondent. Another one person asked to be removed from the list of respondents for
undisclosed reasons. Therefore, the total number of living lab practitioners identified as
potential respondents to the survey was 125 individuals representing 98 unique living labs.
The first two emails, sent July 6th
and July 20th
, were generic emails sent to the entire list of
living lab practitioners. A copy of the initial email sent to living labs requesting participation is
included in Appendix III. These emails were followed by a personalised email sent to 62 of
the 125 individual emails. Personalised emails included the individual’s name, the living lab
they are associated with and a short description of the relevant work their living lab partakes
in of interest to the research. This seemed to elicit an increased response in survey responses.
A final reminder was sent on August 11th
with the survey closing on September 5th
, 2015.
The survey tool tracked submissions as well as attempts. Therefore, it was possible to
determine how many respondents started the survey but never submitted the survey.
However, it was not possible to view incomplete survey responses. In total, thirteen responses
were submitted and another nineteen surveys (not necessarily unique users) were started but

32
never submitted. This corresponds to a 13.3% response rate among individual living labs.
Twelve of the thirteen respondents consented to being identified and are shown in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Living Lab Survey Respondents
Living Lab Country City
SubUrbanLab Sweden / Finland Botkyrka / Riihimäki
Maastricht-LAB Netherlands Maastricht
Design Creative City Living Lab France Saint-Étienne
Floworks Living Lab Finland Tampere
Go:Smart / UbiGo Sweden Gothenburg
WirelessInfo Czech Republic Litovel
Interethnic Coexistence in
European Cities (ICEC) Austria Vienna
Greater Manchester Low Carbon
Hub United Kingdom Manchester
Agro Living Lab Finland Seinäjoki
City-Zen Netherlands Amsterdam
KLIOLab Italy Lecce
Lorraine Smart Cities Living Lab France Nancy
4.3 Interviews with Funding Partners and Relevant Stakeholders
Five semi-structured, in-depth interviews were arranged with a focus on those funding
partners supporting living labs. The interviews were requested among the funding partners
discovered via the survey of living labs and those funding bodies already known to support
living labs. These interviews were treated as expert interviews; an interview guide was
developed to steer the conversation and ensure similar questions and content were discussed
in each interview (Appendix IV). However, the guide was modified for each specific interview
to reflect the interviewee’s background and knowledge.
In order to find relevant interviewees, funding agencies that support living labs needed to be
identified. Three methods served the basis for this: those funding agencies discovered through
the process of the literature analysis, those funding agencies identified from those living labs
who responded to the survey and those funding agencies who make up the membership of
JPI Urban Europe. JPI Urban Europe is a consortium of fifteen countries and their national
research and innovation funding agencies, among others. JPI Urban Europe has come out as
an important supporter of living labs throughout Europe (and who funds the GUST Project).
Among the funding agencies discovered in this manner, points of contact were identified as
potential interviewees after looking at each funding agency’s catalogue of projects and seeking
out those individuals who had been affiliated with funding of living labs. Relevant
stakeholders were also interviewed; this included those stakeholders in a support role for
living labs, researchers and practitioners. Moreover, proceedings from the 2nd
European
Climate Change Adaptation Conference that occurred May 11th
through May 14th
, 2015, in
particular, the workshop Addressing urban climate challenges: Climate Services, Living Labs and

33
Learning Alliances, were included in analysis as several discussions focused on funding and
implementation of living labs.
In total, nineteen individuals were contacted from fifteen different funding agencies
throughout Europe. These potential interviewees were emailed at the beginning of July with
subsequent follow-ups. Many declined to be interviewed for various reasons: some felt they
were unknowledgeable and unable to help; others did not feel comfortable conducting an
interview in English; while some were no longer funding living labs. Many others were out of
the office due to the summer holiday occurring in Europe at that time.
Of those available for an interview, interviews were conducted between June and August
2015. A complete list of interviewees is found in Appendix I. The preferred method of
interview was Skype; however, when this was not possible, phone conversations took place.
In-person interviews were difficult to schedule due to the geographical location of funding
agencies and stakeholders across Europe. Each interview lasted between thirty to sixty
minutes. When conducted via Skype, a request was made at the beginning of the interview to
record the discussion. This enabled the interviewer to focus on steering the interview and ask
relevant follow-up questions rather than transcribing the conversation. Later, key information
was transcribed from the recorded material; no effort to fully transcribe the interviews was
taken as no analysis was conducted on social behaviour during the interview. In instances
where the respondent did not wish to have the interview recorded, notes were taken during
the interview. In all cases, the interviewee was provided a draft copy of this thesis prior to its
publication.
4.4 GIS Analysis
Social equity and equality is a major issue concerning the living lab methodology. Literature
describes living labs as being “dropped into” urban areas without being integrated into the
local context and without taking into account who is participating and benefiting from their
efforts (Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013; Evans & Karvonen, 2014). The questions arise as to
who is engaged within living labs and which communities are impacted and affected.
In order to shed light on these questions of social equity, those living labs for sustainability
identified for the purpose of this thesis will be investigated. With a large dataset of living labs
and a tendency among living labs to be thoughtful in the information they make public,
methods to address social equity issues needed to be developed taking this into account.
To examine social equity issues surrounding living labs, Esri’s ArcGIS 10.3 was used to
perform geographical analysis. This software enabled for the mapping of those identified
living labs and an overlay of demographic data including any one or more datasets of average
household income, poverty, unemployment, education and population density, when available.
To do this, the addresses for the identified living labs had to be found and geocoded, meaning
the physical address was converted into longitude and latitude to be used in GIS analysis.
The addresses for the living labs under examination were found through a variety of sources,
often the living lab website or social media site. Other online sources were consulted including
the ENoLL database, online news articles, funding organisation’s websites, etc. Where
addresses were not available for living labs, the address for the head organiser (individual or
organisation) was used as a proxy. While this may introduce limited bias when discussing
geographical proximity (i.e. the community located geographically near the living lab), cultural
or social proximity dictates that the organiser may be acting within their channels of influence
(as discussed in Chapter 2.4); therefore, looking at this location may be justifiable.

34
The geocoded locations of the living labs were plotted in the GIS window; demographic data
was overlaid as a means to examine those communities who may be most closely engaged or
impacted by living lab work. The spatial resolution of the datasets varied depending on data
availability.
GIS is used extensively in literature to measure the equitable distribution of parks, to calculate
environmental justice and fairness issues relating to environmental hazards, etc. (Omer, 2006;
Tsou et al., 2005). Previous studies have observed that accessibility increases with income
(Omer, 2006; Wolch et al., 2014). In looking at the methodology to assess social equity of
urban public facilities, Tsou et al. (2015) used the service and impact range to measure spatial
equity and fairness of distribution. Urban public facilities seek to provide services to residents
and maintain the environmental quality of urban living (Tsou et al., 2005). Similarly, living labs
seek to engage residents and strive to improve urban living. Drawing this parallel, the average
service range as reported for urban service buildings within communities is two kilometres;
therefore, this service range is used in measuring spatial equity of living labs within
communities. Euclidean (aerial/radial) distance is chosen over network distance, the distance
it takes to travel via the transportation network. In the study conducted by Omer (2006), both
Euclidean and network distance were used; there appeared to be little difference in findings
despite the large amount of work and needed data to compute network distance. Therefore, as
done in Omer (2006), Euclidean distance of 2km is used in this instance, applying the method
to investigating communities served by living labs. A 5km buffer was also applied as a control.
Often, little observed differences were noted; however, in some instances, the 2km buffer
seemed to more wholly capture the community. As a result, it was decided to proceed with the
2km buffer for this research.
For the purpose of this study, GIS data was obtained through the INSPIRE Geoportal hosted
by the European Commission (http://inspire-geoportal.ec.europa.eu/) and from the data
openly available on Esri’s website, the developer of ArcGIS software. Data describing
population density, level of education, poverty, unemployment and household income were
sought to assess the communities in which living labs reside. Data availability differed among
countries with varying degrees of quality and spatial resolution. While high-resolution data
offers a greater window into neighbourhood characteristics, one cannot simply assume that all
neighbourhoods are homogenous or cohesive (Omer, 2006).
Initially, the key countries under focus by the GUST project including Austria, Netherlands,
Sweden and the United Kingdom were targeted for analysis. However, only data for the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom (specifically, England and Wales) could be found to be
included in this analysis. Georeferenced data is not openly available for every country; for
example, while data exists for Austria, the cost to access the data was exorbitant and
prohibitive for including it in analysis. Further, after consulting experts in the field of GIS, it
was not possible to locate relevant data for Sweden.
4.4.1 Sample GIS Living Lab Analysis
To aid in the understanding of social equity issues that impact living labs, examples of the GIS
analysis of living labs will be demonstrated. Those living labs investigated and highlighted in
this research will be those living labs that completed the survey and fall within the
geographical purview of the scope of the GIS analysis. The social equity analysis assisted by
GIS tools can be triangulated with the information that these living labs provided through
their responses to the survey. This aids in the understanding of the communities being
engaged and impacted. Maps produced using ArcGIS 10.3 and subsequent analysis of these
sample living labs will be included in Chapter 5.5.

35
4.5 Methodological Limitations
Limitations exist among the methods presented for data collection and analysis. However,
these limitations are manageable and do not undermine the value of this work nor the validity
of the results presented.
The literature analysis provides the foundation for the future work for this thesis. The two
living lab initiatives, GUST and ENoLL, are used to identify living labs for sustainability.
However, this surely does not represent all living labs for sustainability. Therefore, the analysis
does not consider any others that may be important or relevant to study. Despite this, there
were no other examples of living labs for sustainability discovered in the literature and it is
clear that these 118 living labs for sustainability represented a comprehensive overview of the
phenomenon.
Literature analysis also included examining academic literature, grey literature and living lab
websites. Therefore, it is important to recognise that much of online information represents
the author’s perception of reality without being verified or considering the motivations for its
purpose (Flick, 2006). Flick (2006) suggests triangulating data online with other methods
whenever possible, focusing on real-world encounters including interviews and surveys. For
the purpose of this research, this is done through the introduction of a survey of living labs
and interviews with funding partners.
The number of survey responses and interviewees gleaned a vast array of interesting and
pertinent data. Respondent availability introduced a limitation to the number of people able to
answer the survey and respond to interview requests. While more survey data would always be
welcome, the data served as a qualitative and anecdotal perspective regarding living labs for
sustainability. Meanwhile, interviewees largely agreed on the problems facing funding for
living labs. For the purpose of this research, the amount and level of detail of data is
sufficient; however, in the future, more interviews could be done with a larger selection of
national funding agencies.
This work, to the best of the author’s knowledge, is the first to employ GIS analysis in
analysing living labs for sustainability. Due to data availability, GIS analysis was limited to just
the Netherlands, England and Wales. Living labs analysed represent 20% of all identified
living labs for sustainability where geolocated addresses were found. Moreover, this work
builds a methodology to investigate the communities in which living labs are embedded and
serves as a foundation for future work and adaptation.
A reflection of these methodologies is included in Chapter 7.3 and suggests areas of future
research as presented in Chapter 7.4.

36
5 Results
In this Chapter, the results from the four methods of analysis are presented: literature analysis,
survey of living labs, interviews of funding partners and relevant stakeholders, and GIS
analysis. The results presented in this Chapter serve as the basis for the subsequent analysis
and answering of the presented research questions in Chapter 6 that lead to reflections in
Chapter 7.
5.1 Results from Literature Analysis
The literature analysis served two purposes: to identify living labs for sustainability and to
investigate the ways in which they engage with sustainability. The living labs for sustainability
were found through the process of consulting ENoLL and GUST project databases of living
labs and determining which interventions focus on areas of sustainability. These living labs are
presented in Appendix V.
These living labs served as the focus for the subsequent research surrounding sustainability
focus, funding and social equity issues. For those living labs that did respond to the online
survey, they were analysed using this method to determine their sustainability focus. The
various aspects of sustainability were transport/mobility; smart city solutions / ICT;
renewable energy; energy efficiency; construction; recycling/waste; low carbon
futures/climate; housing; equity and societal issues. Figure 5-1 shows the percentage of
projects that deal with a variety of sustainability aspects among those living labs that did not
respond to the online survey.
Figure 5-1. Sustainability Aspects of Investigated Living Labs
Of those living labs in which their online presence was analysed (i.e. those that did not
respond to the survey), the largest sustainability focus of living labs was energy efficiency with
29% of living labs communicating, at least one project, their focus as energy efficiency. As
reported in the literature, living labs and their proliferation are closely tied to the development
of the ICT sector and the increasing connectedness of our society (Ståhlbröst & Holst, 2012).
Energy Efficiency
29%
Smart City
Solutions/ICT
17%
Transport/Mobility
15%
Equity and Societal
Issues
10%
Constructtion
9%
Low Carbon
Futures/Climate
8%
Renewable Energy
7%
Housing
3%
Recycling/Waste
2%
Sustainability Focus (%)

37
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that smart city solutions and ICT development are also key
focuses of living labs, with 17% communicating on-going projects.
There were other areas of focus living labs were found to be working in. While these only
represent one or two projects (sometimes more), it is important to consider the wide array of
projects that deal with sustainability perpetrated by living labs. In this way, it is demonstrated
the potential living labs have in addressing numerous challenges in cities. The themes
discovered through analysis in which living labs also focus were:
§ Agriculture
§ Sustainable Production
§ Diversity
§ Maritime Environmental Protection
§ Green Public Procurement
§ Sustainable Development
§ Environmental Risk
§ Land and Water Management
§ Eco-Innovation
§ Cleantech
§ Rural Sustainability
§ Biodiversity
§ Urban Gardening
§ Urban Development
It is important to note that many of these sustainability aspects relate and overlap. For
example, often, energy efficiency and smart city solutions lead to a lower carbon future.
Moreover, many sustainability aspects improve the lives of those living within the community
and address equity or societal issues. However, only those living labs that expressly
communicated their sustainability aspects in an explicit manner were included as contributing
to their sustainability focus. Moreover, living labs under examination often had more than one
project that dealt with a variety of sustainability aspects. For the purpose of this analysis, all
projects easily identifiable through their online presence were considered by the living labs to
be among their sustainability focus.
5.2 Results from Survey of Living Labs
Thirteen respondents to the survey provided a plethora of qualitative and quantitative data to
be examined. Remember, the primary value of the survey is in the detailed reflections and
perspectives to the large number of open-ended questions. The survey was constructed with
three parts: living lab information, user involvement ad funding of living labs. The following
sections proclaim the results from these themes contained within the survey.
5.2.1 Living Lab Information
This section of the survey sought to gather biographical information about the living labs or
interventions in cities that may be considered living labs. Not all of the identified projects refer
to themselves as living lab; this section also introduced the definition of a living lab to
motivate the respondents to think of themselves in that way while answering the survey.
When asked in what year their project started, all living labs began no later than 2009. At any
time since they initiated, 25% of those surveyed did not refer to their intervention as a living
lab. Instead, they refer to their interventions in some other manner (ex. city lab, hub, using
living lab approach but not a living lab). In part, those respondents that did not identify as a

38
living lab mentioned the strong influence from industrial partners that created an industry-
driven approach over that of user-driven.
Living labs were asked to state their primary research focus: products, processes, services,
systems or something else. Many of the living labs stated that they work in more than one of
these areas but most focused on improving services and processes. Only 25% saw product
design and innovation as among their primary research focus. Given the opportunity to
elaborate, one living lab stated they lacked any focus on research. Another stated they work on
improving policies impacting cities.
Nearly all (83.3%) of respondents said that the local municipality was deeply involved in the
delivery of their living lab. Naturally, the private sector and universities also played a large role
along with, to a smaller degree, civic society, national government, the European Commission,
and NGOs. When asked which organisation took ownership or had the most influence, no
stakeholder group emerged as the dominant influencer.
Among the most relevant questions, living labs worked in a variety of areas for sustainability.
For those living labs that did respond to the survey, energy efficiency, once again, seems to be
the dominant focus. Other focuses included smart city solutions, transport/mobility,
renewable energy, low carbon futures and climate change, housing, and equity and social issues
in order of the number of projects found.
5.2.2 User Involvement
This section of the survey was the most poorly responded section amongst the three sections.
In part, this may be to question design, language barrier or a lack of knowledge with regard to
the questions being asked. When asked, on average, how many engagement activities and how
many end-users your living lab engaged with each month, many living labs said it was difficult
to quantify. In part, the living labs surveyed worked on several projects at once, which made it
difficult for them to report in a survey. Living labs that engaged in multiple projects reported
that short-term projects engage with fewer people in different ways than long-term projects.
However, in asking this question, three-fourths of the living labs elaborated on their answers.
In doing so, it was clear there is a wide-ranging definition of what constitutes end-user
engagement and participation. One respondent used the example of the number of people
who receive their newsletter as a mechanism to measure engagement.
Those living labs that responded also varied in the co-creation and engagement mechanisms in
which they deployed. Only one living lab reported to be using sensing equipment or ICT tools
to measure user’s behaviour or responses. Common engagement activities included co-
creation workshops, interviews, online discussions, informal discussions or meetings,
prototyping workshops, etc. Understanding what these mechanisms entail and their
effectiveness requires further research.
When asked about the level of difficulty in engaging with end-users, more living labs (66.7%)
had found it to be more difficult than easy to find end-users willing to engage. Respondents
highlight that it “depends on the topic and the living lab” but found “engagement to be time
consuming” and “scheduling [to] be disproportionately stressful”. Living labs also struggled to
identify which stakeholder should take ownership of engagement activities and which end-
users to engage in the process.
Drawing on literature from Evans & Karvonen (2014, p. 415), a question asked “Some living
labs have been described as “demonstration projects [that] are simply ‘dropped into’ urban areas rather than
integrated with their local contexts.” How would you respond to this characterization?” Surprisingly, many

39
living labs agreed with this characterisation. Overwhelmingly, they see this as one of the main
difficulties with the living lab approach. One living lab characterised themselves as selecting
the projects to run and how to measure success. A few others expressed frustration that there
were “… a lot of ‘testbeds’ [that] are considered as Living Labs” but state that often, in these
instances, users were only testers of products or guinea pigs in the process and should not be
considered a living lab. As for those living labs that responded, some said this was true of their
living labs. Yet, they try to engage and integrate with their communities by involving them at
an early stage and ensuring the activities of the living lab correspond to local needs. Some see
their role as to inspire and stimulate public debate while others spend a lot of money on
marketing and public relations to recruit “test-customers” and create a lot of buzz about
activities.
When asked specifically about demographic information regarding end-users in the living lab,
many struggled to answer. The survey asked specifically about gender, age, income, education,
ethnicity and distance to travel to living lab. A higher percentage of men engage in the
surveyed living labs than women: the mean percentage of men was 52.7% and women 47.3%.
The ages involved in living lab spanned from 17 to 66 with the average age reported to be 36
years old. Most of those engaged had some formal education including college-level education.
Others reflected that they engaged with few less-educated people and immigrants. Others
described their participants as “typical to persons living in” the region. When asked to
elaborate, many indicated that this was difficult to say and largely dependent on the activity
itself. This demographic data only represent reported data by respondents, which may or may
not be representative of reality.
Funding is an important condition for the implementation of a living lab. Of those surveyed,
16.7% of living labs have since concluded and are no longer active. 75% had project-based
funding with a definite end, 16.7% had conditional or rolling funding (often through the lead
stakeholder of the living lab such as a university). Only 25% of living labs surveyed indicated
that they planned to seek further funding at the end of their funded projects.
Some living labs see themselves as “temporary vehicles” in which their funding will end when
they are no longer needed. When asked if funding had been a problem for the living lab, 75%
indicated that it had been at least a minor problem. Living labs find they “do not have the
ability to invest resources quickly” and that they “constantly struggle for project funding to
implement [their] plans”.
It was clear that the funding comes from a myriad of sources with no one actor providing the
bulk of the funding. Local governments, national governments, the European Commission
and private sector companies all play a significant role in funding of those surveyed living labs.
When asked if the process for seeking funding has changed over time, most indicated that it
had not become any easier. In fact, many saw the funding from local government being
reduced due to the need for significant budget cuts at a local and municipal level.
Survey respondents reported a wide-ranging level of requirements placed on living labs by
their funding partners. Vinnova (Sweden) is seen as requiring only small project updates from
their funded living labs. Others ask for annual reports, sharing of results within the
community, updates should things change and deliverables for the next funding stages. Living
labs see funding partners motivated by a variety of reasons including employment, generating
new business, innovation in local communities, sustainability and to develop an open
innovation platform for bottom-up initiatives.

40
5.3 Results from Interviews with Funding Partners and Relevant
Stakeholders
Prior to the beginning of this research, it was imagined that interviews would serve as the bulk
of the data collected with regard to funding support of living labs. However, quite quickly, it
became apparent that it would be difficult to find willing interviewees. This research challenge
will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 7.3.
Five interviewees responded to requests for an interview. Further, discussions from the 2nd
European Climate Change Adaptation Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark from May 11th
–
14th
also served as important context in discussing living labs. The information gleaned from
interviews and discussions were analysed on the basis of three areas: funding of living labs;
social equity and inclusivity of living labs; and the future of living labs for sustainability.
Much of the information reported by interviewees pertained to the funding of living labs given
that many of the interviewees hailed from national and EU funding agencies. To begin,
Kristina Björnberg is Senior Research Officer at Formas, a Swedish national funding agency
focusing on funding of basic and need-driven research pertaining to environment, agriculture
and spatial planning. She discussed at length the ways in which funding agencies develop and
formulate research programmes. Formas does not fund living labs directly but is among the
national funding agencies involved in JPI Urban Europe. These agencies are responsible for
contributing to the development of the Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda. There is
great debate among these member countries due to varying national goals and strategies (K.
Björnberg, personal communication, August 19, 2015). Further, an interviewee mentioned the
importance small countries (ex. Cyprus) play in the the development of the strategic agenda
despite limited financial contribution and total size of population.
Open calls are the primary vehicle for funding of any initiative for innovation or research,
often related to the broader strategic agenda (K. Björnberg, personal communication, August
19, 2015). These open calls tend to be broad in design, making them applicable and appealing
to a wide-array of actors working within the particular field the call is targeting (R. Engström,
personal communication, August 21, 2015). As a result, it is often difficult to find evaluators
with the necessary breadth of knowledge to holistically evaluate all proposals submitted within
an open call (R. Engström, personal communication, August 21, 2015). Moreover, to fund
projects of high scientific and societal value, evaluators should have experience with academia
/ research as well as practical experience in industry / society (K. Björnberg, personal
communication, August 19, 2015). Therefore, the successful proposals tend to favour those
that include a research component, alienating SMEs and innovators.
Interviewees indicate that their funding agencies tend to fund short-term projects, yet they
widely recognise the disadvantages in doing so. One interviewee went as far to say as it is their
personal opinion that projects (in reference to living labs) need to work for a longer period of
time to enable living labs to learn, grow and become involved in a community in order to
achieve tangible success. The current funding regime largely supports linear innovation
processes that see innovations developed in seclusion and the need for re-entry into the
market. Bylund suggests that non-linear models for funding need to be developed that spur
innovation and that are developed in the real-world context, avoiding the need for re-entry
into the market (personal communication, June 19, 2015).

41
5.3.2 Social Equity of Living Labs
Social equity is an important issue pertaining to innovation and the funding of interventions
that support innovation. The funding agencies represented by those interviewed all have
detailed social equity criteria used in the assessment of each proposal for funding. For
example, Formas has five total criteria to assess the validity of a proposal under consideration
for funding, two of which pertain to social value (K. Björnberg, personal communication,
August 19, 2015). They include the societal value associated with the project as well as the
means in which the results are communicated and integrated with society (K. Björnberg,
personal communication, August 19, 2015).
Further, social equity plays a role in how projects are evaluated ex post at the end of the
funding period. Alexander Alvsilver is the Senior Programme Manager at Vinnova, the
Swedish national funding agencies for innovation. He elaborated on the role of the funding
agency in collecting and disseminating valuable information associated with the funded
projects to society. While Vinnova does collect best practices that reflect the outcomes of
funded projects, it is recognised they can improve this process (A. Alvsilver, personal
communication, August 27, 2015).
Jarmo Eskelinen, the former President of ENoLL and CEO of Forum Virium Helsinki, a
platform that uses the living lab methodology, was interviewed for the purpose of this study.
He sees social equity issues as important area to research regarding living labs. While he
recognises the importance of social equity, he does not think living labs should be measured
on the basis of their inclusivity. In part, living labs need to be less concerned with the ongoing
debate as to what constitutes a living lab and shall seek to engage with the necessary
individuals pertinent to their work (J. Eskelinen, personal communication, August 11, 2015).
However, he does note the importance in dealing with issues that relate to privacy, as living
labs continue to develop around ICT with increased monitoring and surveillance.
5.3.3 Future of Living Labs
Funding agencies still see living labs as an unproven tool to be used for innovation in cities (K.
Björnberg, personal communication, August 19, 2015; A. Alvsilver, personal communication,
August 27, 2015). However, they recognise it is a concept that could be developed and prove
to be a powerful tool in transforming cities towards sustainability (K. Björnberg, personal
communication, August 19, 2015).
Previously, Vinnova had used the terminology ‘living lab’ in their open calls, now it is absent
from their vocabulary (A. Alvsilver, personal communication, August 27, 2015). It was not a
conscious decision; Vinnova has opted to use terms such as “test beds” and “test
environments” instead to describe collaborative interventions in a real-world context (A.
Alvsilver, personal communication, August 27, 2015).
Despite these viewpoints, interviewees agree that the living lab concept will continue to
proliferate throughout Europe. They express a variety of trends they believe will continue
regarding living labs into the future:
§ Living labs for sustainability will continue to focus around cities (A. Alvsilver, personal
communication, August 27, 2015)
§ The living lab process will become more formalised and integrated into the status quo
of governing cities (A. Alvsilver, personal communication, August 27, 2015; J.
Eskelinen, personal communication, August 11, 2015)

42
§ Living labs will continue to develop around ICT (J. Eskelinen, personal
communication, August 11, 2015)
§ Living labs will focus more profoundly on the ‘Smart Cities’ concept along with the
associated sustainability benefits (J. Eskelinen, personal communication, August 11,
2015)
§ There will be increased collaboration among national funding agencies to fund broader
programs and bridge funding gaps to benefit living labs (J. Bylund, personal
communication, June 17, 2015)
However, there is considerable pressure on national funding agencies to fund more research
with equal pressure to fund more innovation (R. Engström, personal communication, August
21, 2015). It remains to be seen how funding agencies will respond to this pressure and what
impact this will have on the funding of living labs in the future.
5.4 Results from GIS Analysis
GIS proved to be a powerful tool when performing community-based research in assessing
the communities in which living labs are embedded. The GIS analysis sought to include the
most recent georeferenced data available. However, data availability and resolution became a
problem as different types of data and varying spatial resolution exists throughout Europe.
The INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community) Directive,
entering force on May 15, 2007, aims to create and harmonise an EU spatial infrastructure to
support seamless spatial information across Member States (European Commission, n.d.-a).
However, the Directive is being implemented in phases with full implementation required by
2019. While the INSPIRE Geoportal (http://inspire-geoportal.ec.europa.eu/) is a valuable
resource for georeferenced data, it lacks a complete and harmonious picture across Europe.
As a result, limited available data existed for this research.
Further, while sought data included population density, household income, education, poverty
and unemployment, the means in which data was collected and visualised varied greatly among
countries. For example, the Netherlands presented data in 100m2
and 500m2
grids; England
and Wales used their own form of georeferencing called Lower layer Super Output Areas
(LSOAs), which corresponds to approximately 1,500 people per area but varies in size and
shape. The complexity of the data makes it difficult to compare between countries but trends
among living labs can be inferred based on the data. The following sections present the
detailed GIS analysis as it relates to the Netherlands, England and Wales.
5.4.1 Netherlands
Data availability for the Netherlands included household income and population density.
Private households (excluding students) are classified according to disposable household
income (i.e. income available after taxes) into three categories: low, middle and high. To do so,
all private households within the Netherlands are catalogued in ascending order based on
household income. The lowest forty per cent (0-39%) are classified in the low disposable
income category, the next forty per cent (40-79%) corresponded to the middle and the highest
twenty-per cent (80-100%) of private households represented those with high disposable
income. In 2010, those classified with low disposable income took home less than EUR
€25,070 annually, middle with EUR €25,071 to EUR €46,949 and high disposable income
earners greater than EUR €46,950 annually. The data represented annual disposable income
concluding on December 31, 2011 with spatial resolution of 500m2
. (Centraal Bureau voor de
Statistiek, n.d.)

43
Population density data had high spatial resolution of 100m2
. Data included the total number
of people per 100m2
.
Using GIS tools, the average household income and population density of those communities
in which living labs are physically embedded were examined. Using Euclidean distance of 2km
as a proxy to assess the community, the average of the grids that fall within the 2km buffer
was determined for each living lab (Table 5-1).
Table 5-1. Living Labs Investigated in the Netherlands
Living Lab City
Low Income
(%)
High Income
(%)
Population Density
(people / 100m2)
City-Zen Amsterdam 50 13 107
Living Lab
Buiksloterham
Amsterdam 53 16 103
Veerkracht
Carnisse
Rotterdam 60 8 115
Eindhoven Living
Lab
Eindhoven 51 15 68
Urban Gro Lab Groningen 60 10 100
Maastricht-LAB Maastricht 52 15 69
Concept House Rotterdam 56 10 86
Open Ebbinge Lab Groningen 60 10 99
Stadslab Leiden Leiden 41 23 88
Foundation the
Hague Innovation
Motor (HIM)
Rotterdam 51 17 130
Living Lab
Average:
52 15 97
Netherlands
Average:
37 21 30
In every instance, the communities in which the investigated living labs were embedded have a
higher percentage of low-income earners compared with the Netherlands average. In fact, the
communities, on average, saw 15% higher population of low-income residents compared to
the Netherlands average. Further, the living labs were embedded within population-dense
communities, often in urban environments in comparison to the rest of the Netherlands. This
suggests that living labs are embedded within disadvantaged communities, at least
communities that fall below the average of the Netherlands population as a whole. However,
this does not mean that these communities are being engaged or impacted as a result of the
living lab (see Chapter 6.3).
5.4.2 England and Wales
England and Wales have produced a complicated index that measures deprivation from
multiple indicators called the Index of Multiple Deprivation (McLennan et al., 2011). The

44
indices are produced by the Department for Communities and Local Governments as a tool
to help in identifying the most disadvantaged areas (McLennan et al., 2011). Deprivation in
this instance is a measure of the lack of material benefits considered to be basic necessities in
society. However, the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 recognises there is more than just
income deprivation but include seven dimensions: income, employment, health, education,
housing, crime and environment.
The Index of Multiple Deprivation is geo-referenced and applied to Lower layer Super Output
Areas (LSOAs). LSOAs are described as “homogenous small areas of relatively even size
containing approximately 1,500 people” with the intent of “…develop[ing] the Index of
Multiple Deprivation and supplementary indices at as small a spatial level as is possible to
ensure that pockets of deprivation are not overlooked” (McLennan et al., 2011, p. 15). LSOAs
vary in shape and area depending on the population density.
To determine the level of deprivation of each LSOA, indicators are used for the seven
dimensions that are included in the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Each indicator
corresponds to a quantifiable number of people that meet that indicator. These people are
summed for each indicator and each dimension (i.e. income, employment, health). Finally, this
total number of people meeting deprivation dimensions is divided by the total population in
the LSOA providing a proportion of the population deprived. For example, the dimension
income has five indicators: adults and children receiving family income support; adults and
children in families receiving unemployment benefits; adults and children in families receiving
government pension; adults and children in families receiving a child tax credit and below 60%
of the median income before housing costs; and asylum seekers in England in receipt of
subsistence support, accommodation support, or both. All people, adults and children, who
receive any of these benefits or are in families receiving these benefits, are summed for each
LSOA to be used to create a proportion of multiple deprivation. This process is done for each
indicator of the seven dimensions making up the index. Then, each LSOA is ranked in order
from most deprived to least deprived. There are a total of 32,482 LSOAs in England and
Wales. (McLennan et al., 2011)
The data that makes up the Index of Multiple Deprivation relate to data from 2008 and, in
some cases, data from the 2001 census (McLennan et al., 2011). The next iteration of the
Index of Multiple Deprivation is set to be released in September 2015.
The data that makes up the Index of Multiple Deprivation includes only a rank for each LSOA
from 1 to 32,482. For the purpose of this analysis, those LSOAs that fell within the 2km
Euclidean buffer surrounding living labs under investigation were identified. An average of the
LSOAs’ rank within this range was documented for each living lab in accordance to the
procedure outlined in The English Indices of Deprivation 2010 Guide Book in averaging ranks for
districts of LSOAs (McLennan et al., 2011, p. 54).
However, the average rank of those LSOAs that makes up the community under examination
does little to enable analysis. Therefore, the data was translated into percentiles (Table 5-3).
The analysis of living labs in England and Wales shows that six of the eight living labs
investigated fall below the 50th
percentile, meaning that those six living labs are embedded in
communities that are more deprived than average communities in England and Wales. Of
note, those living labs investigated in London are within communities that have more deprived
populations on the basis of housing in comparison to the rest of England and Wales. Housing
indicators include household overcrowding, homelessness, affordability, and proximity to
hospital, grocer, primary school and post office (McLennan et al., 2011). This makes sense
given London’s notorious housing shortage along with high cost of apartments. Crime, living

45
environment and health services are among the deprivation dimensions in which the
communities served by living labs in England and Wales fair the worst in comparison to the
average.
Table 5-2. Living Labs Investigated in England and Wales
LivingLab
City
IndexofMultiple
Deprivation
Income
Employment
Health
Education
Housing
Crime
Environment
Greening Wingrove
Newcastle
upon Tyne
54% 61% 62% 21% 70% 62% 46% 43%
Greater Manchester
Low Carbon Hub
Manchester 26% 39% 44% 18% 46% 35% 10% 31%
Corridor
Manchester
('Lighthouse
Project')
Manchester 23% 34% 40% 17% 45% 35% 16% 31%
Newcastle Science
City
Newcastle
upon Tyne
21% 28% 29% 7% 25% 51% 34% 42%
Muswell Hill
(Haringey) Low
Carbon Zones
(one of 10 London
Low Carbon
Zones*)
London 45% 53% 64% 56% 88% 9% 24% 29%
City Lab Coventry Coventry 29% 33% 36% 27% 40% 31% 25% 15%
The Selby Trust:
The Community
Energy Lab
London 12% 7% 19% 35% 34% 10% 12% 19%
York Without Walls York 57% 63% 63% 62% 71% 67% 23% 21%
Living Lab
Average
33% 40% 45% 30% 52% 37% 24% 29%
5.5 Living Lab Social Equity Analysis – Examples
Three living labs are investigated further: Maastricht-LAB, Amsterdam City-Zen and Greater
Manchester Low Carbon Hub. These living labs include those that fall within the GIS analysis
in the Netherlands, England and Wales, the two areas for which GIS data was available.
Further, these three living labs responded to the survey. The survey sought to ask questions
regarding social equity within the living labs. As discussed in the Methodology Chapter 4.4.1,
we can triangulate the information gleaned from the GIS analysis with the information
provided by the living labs to begin to make determinations about living labs and their
integration within the communities in which they are embedded.

46
5.5.1 Maastricht-LAB
Maastricht-LAB began in 2012 as an initiative of the Municipality of Maastricht to examine
urban (re)development in the city. The LAB is very much a platform for projects in the city
that look at improving vacant buildings, parks or other public spaces. The LAB has outgrown
its experimental phase and has been scaled up since 2014 to be more involved in the urban
development of the city. The LAB itself does not initiate projects; instead, the lab looks to
find and source project ideas and partners from the community, including students from the
local university. Past projects include the development of a stretch of road devoted to small
business and creative spaces called Temporary Lane, the neighbourhood outreach that focuses
on creating green urban gardens called Operation Stonebreak, and the development of new
park space in Maastricht called “Park of the Future”. Recently, the living lab has initiated
Citymakers Maastricht, an open network bringing together “thinkers and doers” to share
resources, time and knowledge for the betterment of the city. The living lab engages with
partners from various sectors and receives financial support from Creative Industries Fund
NL and the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands, among others. Further, the LAB is
the basis for on-going research by URB@EXP, a JPI Urban Europe funded research project
looking at urban labs as a pathway towards sustainability. (Maastricht Lab, n.d.)
Maastricht is a city of approximately 120,000 residents. As of 2013, Maastricht University had
nearly 16,000 students, 47% of whom were international students. In looking at the analysis of
the Maastricht-LAB, 52% of residents within the 2km community buffer are considered low-
income households making less than EUR €25,000 annually. This percentage of low-income
earners is 15% higher in comparison to the Netherlands average. It should be noted that the
initial GIS data collected does not include students so the presence of a large student
population is not considered here. This further suggests that the community the living lab is
embedded within is of lower socio-economic status than other areas of Maastricht and the
Netherlands as a whole. In looking at Figure 5-2, the LAB is located in the heart of Maastricht
and away from some of the suburbs that see households of higher income.
However, when asked to characterise the end-users engaged in the living lab, the respondent
stated that the end-users tended to be highly educated including Dutch citizens but also many
international students from the nearby University. The respondent specifically stated that they
did not engage with “many low educated people and immigrants…”. This suggests that, while
the living lab is embedded in a community that is characterised as having a lower income in
comparison to the average of the Netherlands, the end-users engaged in the living lab may not
be representative of the community involved.

47
Figure 5-2. Map of Maastricht, Netherlands Illustrating Social Equity
5.5.2 Amsterdam City-Zen
City-Zen is seen as a large-scale platform testing innovative solutions in smart grid
technologies, heating networks and sustainable housing. The two districts of Nieuw-West and
Grenoble have been engaged, in which residents and users have a central position in testing
and creating all solutions. Projects focus on sustainable transport, smart parking, car sharing,
heat recovery, drinking water, renewable energy, etc. The project began in March 2014 as a
five year project funded by the 7th
Framework Programme for Research with twenty-three
partner organisations and an overall budget of EUR €40 million. The platform hosts many
projects, of which some are active living labs. The goal is to reduce carbon emissions by
59,000 tons per year. (Amsterdam Smart City, n.d.)
The survey revealed that the living lab claims that they engage with a large section of society.
This includes people from many different educational backgrounds and ethnicities. In part,
this is due to the demographics of Amsterdam, which is characterised as heterogeneous with
many multinational corporations employing skilled workers along with a large immigrant
population. Further, the respondent reported that there is strong collaboration among local
governments and communities along with a large partner pool that position the living lab to
provide services tailored to the community needs.
In looking at the GIS analysis, 50% of the community surrounding the living lab is
characterised as having low household income. The visualisation in Figure 5-3 shows pockets
of more extreme areas of low and high income supporting the position of a highly variable
involved community. Furthermore, the living lab sits in a highly populated area of Amsterdam
with an average population density of 107 people per 100m2
. With such a large population
centre, it is difficult to engage everyone. The online presence and the survey show that efforts

48
are being made to be as inclusive as possible, employing a wide-range of participatory
methodologies.
Figure 5-3. Map of Amsterdam, Netherlands Illustrating Social Equity
5.5.3 Greater Manchester Low Carbon Hub
The Greater Manchester Low Carbon Hub does not describe itself as a living lab; however,
when presented with the definition, the respondent agreed that it might meet the definition of
a living lab. The Hub was established through the 1st
City Deal in 2012. This deal was reached
between Manchester City and the UK National Government in which the City of Manchester
committed to GBP £1.2 billion to invest in infrastructure and economic growth programmes
with the National Government allowing for the city to retain GBP £30 million from taxes to
reinvest in an infrastructure fund (Smulian, 2012).
The respondent to the online survey expounded greatly on the efforts of the Low Carbon
Hub. The Hub seeks to drastically reduce their carbon emissions over the coming years. In
order to do so, the Hub leverages the knowledge of local universities, local innovators in
business and the strong history of public governance to provide tested solutions to meet these
targets. The Hub regarded five themes: buildings, energy, sustainable consumption, transport
and natural capital. The Hub engaged with the community through thematic meetings,
workshops and consultations with members of the community. Further, the respondent
concluded that “[t]he Low Carbon Hub is part of the fabric of the local governance of Greater
Manchester City Region.”
As of 2014, the City of Manchester had 520,000 residents with 2.7 million people in the
Greater Manchester metropolitan area. The Greater Manchester Low Carbon Hub is located
along the same corridor as the previously discussed Corridor Manchester project, the corridor

49
which houses the University of Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan University, Central
Manchester Hospital, an innovation science park and numerous places of cultural significance.
The Greater Manchester Low Carbon Hub has an Index of Multiple Deprivation in the 26th
percentile, with the health and crime being among the most impactful dimensions of
deprivation. Despite the Hub and the surrounding community having a lower-than-average
deprivation in comparison to other districts, the Hub is located in close proximity to many
areas of significance including universities, hospitals and businesses. The visualisation in
Figure 5-4 shows those LSOAs located closest to the Hub being in a higher percentile than
the 2km buffer average. It is important to mention that the data here only represents those
households located within the 2km buffer and does not take into account those who may
travel or commute from these areas of higher economic significance to take part in the work
of the living lab.
Figure 5-4. Map of Manchester, England Illustrating Social Equity

50
6 Discussion and Analysis
The discussion seeks to answer the posed research questions and sub-questions based on the
findings presented in Chapter 5. Using the triple bottom line conceptualisation – Planet, Profit
and People – the analysis will be structured in addressing these components of working towards
sustainable development. Reference Table 4-1 as it outlines the research questions, sub-
questions and methodologies used to answer these questions.
6.1 Living Labs – Planet
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report clearly
dictates that climate change is occurring, that it is influenced by humans and that there is an
increased likelihood of severe weather and climate events (Intergovernmental Panel on
CLimate Change, 2013). Quite clearly, efforts to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate
change are needed, especially as population growth continues, in particular, in cities.
Elkington (1997) suggests that in order to make meaningful changes to improve the
environment, more solutions are needed than just introducing environmentally-friendly
technologies. Mechanisms that support dematerialisation, energy efficiency and knowledge
transfer are needed to spur the types of innovations required (Elkington, 1997, p. 72). Living
labs can be positioned as one mechanism to do just that, to address and promote sustainability
in cities. In this way, living labs can be seen as a tool that addresses the first pillar – Planet – of
the triple bottom line.
But to examine the role and potential of living labs to impact Planet, we need to answer the
first research question:
RQ1: How do living labs engage with sustainability?
Living labs for sustainability have been identified by investigating all living labs contained
within the European Network of Living Labs and those identified by the GUST Project.
Supported by literature and conversations with academics, the living labs were identified to be
operating or supporting projects that fall into ten categories:
§ Transport / Mobility
§ Smart City Solutions / ICT
§ Renewable Energy
§ Energy Efficiency
§ Construction
§ Recycling / Waste
§ Low Carbon Futures / Climate
§ Housing
§ Equity and Societal Issues
§ Other Sustainability Issues
Supported by the literature analysis and the survey of living labs, living labs engage in
sustainability in a variety of ways; the most common projects pertain to energy efficiency and
smart city solutions. These aspects dominate the sustainability domains in which living labs for
sustainability are operating.
Energy efficiency is seen as a highly useful strategy to enable cities to meet their targets for
lowering energy use and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Kramers, Höjer, Lövehagen, &
Wangel, 2014). In particular, energy efficiency and the emergence of ICT as a means to

51
dematerialise, demobilise and decarbonise six different sectors including power,
transportation, agriculture, building, manufacturing and consumer and services (Kramers et al.,
2014). Similarly, smart city solutions leverage ICT to help cities build beneficial urban-based
technological innovations that lead to competitive advantage (Kramers et al., 2014).
The significant focus of living labs on energy efficiency and smart city solutions makes sense;
the expansion of living labs are seen as result of the development within the ICT sector
(Ståhlbröst & Holst, 2012). With the significant impact ICT has in the development of energy
efficiency strategies and smart city development, it is no coincidence that living labs, which
often employ methods using ICT, tend to focus on these areas. Many seem to employ
sophisticated monitoring and sensing technologies as a method to observe and interact with
end-users, similar to the previous example of Corridor Manchester.
As expected, the living labs investigated here build on the public-private-people partnerships
previously discussed. Through the survey, the majority of living labs involved actors from
government, academia, industry and civic society. The actor most often reported to be
involved in the development of living labs for sustainability was the local government
particular to the communities in which the living labs were embedded. Further, no dominant
actor-group emerged as the actor wielding the most influence in living labs. When asked which
organisation or actor had the most influence, each living lab responded differently. Some
living labs had one actor with the most influence, others had two actors with equal dominance
and others saw their living lab as all actors equally involved in the decision-making process.
In examining the actors involved and the subsequent power structure, this shows that living
labs depend very much on their local context. Of course, this suggests that living labs are not
just “dropped in” to their local contexts using the same set of methodology as any other living
lab. Instead, it seems from those living labs sampled, there is a conscious effort to adapt to the
local context in which these living labs work. While this is obviously a positive attribute, for
researchers, this suggests that it may be more difficult to simply examine existing living labs to
understand mechanisms in which can be harnessed and scaled up to impact sustainable
transformations in cities. However, continued research can lead to a database of best practices
in which living labs can draw on to inform their local operations.
When examining how living labs engage with sustainability, it is important to consider how
they engage with end-users, those involved in the process of co-creating solutions for
sustainability. The online survey showed a wide-range of participatory methodologies
employed by living labs. Workshops and interviews seem to be the most dominating
methodologies. Informal conversations and surveys make up other methods commonly
employed.
One question in the survey sought to understand how many end-users are involved in each
living lab. It turns out, it is difficult for living labs to answer this question. In part, the word
involved was not defined in such a way that allowed for universal understanding and continuity
in analysis. However, many living labs provided comments to elaborate on their understanding
of the word. This highlighted the varying degrees in which living labs imagine end-users to be
involved. This meant anything from end-users embedded within a living environment in
which they lived their lives to end-users who received the living lab’s quarterly newsletter.
Once again, this demonstrates the varying contexts in which living labs operate and how
difficult it is to generalise amongst living labs for sustainability.
This also begs the question: what is a living lab for sustainability? As discussed previously,
living labs for sustainability seek to engage end-users in co-creation and co-generation of

52
solutions for sustainability. Co-creation was previously defined “as the act of creating value to
the mutual benefit of two or more actors, beyond creating actual product or service
innovation in a collaborative way” (Veeckman et al., 2013, p. 6). From the definitions
respondents provided regarding their involved end-users, it is clear that many of these do not
achieve this definition of co-creation.
However, interviewees suggest that this should not matter. The former President of ENoLL,
who is heavily involved in the European discussion regarding living labs, stresses the
harmfulness in continuing the discussion surrounding what constitutes a living lab (J.
Eskelinen, personal communication, August 11, 2015). He finds this discussion
counterproductive to the ongoing work of living labs in Europe. He feels that living labs,
while it is important to hold them accountable, need to be concerned with the business of
creating solutions instead of engaging in theoretical debates regarding their worthiness as
interventions in cities.
Perhaps most interesting, few living labs seem to directly communicate their work as working
towards sustainability or low carbon futures. Yet, energy efficiency and smart city solutions
often lead to decarbonisation. However, these strategies also lead to cost savings and
employment opportunities. Less than 10% of living labs through the online literature analysis
and 25% of living labs through the survey were found to be communicating their projects as
reducing greenhouse gas emissions for low carbon futures. This suggests that other factors,
outside of sustainability, may be motivating living labs to engage in these areas. Given the
dominant nature of the European Commission in highlighting, promoting and funding living
labs, the strong commitment to increased innovation, competitiveness and employment may
be stronger drivers than that of sustainability.
6.2 Living Labs – Profit
In examining profit, Elkington (1997) highlights the various types of capital to consider when
looking at the triple bottom line. Of course, the two main forms of capital are thought of as
physical capital (infrastructure and equipment) and financial capital (monetary assets)
(Elkington, 1997, p. 74). Two other forms of capital are often considered when assessing the
profit of an organisation and their activities: human capital (employee’s collective experience,
skills and competencies) and intellectual capital (patents, processes, internal competencies)
(Elkington, 1997, p. 74). However, when one starts to think with a triple bottom line
perspective, natural capital and social capital, which contribute to planet and people, also play a
role (Elkington, 1997). The importance of economic sustainability and wealth creation in
achieving the triple bottom line is often overlooked (Elkington, 1997). That is to say, planet
and people are important but without a viable business model, no effort to achieve the triple
bottom line is possible.
With this in the background, we can begin to address questions surrounding living labs with
regards to their economic viability as a long-term intervention in cities. In particular, we can
discuss who is funding living labs, how they are funded, why they are being funded, how their
success is measured and what happens when the funding period ends. Answers to these
questions will form the answer to the second research question:
RQ2: How does the current funding regime support living labs?
In order to address this research question, it was important to understand the formal funding
landscape throughout the EU. The European Commission has long since funded research and
innovation within Member States and projects that support regional and Union level
development. Over the years, the funding mechanisms have changed to support the

53
formulated research strategy as it relates to the changing overall strategic strategy of the
European Commission (K. Björnberg, personal communication, August 19, 2015). The EU 7th
Framework Programme for Research (FP7) and Horizon 2020 are among the most recent
funding programmes operating in Europe to fund research and innovation. The FP7 ran from
2007 to 2013, providing more than EUR €50 billion in support over those seven years
(European Communities, 2007). Projects like Business Model Innovation for Living Labs
(BUMILLA) and ICT in Low Resource Settings: Innovating for Africa and Europe through Living Labs
(LRIT4EA) were among the projects funded under the FP7.
Horizon 2020 is the largest financial support package ever geared towards EU research and
innovation with nearly EUR €80 billion set aside for funding of projects between 2014 and
2020 (European Commission, n.d.-c). Horizon 2020 is an initiative of Europe 2020 – EU’s
growth strategy for the coming decade – that, once again, stresses the importance of increased
global competitiveness (European Commission, n.d.-c). This is also in line with the Lisbon
Strategy and the Helsinki Manifesto, which set the stage for living labs as previously discussed
in Chapter 3.
One such mechanism supported by the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme is
the European Research Area (ERA), a concept that sees the European Union as an open
space promoting knowledge and growth (European Commission, n.d.-b). The ERA sees
partnerships as essential in fulfilling their research and innovation objectives, bringing together
the Commission, Member States, and research organisations (European Commission, n.d.-b).
One such mechanism is Joint Programming: seen as a process “to pool national research
efforts in order to make better use of Europe's precious public R&D resources and to tackle
common European challenges more effectively in a few key areas” (European Commission,
n.d.-b). Thus far, there are ten Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) ranging from JPI
Neurodegenerative Disease Research to JPI Water. However, two JPIs deal with sustainability
transformations in cities: JPI Climate and JPI Urban Europe.
The aim of JPI Urban Europe is “ …to create attractive, sustainable and economically viable
urban areas, in which European citizens, communities and their surroundings can thrive” (JPI
Urban Europe, n.d.). Recall, the GUST project is funded through JPI Urban Europe. JPI
Urban Europe, an open consortia of national funding agencies, seeks to coordinate research to
make better use of public funds that support research and innovation that transform urban
centres, improve transport and logistics systems, improve social cohesion and integration
while reducing ecological footprint of the city (JPI Urban Europe, n.d.; J. Bylund, personal
communication, June 19, 2015). Currently, fifteen committed Member States, their subsequent
national funding agencies and other committed funding bodies coordinate to meet national
and European strategy goals for research and innovation in cities (J. Bylund, personal
communication, October 8, 2015).
This overview illustrates there is a variety of actors that provide support and funding to living
labs. These actors range from the European Commission, to regional support and JPIs, to
national governments. Municipalities and industry are also funding living labs that relate to
their strategic research and innovation strategies. To say one actor dominates in the funding of
living labs would be untrue. Of those living labs surveyed, local governments, national
governments and the European Commission equally finance living labs.
Of course, it is clear that the European Commission is working with a significantly larger
budget; however, their strategic focuses varies widely with a strong focus on academic
partnerships and collaboration in research, as opposed to platforms such as living labs. This
focus on research may be due to the evaluators chosen who are responsible for reading

54
through the proposals for funding; the evaluators largely come from a scientific and research-
driven perspective (J. Bylund, personal communication, June 19, 2015; K. Björnberg, personal
communication, August 19, 2015). Further, some funding agencies (ex. Formas in Sweden) are
restricted within their mandate to fund industry or municipality ventures without some level of
co-financing among them (K. Björnberg, personal communication, August 19, 2015).
However, this expectation of co-financing may be a deterrent to industry or municipal
involvement in the funding of living labs due to the increasing budget crisis and devolution of
the municipality in Europe (Childers et al., 2014).
As discussed in Chapter 3, living labs for sustainability are called many different things. The
individuals interviewed representing the various funding agencies agreed that, despite the lack
of clarity in describing the term living lab, the projects are assessed on the basis of their merit:
what the project sets out to do and how they see to do it. However, in discussion with those
practitioners applying for funding and through the survey, many discuss living labs as a
buzzword that helps in the selection of projects for funding. This is supported by literature,
too; with extreme interest in living labs as a vehicle for sustainable transformation in cities,
more and more proposals for funding are including the living lab methodology despite limited
user-engagement (Veeckman & van der Graaf, 2015). Despite this, Jarmo Eskelinen from
ENoLL says that living labs are way past being a buzzword and he sees living labs as a strong
and rising trend in smart city development that is likely to continue (personal communication,
August 11, 2015).
Why do funding agencies support living labs? If you ask the funding agencies, these answers
vary. Of course, they see living labs as one tool that allows them to meet their mandates of
improved social and environmental status along with prioritising competiveness, innovation
and employment (European Commission, n.d.-c; European Communities, 2007; JPI Urban
Europe, n.d.; Vinnova, n.d.). However, at this point, there is no consensus as to if, in fact,
living labs are capable of creating tangible impacts that improve and enhance cities (K.
Björnberg, personal communication, August 19, 2015). For the time being, funding agencies
see living labs as an opportunity to test various tools to help lead towards a sustainable future,
realising that no one strategy is the silver bullet but a plethora of tools are needed.
Living labs were also asked in the online survey of their views of why funding agencies
support their efforts. Living labs mentioned more frequently the promise of open innovation,
social innovation and bottom-up innovation as drivers for why they saw their projects being
funded. Some also pointed out the importance of having need-based, demand-driven
products, services and processes as opposed to supply-driven solutions to sustainability.
Interestingly enough, one interviewee representing a funding agency reflected on the
discussions among those involved in developing the strategic vision for JPI Urban Europe.
This person said the group as a whole saw urban living labs as an undeveloped tool to be
employed in cities; however, they recognise the concept needs further crafting and
understanding before any conclusions can be made on their transformative potential for
sustainability in cities.
Along the same lines, when asked how living labs are evaluated, all interviewees referenced
their standard project evaluation criteria for assessing the outcomes of a funded project. Living
labs reported through the survey that they were often required to provide annual reports, work
packages, publications, attending conferences and meetings along with engaging within the
community. Many funding agencies said it was too soon to draw conclusions on the success of
funding living labs. In part, each funding agency has too few projects labelled a living lab to
draw any conclusions yet. Moreover, there seems to be little coordination among funding

55
partners as to sharing of success stories. With no common pool of projects, it is difficult to
assess the success and effectiveness of living labs and the funding provided. This may be an
area in which ENoLL can facilitate given their access and proximity to the issue.
Funding through JPI Urban Europe and others typically look to fund projects for three years (J.
Bylund, personal communication, June 19, 2015; K. Björnberg, personal communication,
August 19, 2015). Of course, this means that those living labs seeking traditional funding will
see an end to their funding unless they continue to reapply for funding or develop a self-
sustaining model (J. Eskelinen, personal communication, August 11, 2015). All interviewees
were asked about the rigidity of the funding regime in supporting projects for a limited time as
opposed to supporting the platform or processes that initiate projects. While funding partners
see the problem of a limited source of funds for living labs focused on projects, there was no
consensus on how to solve the problem.
On the other side of the coin, living labs report the constant struggle to gain access to funding.
Once again, Eskelinen suggests that the current funding regimes do not well serve innovators
and SMEs (personal communication, August 11, 2015). He suggests that the large European
and National calls are for funding geared towards those organisations with the capacity and
existing knowledge to navigate the maze of bureaucracy surrounding the current funding
regime. In other words, the funding support does not allow for the quick and agile processes
that living labs often employ through their activities.
More than half of surveyed living labs reported problems with finding funding. Many others
saw their living lab coming to an end when their funding concluded after only three or four
years. Living labs reported funding as a “constant struggle” that leads to the “inability to invest
resources quickly”. One living lab concluded that “direct regional funding for [their] living lab
has stopped” forcing them to seek alternative ways of self-financing. To conclude, while
substantial financial resources exist within and throughout Europe, the mechanisms of
support do not best suit living labs and their activities in promoting sustainable
transformations in cities. Further discussion on how to improve this process is included in
Chapter 7.2.
6.3 Living Labs – People
For years, people have formed the basis of sustainable development. The report, Our Common
Future (1987) by the World Commission on Environment and Development, stressed quite
clearly and defiantly that equity, in particular inter-generational equity, is a cornerstone to
sustainable development. Later, this foundation was built upon in triple bottom line.
Elkington (1997) stresses the importance of progress with regard to the social bottom line in
determining the success of sustainable development. Therefore, there is a need to consider
social capital as it relates to the overall societal and environmental health and wealth. Frances
Fukuyama (1995, p. 10), in his book Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity,
described social capital as a measure of “the ability of people to work together for common
purposes in groups or organisations.” In so many words, living labs are a means in which to
grow social capital through the successful implementation of projects with a multi-stakeholder
approach.
Building on the concept of living labs as a platform centred on end-user engagement, they live
up to the characterisation of Public-Private-People Partnerships. Yet, more is needed to
understand the inclusive nature of living labs and their transformative potential in the
communities in which they are embedded. This section seeks to characterise those

56
communities in which living labs are embedded in order to understand who is engaged and
who is benefiting from living lab activities.
RQ3: To what extent do social equity issues arise in the implementation of living labs?
The ranging terms and definitions used to describe living lab-esque interventions in cities –
presented in Chapter 3 – share few things in common: primarily, the focus on human-centric
innovation. This human-centred research and development approach seeks to bring end-users
into the fold of innovation (Lepik et al., 2010). However, living labs for sustainability tend to
focus on processes, products and services that serve the greater community, as demonstrated
in Chapter 6.1. Evans and Karvonen (2011) describe living labs as highly visible interventions
due to there “purported ability to inspire rapid social and technical transformations” in society
as a way to generate more useful knowledge. For example, living labs with projects that focus
on energy efficiency and smart city solutions often seek to engage all relevant citizens in a
community to realise benefits of dematerialisation and ICT. To contrast living labs for
sustainability with living labs of other focuses (i.e. elderly care, tourism), one would expect a
living lab for sustainability, which sees benefits for the whole community, to be more inclusive
than a living lab geared toward particular industries and actors in the community.
Living labs for sustainability engage in many different participatory engagement techniques, as
found in Chapter 6.1, that mirror the public participation techniques used in decision-making
processes discussed in Chapter 2.2. Like public participation in decision-making, literature had
suggested there were issues of social equity included in the implementation of living labs
(Evans & Karvonen, 2014; Mensink et al., 2010; Veeckman & van der Graaf, 2015).
This thesis sought to investigate those communities involved in and benefiting from living
labs for sustainability. Two assumptions, as discussed in Chapter 4.4, steered this portion of
research: first, the use of GIS as a method of analysis assumes that the community involved in
and benefiting from a living lab is located within close physical proximity; secondly, that the
end-users making up the community tend not to travel great distances to be involved. These
assumptions are justified as Mensink et al. (2010) suggest that the cost of users’ time in
engaging with living labs often exceeds the benefits in which they receive by being involved;
further, work by Tsou et al. (2005) discusses the service and impact range of facilities in cities
as being as little as one kilometre, depending on context. This justifies the approach in using
GIS to investigate the communities in which living labs for sustainability are embedded.
In looking at eighteen living labs for sustainability in the Netherlands and the United
Kingdom that were analysed using available demographic data, the surrounding communities
tended to be more deprived than the ‘average’ community in both countries. Only two living
labs, both in the United Kingdom, were embedded in communities that were better off, based
on the chosen indicators, than the average community. In the Netherlands, the communities
surrounding the investigated living labs, defined as those living within two kilometres of the
living lab, had significantly higher proportions of the population with low-income earners and
were more densely populated than the average community in the Netherlands.
Using this approach alone, in line with the assumptions previously discussed, suggests that the
living labs are seeking to address sustainability issues impacting low-income and disadvantaged
communities due to their physical embeddedness in these communities. However, the
information gleaned from the GIS analysis was triangulated with the data gathered in the
survey. In doing so, it is clear, that despite living labs being embedded in disadvantaged
communities, they do not equally engage all end-users within the community.

57
Living labs reported engaging highly educated individuals with a lack of diversity. Those
involved are more often male, the average age reported to be roughly 36 years old. Living labs,
in discussing their participatory methods, did not actively seek to engage with a wide variety of
individuals, many electing to engage in smaller, select groups over co-creation workshops, etc.
Living labs discussed the difficulty in engaging with end-users; 66.7% of respondents
suggested it was difficult to do so. They report it is time consuming and difficult to find the
right points of access to the community, in part, because it is difficult to motivate and
integrate into the community.
Therefore, while living labs for sustainability seem to be embedded in disadvantaged
communities, in practice, they are unable to engage a diverse subsection of the communities in
which they seek to serve. As a result, social equity issues arise in whose knowledge is being
included in the co-creation of solutions for sustainability. If disadvantaged communities are
not included in the dialogue and the creation of solutions, their needs and knowledge may not
be included in the outcomes of living labs. This is particularly salient since disadvantaged
communities, low income families and communities of colour are more likely to be affected by
the impacts of climate change (Bulkeley & Castán Broto, 2013).
Finally, one respondent to the survey stated, “there is still a need to open up the living lab
concept to a more socially-oriented perspective.”

58
7 Reflections
This thesis was ambitious; it sought to answer a variety of interesting questions with the use of
different methodologies. In doing so, there are a host of reflections on the methods used in
supporting this research. But first, given the answers to the posed research questions, I can
make recommendations with regard to improving the living lab approach, both from the
perspective of social equity and funding.
7.1 Emergence of People as Driver of Innovation
Urbanisation and the impacts of climate change threaten the fabric of the city. By 2050, 80%
of the population of Europe will be living in cities (European Commission, 2013). With
increasing mega-cities and urban centres, challenges include transport, energy, food security,
air pollution, water scarcity, etc. Our Common Future (1987, p. 44) discusses at length social
equity and “the common interest” stating that “…many problems of resource depletion and
environmental stress arise from disparities in economic and political power.” Addressing these
issues of social equity among people promises to aid in transforming cities towards
sustainability.
Years later, the concept of open innovation and open social innovation, as discussed in
Chapter 2.5, emerged as a perspective which integrates social equity, technological and social
innovation, and user-driven, needs-based solutions that can be leveraged for sustainability
transitions in cities.
Stuart Hart, former Director of the Corporate Environmental Management Program at the
University of Michigan introduced an intriguing paradox: the social and political problems that
face our society due to environmental degradation and climate change exceed the mandate and
responsibility of any corporation to greatly impact or interfere (Elkington, 1997). However, it
is these corporations that are poised to be the only organisations with the right set of
resources, technology and global reach to allow them to adapt quickly to achieve sustainability
(Elkington, 1997). In part, this is due to corporations’ ability to quickly adapt and integrate
new solutions, motivated by cost efficiency. Similarly, Westley et al. (2011) sees commercial
actors as holding the capacity in which to innovate and drive technological and sustainable
change; however, the public sector is a necessary and crucial actor in fostering innovation for
sustainability through policy and programmes (Westley et al., 2011).
With the emergence of public-private-people partnerships in the form of living labs, the
mandate for the government and the ability of companies to achieve sustainability can be
integrated. While living labs are characterised as a quadruple helix – a public-private-people
partnership – often, living labs are initiated with one stakeholder wielding power over strategic
direction of the lab. Living labs for sustainability with a focus on ICT tend to be perpetuated
by commercial actors while those living labs initiated by public actors tend to focus on public
good over economic value (Veeckman & van der Graaf, 2015). For example, living labs for
sustainability may also address poverty, human rights, social justice and well-being (Westley et
al., 2011).
In reflecting on the work of this thesis, the promise and prominence of public-private-people
partnerships can be aligned closely with the triple bottom line of people, planet and profit. By
integrating the triple bottom line perspective in the mandate of public-private-people
partnerships, the benefits of collaboration and open innovation can be expanded to consider
financial, environmental and social indicators (Figure 7-1). In looking at these two concepts,
people overlap warranting further discussion on the importance of people in user-driven, open
innovation, in particular, through living labs.

59
Figure 7-1. Integrating the Triple Bottom Line and Public-Private-People Partnerships
Harkening back to the quote from Our Common Future at the beginning of this section, the
focus on people and social equity issues may lead to improvements in resource use,
environmental degradation and sustainability. Therefore, it is suggested that people should be
the focus of public-private-people partnerships and the triple bottom line perspective. For the
purpose of this discussion, and drawing on literature presented in Chapter 2, living labs that
elevate the status of end-users and people can be a vehicle for innovation and sustainability,
improving knowledge integration, utilising social learning theory that can reduce the
knowledge-action gap and lead to sustainability transformation in cities.
Improved knowledge integration processes employed by living labs may have the ability to
impact and overcome the knowledge-action gap. While we often think of innovation as
progress, we do not fully understand the environmental impacts of our continued innovation
(Westley et al., 2011). However, we do increasingly know the impacts of continued use of
fossil fuels, overuse of water in industrial agricultural production, unsustainable resource use
driven by consumer behaviour, etc. If science and logic dictate change, that sustainability is
important, and we as a society know this to be the case, then why don’t we make the necessary
changes? This is what is referred to as the knowledge-action gap (Meimeth & Robertson,
2012).
Living labs for sustainability focus on co-creation processes that allow end-users to analyse,
evaluate and create solutions. These processes inherent within the methodology see engaged
individuals contributing to improving cities while also providing the opportunity of living lab
practitioners to teach and educate end-users. These processes relate to the cognitive

60
dimension of knowledge and allow for greater and more complete processes of understanding
and knowledge integration, as discussed in Chapter 2.3. Further, living labs can be seen as
platforms that promote social learning, allowing for end-users to observe and adopt
behaviours and practices developed in living labs.
Westley et al. (2011, p. 776) states that “[n]ew forms of knowledge integration and generation
that support planetary stewardship are required, capable of integrating a much richer diversity
of ideas and viewpoints and of bringing action and research into closer proximity”. Living labs
may just be one of these new forms of knowledge integration, bringing actors from academia,
municipalities and industry together to generate action. While new forms of knowledge
integration that focus on sustainability are important, people must be motivated and willing to
take part in these processes. Ultimately, to transition cities towards sustainability, knowledge
of the risks of doing nothing is a prerequisite for change (Shiroyama et al., 2012).
With the potential of living labs to not only generate solutions but also improve and integrate
end-user knowledge regarding sustainability, it is increasingly important that all people are
included in the development and deployment of living labs. However, Veeckman & van der
Graaf (2015) found that citizens who lacked formal education or technological and computer
programming skills were excluded from the process. They explain that cities and research
institutions, those actors involved in living labs for public good, need to target their user
recruitment methodologies to optimise citizen engagement (Veeckman & van der Graaf,
2015). Literature suggests that engaging citizens with diverse skillsets and backgrounds leads to
sharing of perspectives, increased understanding amongst stakeholder groups and
strengthened civic engagement (Childers et al., 2014; Mensink et al., 2010; Veeckman & van
der Graaf, 2015).
However, it is important to understand that the context of the community and the people
within are important in the development and deployment of solutions tested in living labs.
Neighbourhoods develop based on culture, income, religion, etc. Therefore, it is important to
consider that solutions tested and successful in some context may differ from another. Inter-
city comparison of solutions is one means of testing to ensure scalability of sustainability
solutions (Childers et al., 2014).
For these reasons, the concept of the territorial living lab is a growing concept of interest. As
alluded to in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3, territorial living labs apply the living lab methodology to a
territory and its citizens for the purpose of regional development. For example, Alcotra
Innovation, funded by the Alcotra Italy-France 2007-2013 territorial cross-border cooperation
program in cooperation with the European Commission, looks to build cross-border
collaboration and capacity building through the development of territorial living labs (The
Alcotra Innovation Consortium, 2013). Known as the LEADERS approach, this process
promotes a bottom-up development and has been implemented in many contexts in France,
Italy and Spain (The Alcotra Innovation Consortium, 2013).
With much focus on regional development, sustainability transitions and the use of ICT in
smart city solutions, it is important to bring it back to people and human capacity. Living labs
are only as successful as the team that integrate and engage with the community. Therefore,
institutional memory is important in the development of living labs. For example, a
respondent to the survey stated they were unable to answer a variety of questions because
their predecessor had been the one involved in the set-up and funding of the living lab.
However, the experience of this individual had left the living lab leaving the respondent
lacking this perspective. This impacts the viability of the living lab including continued funding
and trust building capacity in the community. Therefore, there is a need to focus not only on

61
the engagement of people in the community but also to take care of the people responsible for
the successful implementation of the living lab.
Lastly, while we argue people are important for continued innovation for sustainability, living
labs need to have strategies to overcome the challenges associated with engaging all people,
not just those with high income or education who are motivated to be involved. For example,
self-interest is seen as a strong motivation for public involvement, especially within the realm
of environmental activism (Campbell & Marshall, 2000). Further, as discussed in Chapter 2.2,
co-opting of a venue for public participation similar to a living lab has the possibility of stifling
innovation and supressing minority or silent majority groups. This was the case in the
Corridor Manchester living lab elaborated on in Chapter 3.4.1. Recall, the Corridor
Manchester Partnership brought together local universities, local government and industry.
However, the project saw this partnership reinforce the divide between the “knowledge
community” and the surrounding community (Evans & Karvonen, 2014). Further work in
understanding the effectiveness of engagement strategies is needed in order to offer
recommendations to avoid such pitfalls of public participation and collaborative innovation.
7.2 The Funding Battle: Project vs. Process
The European Commission has taken an active stance on the necessity of supporting and
funding living labs. The Commission has published a position paper encouraging the national
funding agencies and others to fund living labs (European Commission, 2014a). Further, the
Commission shows commitment to the living lab methodology in that they financially
supports the European Network of Living Labs (Jarmo Eskelinen, personal communication,
August 11, 2015). Further, FP7 and Horizon 2020 have provided many millions of Euros to
living lab initiatives. The Joint Programming Initiatives continue to focus on the
transformative potential of urban living labs with JPI Urban Europe funding six projects out
of twenty looking at living labs in their first two open calls (Jonas Bylund, personal
communication, June 19, 2015). Further, within the last months, the European Commission
has pledged EUR €80 million for climate services and living labs in cities through 2016 (Rob
Swart, personal communication, May 12, 2015).
However, this research concludes that the current funding regime does not adequately support
living labs for sustainability. This section seeks to make the case for an improved funding
regime that supports processes and platforms for innovation and transformation towards
sustainability over the traditional funding of projects. Further, two different funding scenarios
are presented as potential improvements for the funding of living labs.
7.2.1 Making the Case
Obviously, there is a growing need for new innovations of products and processes that
support and foster sustainability. The technosphere runs and operates on different
wavelengths from that of the biosphere (Westley et al., 2011). Commoner (1992) in his book
Making Peace with the Planet outlines the differences between the technosphere and the
biosphere. Among them, Commoner highlights the cyclical nature of the biosphere and its
ecological processes in contrast to the linear pathways present within the technosphere.
Moreover, the biosphere is fundamentally interdependent representing a dynamic equilibrium
while the technosphere’s orientation towards growth and profit often discounts or does not
consider the implications of an innovation on the market (Commoner, 1992). Therefore, the
differing characteristics between the biosphere and technosphere contribute to the
malalignment between governance structures in cities and the ecosystems they exist within
(Westley et al., 2011).

62
While this is the case, living labs represent a genuine effort to address society’s growing issues.
The innovation paradox – innovation is the cause of unsustainability and the solution for
sustainability – can be overcome through the development of these innovative demonstration
projects. In part, in reference to Commoner’s supposition regarding the technosphere, this is
because living labs have an opportunity to develop in a way that is more representative of the
cyclical and connected nature of the biosphere through processes iteration and adaptation.
However, while living labs organise in a more interconnected manner with often-complex
community engagement strategies that build upon each other, their funding counterparts do
not operate in a way conducive to support their work. Funding agencies work within the linear
design of the technosphere funding initiatives to perform a task or project, which culminates
in a particular outcome at some end-date.
While this strategy leads to innovations, the European Commission recognises that research
and innovation funding currently does not lead to commercialisation and integration of
products and processes that improve the quality of life for those living in cities (European
Commission, 2014a). Living labs have the potential to upscale innovations and processes for
sustainability in a way that traditional projects and outcomes do not.
Currently, living labs are funded primarily as projects. This funding typically lasts three to five
years, as stated in the survey and among interviewees. However, living labs operate more as
platforms that employ processes of user engagement and co-creation. This process “needs a
lot of trust from end-users,” which takes time to build. This trust and integration within a
community is essential in the success of a living lab and their activities. However, the short-
term funding cycle does not allow for living labs to develop trust. As discussed in Chapter 2.2,
effective public participation requires relationship building, trust and commitment to the
community. Therefore, there is a need to improve the current funding regime to support the
funding of living labs for sustainability.
Two scenarios are presented in the following sections: improving funding of process and
platforms and open and agile funding mechanisms.
7.2.2 Improving Funding of Processes and Platforms
A respondent to the survey concludes that there are “[n]ot many external financial partners
willing to fund a platform. They want to fund projects, but not the vehicle of a LAB itself.”
All funding partners interviewed agreed, there was a focus on funding projects over processes
or platforms. However, funding agencies have great responsibility to manage public funds in
an appropriate manner, leading them to be risk adverse to try new avenues or mechanisms for
funding (Jarmo Eskelinen, personal communication, August 11, 2015).
An improved funding programme would see any one or more of the following:
§ Funding agencies able to offer long-term funding of ten years or more
§ Conditional funding recurring overtime should the platform meet continued
annual targets
§ Co-financing obligations that encourage and incentivise industry and municipalities
to partially support platforms
§ Ideally, seek to support living labs to develop self-sustaining business models that
can be continued without additional need for support
§ Allow for more quick and agile processes for funding of living labs

63
If a funding partner were able to offer funding to a platform, such as a living lab, that supports
continued innovation for sustainability over a long period of time, this would alleviate the
burden of continually needing to establish and re-establish community networks of trust
inherent with the funding of short-term projects. This allows for the living lab to establish
meaningful trust and provide a long-term commitment to the community. Further, living labs
responded to the survey discussing the uncertainty of continued funding and the
administrative burden of applying for funding. A long-term solution would allow for living
labs to focus on the activities they do best without the uncertainty and time devoted to finding
funding.
If a long-term funding commitment is untenable, the introduction of a conditional funding
mechanism may be suitable. Such a funding mechanism would offer funding if, and only if,
the platform continues to meet previously agreed upon outcomes on an annual or sub-annual
basis. This type of mechanism allows for the long-term funding of a living lab, ensuring the
platform is meeting the motivations of the funding agency and verifying no misuse of public
funds. Both of these long-term, conditional funding models may be better suited to actors
who have previously operated or are currently operating a living lab / platform who have an
existing track record of success (A. Alvsilver, personal communication, August 27, 2015).
Many open calls for funding may require some percentage of co-financing from industry or
municipalities. For example, Formas, the Swedish Research Council, often requires an external
actor to provide upwards of 25-50% co-financing in order to receive a grant (K. Björnberg,
personal communication, August 19, 2015). This type of financing institutionalises public-
private-people partnerships by requiring a diverse group of stakeholders to come together to
generate solutions for sustainability. This model, while seemingly in practice by many living
labs, is not communicated in a positive light and the benefits of such a model are not realised.
Co-financing may discourage some actors from taking part in worthy innovation for
sustainability. Yet, funding agencies see this as an indicator to assess the feasibility of some
projects; if no or few actors are willing to invest resources, the project may not be viable (K.
Björnberg, personal communication, August 19, 2015). Therefore, it is important for funding
agencies to encourage and incentivise industry and cities to take part in co-financing schemes.
This includes highlighting potential benefits in co-financing, negotiating shared-ownership of
innovations and facilitating knowledge sharing between stakeholders. While this may be left to
the platform themselves to negotiate, the centralisation of experience and best practices with
the funding agency makes them a valuable stakeholder in supporting sustainable business
models for living labs.
Ideally, living labs can gain the financial support needed early in their development process in
order to implement self-sustaining business models and become financially independent.
Forum Virium Helsinki is an example of a self-sustaining initiative that employs the living lab
methodology. By matching the needs of the communities with the city and industry services
available, the platform is able to, through living labs, create solutions that enable ICT in cities
(J. Eskelinen, personal communication, August 11, 2015). Funding agencies, with the hope of
seeing their funded platforms succeed, once again, can serve as a centralised receptacle of best
practices that allow new initiatives to become self-sustaining.
The former President of ENoLL sees the need for funding agencies to be more supportive of
innovators and SMEs that require quick access to funding (J. Eskelinen, personal
communication, August 11, 2015). This implies that funding agencies need to have more open
calls and a greater variety of funding mechanisms that meet the needs of practitioners through
quick and agile processes. As reported by survey respondents and interviewees, living labs
cannot afford to wait long periods of time to access funding, especially in a real-life

64
environment that changes quickly. Therefore, it is argued that the funding regime needs to
support quick and agile funding mechanisms.
However, funding agencies see this as being difficult to implement. While Vinnova and others
have funding mechanisms devoted to SMEs enabling quick access to cash, they are limited to
offering open calls only a few times a year (R. Engström, personal communication, August 21,
2015). This requires great coordination with the necessary stakeholders who organise, market
and evaluate the calls for funding. Further, because the calls are so broad, enabling a variety of
disciplines and sectors to engage in the call, it is difficult to find evaluators with a similarly
diverse background with enough knowledge to assess proposals in a timely manner. Therefore,
a further solution would see a funding agency providing a sizeable endowment to an
organisation established specifically to create open calls and assess proposals within a
particular strategic agenda. This serves as the basis for the next scenario.
7.2.3 Open and Agile
A variety of projects in Horizon 2020 and FP7 served as an open and agile platform that
initiated their own open calls for innovation in cities. For example, SmartSantander ran from
September 2009 until November 2011 with EUR €6 million provided by the FP7. The aim of
the platform was to create a “world city-scale experimental research facility” employing over
20,000 sensors throughout test-cities in Europe to leverage ICT to improve the future
connectedness of cities including products and services (European Commission, 2014b). The
project also had two open calls “to be used by researchers from outside the project and
involvement of various types of users to develop new applications” (European Commission,
2014b). Each call was open for one month with assessment, evaluation, selection and fund
dispersal concluded within the next month (SmartSantander, n.d.). The maximum funding was
EUR €100,000 with eight projects being funded through these open calls.
This example illustrates a potential solution to the current lack of proper support for living
labs provided by funding partners. By providing a large endowment to an entity or
organisation similar to SmartSantander, this allows for more open and agile funding of living
labs. In particular, this lowers the threshold of experience in writing proposals and navigating
funding regimes needed to access funding for innovators and SMEs (J. Eskelinen, personal
communication, August 11, 2015). Further, this reduces the burden on the funding agency to
find appropriate evaluators; the small project, typically working in a specific and specialised
field, has the expertise and network available to adequately assess the viability and potential for
success of these projects. Ultimately, this leads to quicker funding that better serves living labs
while potentially increasing the likelihood of successfully funded projects.
7.3 Reflections on Methodology
This thesis sought to answer three questions that aligned with the triple bottom line. These
questions focused on identifying and understanding living labs for sustainability, exploring
how the funding regime supports living labs and evaluating whether social equity issues persist
within living labs. The thesis was supported by four research methods: literature analysis,
survey, interviews and GIS analysis.
Literature analysis looked at those living labs included in the ENoLL database and those
identified by the GUST project. This scope limited the study of living labs for sustainability to
those only contained within these realms. For the purpose of this study, to begin to address
the plethora of unanswered research questions surrounding living labs, this scope is adequate.
However, for further and more long-term analysis, a more complete database of living lab
initiatives is needed. ENoLL consists of those living labs willing to pay annual dues and the

65
GUST project relied on the team of researchers’ personal experience within their host country
to identify living labs. The survey revealed that 25% of respondents say their living lab has not
always been framed as such; further, some still do not use the phrase despite meeting the
academic and practical definition. Therefore, any further attempts to identify and locate living
labs for sustainability will require a much more thorough and intensive process of engaging
and interviewing experts on the ground in countries and cities throughout Europe to properly
identify potential living labs for sustainability.
The interviews conducted were enlightening and useful for the purposes of this thesis.
However, efforts to speak with more individuals representing funding agencies were made in
hopes of getting a more varied cultural and geographical perspective. In total, nineteen
individuals were contacted from fifteen different funding agencies throughout Europe. There
was a lack of availability and enthusiasm to help in this research. Many replied stating they
were unavailable due to their holiday plans. Others were apprehensive due to their perceived
poor English skills or lack of knowledge regarding funding of innovation in cities. Meanwhile,
many others declined to be interviewed or did not respond to interview requests. While there
were legitimate reasons for unavailability, I would also conclude that, given the previous
correspondence with funding agencies, there was a general lack of transparency and
forthcomingness of information.
The survey gathered some valuable qualitative data to be used in this research. However, there
was a generally low response-rate of 13.7% that should make the reader cautious in
generalising statistics and percentages presented as true of the whole population of living labs.
In reflecting on the low response rate, many possible explanations abound. In part, the survey
may have been too long or did not accurately pertain to the activities of living labs. Moreover,
there may have been an inability among survey respondents to answer the survey in a way that
reflected the meaning they would use in their native languages due to limited vocabulary.
Despite this, the qualitative data gleaned from the survey proved extremely valuable in
answering the posed research questions, as there was no effort to generalise the population of
living labs.
A living lab practitioner reached out to researchers to say he was unable to access the survey
via the link provided. After consultation with the survey tool, numerous tests and surveys
already submitted, it appeared that this was a localised problem. However, it is unclear if and
how many other respondents were affected by similar issues, which would have reduced the
number of people able to complete the survey. The survey tool used is offered by Lund
University called the Artologik Survey & Report software. There was or is no reason to
suspect a wide-scale problem relating to accessibility.
The nature of the survey administered to the living labs – large number of open-ended
questions in a structured format – qualifies as an online interview (Flick, 2006, p. 256). Online
interviewing is a growing methodology in the social sciences allowing for increased anonymity
and a decline in demand on the time of interviewees (Flick, 2006). However, this approach is
limited to only those willing to participate in such a manner (Flick, 2006) as found in this
research. Regardless, the tool is a useful qualitative method that provided important insights
into living labs for sustainability used throughout this thesis.
This analysis marks the first known attempt to leverage GIS in community-based research of
living labs. This, in itself, is a large contribution to the field, along with the pertinent results
showing living labs are embedded within disadvantaged communities; yet, they may not be
engaging with these communities. While this attempt proved fruitful for the scale and
ambition of this thesis, for further and more thorough investigation, more detailed and

66
complete GIS data is needed. Further, as suggested by Omer (2005), high-resolution
household-level data is needed in order to accurately assess social equity issues at a
neighbourhood level. This analysis is not yet possible until further efforts to harmonise and
standardise EU geospatial data are completed.
In viewing living labs and social equity through the lens of accessibility, physical proximity
cannot be the only factor contributing to involvement of end-users in a living lab. While
physical proximity was used in this approach, this does not fully capture the characteristics of
the end-users in living labs. In particular, since living labs often operate with particular
motivations, engaged users may travel greater distances to participate in causes they identify
with. For example, community-based research that uses Euclidean distance without
understanding the neighbourhood and city context ignores cultural boundaries that prevent
those with close physical proximity from being involved in living labs (Omer, 2006). Further,
the emergence of ad-hoc groups with strong motivations for social justice or environment is
typical within communities (Omer, 2006) and may be engaged in living labs while being
outside of the community. While it is important to keep this in mind when conducting
community-based research, this is more applicable to city-specific research as opposed to
widespread analysis as conducted in this study.
7.4 Further Research
This section discussing further research could be endless. Literature alludes to a multitude of
unanswered and unknown questions pertaining to living labs. However, to begin, the analysis
and recommendations included here provide a good starting point for further research.
While living labs for sustainability tend to focus on energy efficiency and smart city solutions,
the impact of these interventions is unknown. Perhaps living labs that focus on transport and
mobility have seen more success and deserve greater attention due to their transformative
potential. To underscore this, the effectiveness of experiments and activities performed by
living labs is worth investigating. Since a variety of participatory methods are used, a set of
best practices from successful living labs would help in the transferability of approaches,
keeping in mind the varying contexts.
This thesis makes recommendations on how to better serve the funding of living labs to
ensure that they do indeed realise their transformative potential. These recommendations
require further analysis and investigation with a larger geographical and cultural perspective of
funding agencies.
In this study, GIS is used to examine social and spatial equity of living labs already existing
within cities. However, to ensure social and spatial equity, living lab practitioners can use GIS
to identify the target neighbourhoods for their interventions. This approach was used in
targeting neighbourhoods for community-based initiatives (see Table 3-1) in the Midwest of
the United States (Huber et al., 2009). To improve community-based research of living labs, it
is important to gain a better understanding of those individuals engaged in living labs. Further,
more complete demographic data of populations in cities is needed.
The analysis contained here begins to answer more conceptual questions regarding the
scalability and transferability of living labs as a mechanism for urban sustainability transitions.
This is in line with the on-going work of the GUST project.
To conclude this section, it is important to include valuable reflections provided by
interviewees on the state of research regarding living labs. Jarmo Eskelinen suggests that
further research looks at a variety of social equity and ethical issues impacting living labs

67
(personal communication, August 11, 2015). In particular, he sees living labs continuing to use
ICT equipment to engage and monitor end-users to help generate solutions. However, this
raises ethical issues regarding a person’s privacy, the role of surveillance and people’s rights. I
take this one step further to highlight the fact that people are engaged in co-creation and co-
generation of innovations; yet, they do not see any of the financial returns associated with the
innovation should the product or process become commercialised to a large degree.
Lastly, interviewees highlight the role of research in investigating living labs. All interviewees
discussed the lag between research and innovation occurring in cities. In a fast-paced and
evolving field of study, it makes sense that research would lag the quick and adaptive
processes of living labs. Therefore, research needs to study what is happening from a
theoretical point of view but avoid offering up new ideas and approaches as these are best
tried and tested by practitioners (R. Engström, August 21, 2015). Further, some living labs
discuss the feeling of being abused by researchers. Researchers have been characterised by
having extreme interest in living labs and their activities. They extensively study the practices
of living labs. However, living labs have expressed disappointment in not being included and
better involved in the process after observation. Therefore, it is beneficial for researchers to
follow-up with the living lab under investigation to continue the dialogue.

68
8 Conclusions
The concept of innovation is paradoxical in so far as that it is both a driver for our current
unsustainable society and it is regarded as the necessity to transition to a new, more resilient
and sustainable future. Living labs are seen as one mechanism that may contribute to urban
sustainability transformations.
The purpose of this thesis was to contribute to the growing body of work describing living
labs by investigating the environmental, economic and social factors contributing to the
viability of living labs. To do this, three research questions were asked:
§ How do living labs engage with sustainability?
§ How does the current funding regime support living labs?
§ To what extent do social equity issues arise in the implementation of living labs?
This thesis employed literature analysis, interviews, survey and GIS analysis as methods used
to answer these posed research questions. The variety of methods was used to triangulate
findings pertaining to funding and social equity issues in living labs.
Living labs for sustainability were found to focus on energy efficiency and smart city solutions.
This focus makes sense considering the living lab methodology developed in response to the
advancements made in the ICT sector. However, living labs engage in a wide-variety of
sustainability aspects including transport, construction, low carbon futures, renewable energy,
urban gardening, among others. Furthermore, living labs employ a wide-range of participatory
methodologies to engage with end-users including co-creation workshops, interviews, surveys
and emails.
Many actors support living exist at all levels of government from the European Commission
to the municipal level along with industrial and private actors. However, the existing funding
regime favours funding projects over processes or platforms. The funding of projects provides
short-term support to living labs, yet, living labs require time to build substantial trust and
relationships in order to optimally perform. Further, the funding of projects thus far has not
fully capitalised in up-scaling innovation to meet the European Commission’s and others’
motivation for increased competiveness, improved employment opportunities and increased
standard of living.
Lastly, GIS analysis of living labs within the Netherlands and the United Kingdom found that
these living labs tended to be embedded in disadvantaged communities, those communities
with low average household income, high population density and/or high levels of
deprivation. This may suggest that living labs are including those disadvantaged communities
most susceptible to climate change and urbanisation challenges. However, the survey of living
labs and interviews revealed that this was not generally the case. While living labs are
embedded in these communities, those engaged in the living labs are often higher income
earners, highly educated, male and less ethnically diverse than their surrounding communities.
As a result of this research, Chapter 7 provided recommendations to living labs, funding
agencies and researchers. Harnessing the living lab as a public-private-people partnership, this
approach was integrated with the triple bottom line. This suggests that people are of utmost
importance when implementing living labs for sustainability, drawing on open and social
innovation theory. In part, living labs must rely on the input from all relevant people to co-
create solutions that work best for those most impacted by environmental challenges. Further,

69
living labs employ processes that foster knowledge integration and social learning which can
be used to overcome the knowledge-action gap.
Since funding agencies have been found to inadequately serve the needs of living labs,
recommendations were made to improve the funding regime to support platforms and
processes for innovation. In particular, this included long-term and conditional funding that
allows living labs to build adequate trust without uncertainty and the administrative burden of
reapplying for funding. Moreover, improved co-financing models and the funding agency
serving as a receptacle for best practices of self-sustaining business models are suggested.
Open and agile processes of funding are needed to meet the real-life nature of living labs that
face uncertainty and require funding more quickly as challenges or projects arise. More small,
localised or specialised calls can be implemented to enable for a more adaptive and quick
funding response time. While this allows for more efficient allocation of funds in a targeted
manner, it opens the door for potential corruption.
Lastly, this research begins to answer conceptual questions that help members of the research
team associated with the GUST Project, among other academics, in assessing the
transformative potential of living labs. More research is needed to address the effectiveness of
living labs in spurring technological and social innovation for sustainability. Further, the
impacts on governance of cities and best practices are needed to determine the transferability
and interoperability of living labs within and among cities. However, researchers should ensure
they keep living labs engaged in the research process so there does not become a point when
living labs feel taken advantage of and refuse collaboration in future research.
Lastly, recommendations can be made to municipalities. These public actors may consider
initiating living labs in order to improve their decision-making processes as living labs offer
the ability to make contact with citizenry and to develop mutual trust and understanding.
Further, municipal buy-in and community support is essential in the unravelling and
integration of innovations from living labs for sustainability.
While living labs represent a pathway towards urban sustainability transformation, existing
governance structures and regimes must possess the capacity to integrate and maintain
sustainability initiatives in cities. Further, living labs only represent one tool to be used among
a wide-range of methods to tackle the global and urban challenges we face as a society, in
particular urbanisation and climate change. In fact, we need to test as many different ideas and
solutions that may potentially trigger urban sustainability transformations. This research is only
a starting point.

70
Bibliography
Amsterdam Smart City. (n.d.). City-zen. Retrieved August 20, 2015, from
http://amsterdamsmartcity.com/projects/detail/id/78/slug/city-zen?lang=en
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing  : a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York  : Longman, cop. 2001.
Ballon, P., Pierson, J., & Delaere, S. (2005). Test and experimentation platforms for broadband innovation:
Examining European practice. Available at SSRN 1331557. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1331557
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory.
Barthel, S., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (2010). Social–ecological memory in urban gardens—Retaining the capacity
for management of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 255–265.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.01.001
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives  : the classification of educational goals. New York  : David McKay,
cop. 1956.
Bulkeley, H., & Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate
change: Government by experiment? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00535.x
Bush, I. G., Gillson, A., Hamilton, M., & Perrin, M. (2005). Public Participation - Drawing the Boundaries. Water
and Environment Journal, 19(3), 181–188. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2005.tb01585.x
Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2000). Public Involvement and Planning: Looking beyond the One to the Many.
International Planning Studies, 5(3), 321–344. http://doi.org/10.1080/713672862
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (n.d.). Statistische gegevens per vierkant. Retrieved from
http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/E29D852E-0AD5-40AD-AF57-
C42F811487B6/0/Statistischegegevenspervierkantupdateoktober2014.pdf
Centre for Social Innovation. (n.d.). Social Innovation. Retrieved August 9, 2015, from
http://socialinnovation.ca/about/social-innovation
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation  : the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Mass.  :
Harvard Business School Press, cop. 2003.

71
Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: researching a new paradigm.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Childers, D. L., Pickett, S. T. A., Grove, J. M., Ogden, L., & Whitmer, A. (2014). Advancing urban sustainability
theory and action: Challenges and opportunities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 320–328.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.022
Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., … Scholl, H. J. (2012).
Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework (pp. 2289–2297). IEEE.
http://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.615
Commoner, B. (1992). Making peace with the planet. New York  : New Press, cop. 1992.
Cooke, P., Davies, C., & Wilson, R. (2002). Innovation Advantages of Cities: From Knowledge to Equity in Five
Basic Steps. European Planning Studies, 10(2), 233–250. http://doi.org/10.1080/09654310120114517
Delanty, G. (2001). Challenging knowledge: the university in the knowledge society. Buckingham [England]  ; Philadelphia,
PA: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Directorate General for Internal Policies. (2010). The Lisbon Strategy 2000-2010: An analysis and evaluation of
the methods used and results achieved. Retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201107/20110718ATT24270/20110718AT
T24270EN.pdf
Ebbesson, J. (2011). Public Participation and Privatisation in Environmental Matters: An Assessment of the
Aarhus Convention. Erasmus Law Review, 4, 71.
Edwards, C. (2009). Resilient Nation. London: Demos.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks  : the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford  : Capstone, 1997.
ENoLL. (n.d.-a). ENoLL: About Us. Retrieved August 3, 2015, from http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/aboutus
ENoLL. (n.d.-b). ENoLL Services. Retrieved August 7, 2015, from http://openlivinglabs.eu/enoll-services
European Commission. General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 “Living well, within the limits
of our planet,” Pub. L. No. No 1386/2013/EU (2013). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013D1386&from=EN
European Commission. (2014a). The Digital Agenda Toolbox. Publications Office of the European Union.
Retrieved from http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dae-toolbox

72
European Commission. (2014b, September 9). SmartSantander. Retrieved from
http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/95933_en.html
European Commission. (2015, June 22). Environment Action Programme to 2020. Retrieved August 8, 2015,
from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/
European Commission. (n.d.-a). About INSPIRE. Retrieved August 20, 2015, from
http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/48
European Commission. (n.d.-b). European Research Area. Retrieved August 19, 2015, from
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/index_en.htm
European Commission. (n.d.-c). What is Horizon 2020? - Horizon 2020 - European Commission. Retrieved
August 19, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020
European Communities. (2007). FP7 in Brief: How to get involved in the EU 7th Framework Programme for
Research. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/fp7-inbrief_en.pdf
Evans, J. (2011). Resilience, ecology and adaptation in the experimental city. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 36(2), 223–237.
Evans, J., & Karvonen, A. (2011). Living Laboratories for Sustainability: Exploring the Politics and Epistemology
of Urban Transition. In Cities and Low Carbon Transitions (pp. 126–141). Routledge.
Evans, J., & Karvonen, A. (2014). “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Lower Your Carbon Footprint!” - Urban
Laboratories and the Governance of Low-Carbon Futures: Governance of low carbon futures in
Manchester. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 413–430.
http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12077
Finland’s EU Presidency. (2006, November 20). The Helsinki Manifesto. Retrieved from
http://elivinglab.org/files/Helsinki_Manifesto_201106.pdf
Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (3rd Edition). London  : SAGE, 2006.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1993). Survey research methods. Newbury Park, Calif.  : Sage, cop. 1993.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1995). Improving survey questions  : design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.  : Sage Publications,
1995.
Fredline, L., Raybould, M., Jago, L., & Deery, M. (2005). Triple Bottom Line Event Evaluation: A proposed
framework for holistic event evaluation.

73
Frick, J., Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: exploring
prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(8), 1597–1613.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.015
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust  : the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York  : Free Press, cop. 1995.
Gieryn, T. F. (2006). City as Truth-Spot: Laboratories and Field-Sites in Urban Studies. Social Studies of Science,
36(1), 5–38. http://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705054526
Go: Smart | UbiGo. (n.d.). Retrieved August 9, 2015, from http://www.ubigo.se/las-mer/gosmart/
Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.urbanlivinglabs.net/
Grove, J. M. (2009). Cities: Managing Densely Settled Social-Ecological Systems. In C. Folke, G. P. Kofinas, & F.
S. Chapin (Eds.), Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship (pp. 281–294). Springer New York. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_13
Huber, M. S. Q., Egeren, L. A. V., Pierce, S. J., & Foster-Fishman, P. G. (2009). GIS Applications for
Community-Based Research and Action: Mapping Change in a Community-Building Initiative. Journal of
Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 37(1), 5–20. http://doi.org/10.1080/10852350802498367
JPI Urban Europe. (2012). 1st Joint Call for Proposals: Urban Europe - creating attractive, sustainable and
economically viable urban areas.
JPI Urban Europe. (n.d.). What is JPI Urban Europe? | Urban Europe. Retrieved August 19, 2015, from
http://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/about/what/
Kastens, B., & Newig, J. (2008). Will participation foster the successful implementation of the water framework
directive? The case of agricultural groundwater protection in northwest Germany. Local Environment,
13(1), 27–41. http://doi.org/10.1080/13549830701581713
Kramers, A., Höjer, M., Lövehagen, N., & Wangel, J. (2014). Smart sustainable cities – Exploring ICT solutions
for reduced energy use in cities. Environmental Modelling & Software, 56, 52–62.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.12.019
Kranz, N., Ridder, D., & Patel, M. (2006, August). Ecological Briefs on International Relations and Sustainable
Development: Public Participation in European River Basin Management. Ecologic.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

74
Lagendijk, A., & Lorentzen, A. (2007). Proximity, Knowledge and Innovation in Peripheral Regions. On the
Intersection between Geographical and Ogranizational Proximity. European Planning Studies, 15(4), 457–
466. http://doi.org/10.1080/09654310601133260
Lee, J., & Wong, D. W. S. (2001). Statistical Analysis with ArcView GIS. John Wiley & Sons.
Lee, M., & Abbot, C. (2003). The Usual Suspects? Public Participation under the Aarhus Convention. The Modern
Law Review, 66(1), 80–108.
Lennard, L. (2005). Talk to me. Utility Week, 23(17), 26–26.
Lepik, K.-L., Krigul, M., & Terk, E. (2010). Introducing Living Lab’s Method as Knowledge Transfer from one
Socio-Institutional Context to another: Evidence from Helsinki-Tallinn Cross-Border Region. J. UCS,
16(8), 1089–1101.
Liedtke, C., Jolanta Welfens, M., Rohn, H., & Nordmann, J. (2012). LIVING LAB: user‐driven innovation for
sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2), 106–118.
http://doi.org/10.1108/14676371211211809
Lööf, H., & Nabavi, P. (2013). Increasing returns to smart cities. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 5(2), 255–262.
http://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12008
Loorbach, D., van Bakel, J. C., Whiteman, G., & Rotmans, J. (2010). Business strategies for transitions towards
sustainable systems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(2), 133–146. http://doi.org/10.1002/bse.645
Louka, D. E. (2008). Water Law and Policy: Governance Without Frontiers. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374131.001.0001/acprof-
9780195374131
Maastricht Lab. (n.d.). Maastricht Lab [http://www.maastrichtlab.nl/en/]. Retrieved August 20, 2015, from
http://www.maastrichtlab.nl/en/
Massard, N., & Mehier, C. (2005). Proximity, accessibility to knowledge and innovation”. In paper for the 10th
International Conference of Regional Studies Association on “Regional Growth Agendas”, Aalborg (Denmark), May
(pp. 28–31). Retrieved from
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nadine_Massard/publication/46527408_Proximity_and_Innovat
ion_through_an_%27Accessibility_to_Knowledge%27_Lens/links/0912f511227237ae35000000.pdf

75
McLennan, D., Barnes, H., Noble, M., Davies, J., Garratt, E., & Dibben, C. (2011, March). The English Indices
of Deprivation 2010. Department for Communities and Local Government. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6320/1870718.pdf
Meimeth, M., & Robertson, J. D. (Eds.). (2012). Sustainable development - how to bridge the knowledge-action gap?:
exploring the added value of social and cultural perspectives (1st ed). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Mensink, W., Birrer, F. A., & Dutilleul, B. (2010). Unpacking European living labs: analysing innovation’s social
dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy, (1), 60–85.
Morton, C. M., Peterson, N. A., Speer, P. W., Reid, R. J., & Hughey, J. (2012). Applying geographic information
systems to community research. In L. Jason, D. Glenwick, L. (Ed) Jason, & D. (Ed) Glenwick (Eds.),
Methodological approaches to community-based research. (pp. 205–220). Washington, DC, US: American
Psychological Association. Retrieved from
http://ludwig.lub.lu.se/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN
=2011-21702-012&site=eds-live&scope=site
Mulvenna, M., Martin, S., McDade, D., Beamish, E., Oliveira, Á., & Kivilehto, A. (2011). TRAIL Living Labs
Survey 2011: A survey of the ENoLL living labs. University of Ulster.
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. National endowment for
science, technology and the art. Retrieved from
http://blog.eisco2012.eu/home/european/library/literature/Social_Innovator_020310.pdf
Omer, I. (2006). Evaluating accessibility using house-level data: A spatial equity perspective. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems, 30(3), 254–274. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2005.06.004
Pezzoli, K. (1997). Sustainable Development: A Transdisciplinary Overview of the Literature. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 40(5), 549–574. http://doi.org/10.1080/09640569711949
Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6),
878–885. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.02.011
Robrecht, H. (2015, May). Get to know about climate services, living labs and learning alliances. Presented at the The 2nd
European Climate Change Adaptation Conference.
Rogers, M., & Ryan, R. (2001). The Triple Bottom Line for Sustainable Community Development. Local
Environment, 6(3), 279–289. http://doi.org/10.1080/13549830120073275

76
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology
& Human Values, 25(1), 3–29. http://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101
Salter, R., & White, S. (2014). Collaborative research in the real world: Review of Living Laboratories. Low
Carbon Living. Retrieved from http://www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/resources/crc-
publications/reports/collaborative-research-real-world-review-living-laboratories
Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., & Oliveira, A. (2011). Smart Cities and the
Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation. In The Future Internet (Vol.
6656, pp. 431–446). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-642-20898-0
Schliwa, G. (2013, September). Exploring Living Labs through Transition Management: Challenges and Opportunities for
Sustainable Urban Transitions. Lund University. Retrieved from
http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lup/publication/4091934
Science Park of the University of Valencia. (n.d.). Evomobile. Retrieved August 9, 2015, from
http://www.pcuv.es/en/evomobile/inicio.html
Shiroyama, H., Yarime, M., Matsuo, M., Schroeder, H., Scholz, R., & Ulrich, A. E. (2012). Governance for
sustainability: knowledge integration and multi-actor dimensions in risk management. Sustainability
Science, 7(1), 45–55. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0155-z
SmartSantander. (n.d.). Open Calls. Retrieved August 23, 2015, from
http://www.smartsantander.eu/index.php/open-calls
Smulian, M. (2012, March 21). Budget 2012: First “city deal” gives Manchester tax back. Retrieved August 20,
2015, from http://www.lgcplus.com/budget-2012-first-city-deal-gives-manchester-tax-
back/5042972.article
Ståhlbröst, A., & Holst, M. (2012). The Living Lab Methodology Handbook. Luleå University of Technology.
Retrieved from http://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.101555!/file/LivingLabsMethodologyBook_web.pdf
Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G. K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., … Midgley, B. M. (2013). IPCC,
2013: climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

77
The Alcotra Innovation Consortium. (2013). How to set up Cross-Border Living Labs: The Alcotra Innovation
Experience Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.alcotra-
innovation.eu/livingLabs/dwd/Alcotra_Innovazione_Handbook_2013.pdf
TLL-Sicily. (n.d.). Retrieved August 6, 2015, from http://tll-sicily.ning.com/
Tom Beer, & Ismail-Zadeh, A. (2002). The Budapest Manifesto on Risk Science and Sustainability. Springer Science &
Business Media. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6gE4ZcsRcRgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22of+citi
es+to+natural,+technological+and+to+social+threats.+We,+as%22+%22of+knowledge+exchange+a
nd+communication.+Risk+evaluation+must%22+%22that+underlie+them.+In+many+cases+the+in
teraction+between+science,%22+&ots=YA6fNchewA&sig=QKviRxZoa0ISgA9nP3yyxP9kl28
Triple bottom line. (2009, November 17). The Economist. Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/node/14301663
Tsou, K.-W., Hung, Y.-T., & Chang, Y.-L. (2005). An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial
equity in urban public facilities. Cities, 22(6), 424–435. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2005.07.004
UbiGo. (2015, May 24). UbiGo – Mobility as a Service in reality. Retrieved
from http://www.ubigo.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/About_UbiGo_May2015.pdf
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, & Population Division. (2014). World urbanization
prospects: the 2014 revision: highlights.
urb@exp. (n.d.). About Urban Labs. Retrieved from http://www.urbanexp.eu/urban-labs
Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2013). Linking Living Lab Characteristics and
Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(2).
Retrieved from http://timreview.ca/article/748
Veeckman, C., & van der Graaf, S. (2015). The City as Living Laboratory: Empowering Citizens with the Citadel
Toolkit. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(3), 6–17.
Vinnova. (n.d.). Strategically important knowledge areas [text]. Retrieved August 19, 2015, from
http://www.vinnova.se/en/Our-acitivities/Strategically-important-knowledge-areas/
Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J., & Schliwa, G. (2015). Urban living labs for sustainability and low
carbon cities in Europe: towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.053

78
WCED. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.
Retrieved from http://www.ask-force.org/web/Sustainability/Brundtland-Our-Common-Future-1987-
2008.pdf
Welp, M. (2001). The use of decision support tools in participatory river basin management. Physics and Chemistry
of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere, 26(7–8), 535–539. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-
1909(01)00046-6
Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., … van der Leeuw, S. (2011).
Tipping Toward Sustainability: Emerging Pathways of Transformation. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human
Environment, (7), 762. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9
Wiek, A., Kay, B., & Forrest, N. (in press). Worth the Trouble?! An Evaluative Scheme for Urban Sustainability
Transition Labs (USTL) and an Application to the USTL in Phoenix, Arizona. In Urban Sustainability
Transitions.
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The
challenge of making cities “just green enough.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

79
Appendix I. Personal Communications
Interviews with Funding Agencies and Relevant Stakeholders
1. Jonas Bylund, JPI Urban Eurpope - June 19, 2015
2. Jarmo Eskelinen – Former President of European Network of Living Labs | CEO or Forum
Virium Helsinki Living Lab – August 10, 2015
3. Kristina Björnberg, Senior Associate Researcher, Formas – August 19, 2015
4. Rebecka Engström, Senior Programme Mannager, Vinnova – August 20, 2015
5. Alexander Alvsilver, Programme Manager, Vinnova – August 27, 2015
Informal Discussions and Email Correspondence
1. Jonas Bylund, JPI Urban Europe – May 12, 2015 | October 8, 2015
2. Rob Swart, Coordinator – International Climate Adaptation Research, Alterra | Chair, JPI
Climate Working Group – May 12, 2015

80
Appendix II. Survey of Living Labs
Living Labs – What is your impact?
The purpose of this survey is to connect living lab practitioners to on-going academic
research on living labs for sustainability. Your project has been identified for further study as
a project for sustainability and may be considered a living lab. A living lab is broadly defined
as a venue devised to design, test and learn from social and technical innovation in real time.
The survey explores user involvement and funding strategies for this type of innovation for
sustainability. The results of the survey will be used to verify information about living labs
provided in interviews by those in academia, funding agencies and fellow living labs.
Completion of the survey is voluntary; you may answer any question(s) you wish. No
information submitted to the survey will be shared with any funding agency. The purpose is
to investigate and advance living lab methodology.
This survey is conducted as a part of research for a Master’s thesis titled Mapping Urban
Futures. The research is supported by the International Institute for Industrial Environmental
Economics (IIIEE) at Lund University in Lund, Sweden. The thesis is written in
collaboration with the Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions (GUST) project
(http://www.urbanlivinglabs.net/), which is funded by JPI Urban Europe and includes partners
from Lund University (Sweden), Dutch Research Institute for Transition (the Netherlands),
University of Durham (the United Kingdom) and Joanneum Research (Austria). The project
aims to investigate and advance urban living labs.
For more information, please contact Steven Curtis at steven.curtis.436@student.lu.se.
Living Lab Information
This section aims to gather biographical data about your project for sustainability. You may
consider yourself a living lab or use participatory methodology similar to that of a living lab.
The information provided in this section will help to develop a greater understanding of
strategic focus and trends among living labs for sustainability.
JPI Urban Europe defines a living lab as “a forum for innovation, applied to the
development of new products, systems, services, and processes, employing working methods
to integrate people into the entire development process as users and co-creators, to explore,
examine, experiment, test and evaluate new ideas, scenarios, processes, systems, concepts and
creative solutions in complex and real contexts.”
1. When did you begin the project?
2. Have you always framed your project as a living lab?
Yes
No
a. If not, since when did you call your activities / project a living lab?
3. Could you briefly explain how you understand the concept of a living lab?

81
4. Is your living lab still operating and active?
Yes
No
Since when?
5. Could you briefly explain the concept of your living lab?
6. Sustainability Focus:
Transport / Mobility
Building / Construction
Renewable Energy
Energy Efficiency
Recycling / Waste
Equality / Societal Issues
Low Carbon Futures / Climate
Urban Agriculture
Smart City Solutions
Housing
Other: _______
Comment, if relevant:
7. What is the primary research focus of your living lab?
Systems
Processes
Products
Services
Other: _______
Please comment, if relevant

82
8a*. Which of the following organizations are involved in the delivery of your living lab?
Local Government
University
Private Sector
National Government
European Commission
NGOs
Civic Society / User-driven
If other, please specify:
8b. Which organization/actor has most influence? Please, explain.
User Involvement
Academia seeks to understand who is involved in living labs and whose knowledge is being
accessed. This section of the survey examines the stakeholders involved and the type,
frequency and number of end-users or participants engaged. An end-user is defined as a
person outside of living lab management who engages in the co-production and co-creation
of knowledge through community engagement activities.
9. On average, how many engagement activities with end-users do your living lab conduct every month? Please,
comment:
10. Approximately, how many end-users are involved in your living lab every month? Please, comment:
11*. Do you have an evaluation procedure in place to find out how end-users view their experience of being
involved in your living lab?
Yes, formal (e.g. surveys, focus groups)
Yes, informal (e.g. conversations, meetings)
No process in place
If other, please specify:
12. What type of participatory methodologies do you use to engage with end-users (if any)?
Please try to list as many ways of how you engage with users as possible starting with the most frequent.

83
13*. How easy or difficult has it been to engage with end-users?
Very Easy
Easy
Difficult
Very Difficult
We do not engage with end-users
Please specify why that is:
14. Some living labs have been described as “demonstration projects [that] are simply ‘dropped into’ urban
areas rather than integrated with their local contexts.” How would you respond to this characterization?
15. How does your living lab make an effort to engage and integrate with your communities?
16. On average, how far (time/distance) do you think end-users travel to engage with your living lab and its
activities?
Time
Distance
17. How would you describe end-users / participants in your living lab from a demographical perspective?
Gender: ___ % women / ___ % men
Age: ___ to ___
Estimated Income: ___ to ___ Euros
Average level of education:
Included races and ethnicities:
Funding of Living Labs
This section seeks to understand the relationship between the living labs and their funding
partners. By understanding who funds a living lab, how competitive the process of securing
the funding is and what expectations both parties have, the funding system can be better
designed to ensure adequate funding mechanisms that advance those successful living labs.
18. How long do you have funding for your project?
19. What are the plans for the project beyond the funded period? (ex. end of living lab, seek further funding,
self-sustaining, etc.)

84
20*. Has access to funding been a problem for your living lab?
Yes, major problem.
Yes, minor problem.
No, not a problem.
If other, please specify
Comment:
21. How has access to funding changed over time, if at all?
22*. What has been your main source of funding?
Government
Other Public Sector Organizations (local council, etc.)
Academia
Private Sector Organizations
European Commission
Crowd funding (ex. membership-based)
If other, please specify
23. Which program or organization provides your funding?
24. Could you provide more detail on the funding process? For example, how did you learn about the funding
opportunity? How long did it take to receive funding? Etc.
25. What kinds of requirements are placed on your living lab by the funding partner? (ex. midterm reports,
regular e-mail communication, deliverables, etc.)
26. From your perspective, what motivates the funding partner to provide financial support to your living lab?
27. From your perspective, how does your funding partner view success of their investment? What are their
expectations?

85
Respondent Information
This section of the survey is optional but appreciated. The survey seeks to be anonymous;
however, you are welcome to leave your name and contact information if you would like to
receive further updates regarding the results of the survey or more information from the
Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions (GUST).
Name of Living Lab:
Address:
Respondent Name:
Contact E-Mail:
Would you be available for a brief interview?
Yes
No

86
Appendix III. Email to Living Labs with Survey

87

88
Appendix IV. Semi-Structured Interview Guide
Interview Guide – Name of Organisation
Interviewee:
Organisation:
Title:
Interview Date:
Introduction:
This interview is in conjunction with a thesis as a part of the Master’s programme in
Environmental Management and Policy at the International Institute for Industrial
Environmental Economics of Lund University. As alluded to in our previous
communication, the thesis looks to examine three things: identify living labs for
sustainability; map and understand funding mechanisms for living labs; and, using GIS, begin
to discuss potential social equity issues in relation to living labs. The purpose of this
interview is to gain insight into your work with Formas and the overall perception of living
labs by those funding agencies.
Let’s plan to complete the interview in 30-45 minutes and if it is ok with you, may I record
this call? Does this sound agreeable? Any questions before we get started.
Reference: JPI Urban Europe Definition of a Living Lab - “It is a forum for innovation,
applied to the development of new products, systems, services, and processes, employing working methods to
integrate people into the entire development process as users and co- creators, to explore, examine, experiment,
test and evaluate new ideas, scenarios, processes, systems, concepts and creative solutions in complex and real
contexts.”
Background Information:
Highlight existing knowledge of organization and their role, past experience?
§ Can you elaborate on your role at ______?
§ What do you see is the primary role of your organization (ex. ENoLL)?
§ There are so many issues facing urban environments. In your eyes, what
particularly motivates you to focus on funding research and innovation?
§ What is your involvement with other local, national and EU funding agencies?
Living Labs and Funding:
§ Are you familiar with the term living lab?
§ When was the first time you heard the term living lab?
§ What does the term living lab mean to you?

89
§ What other terms have you heard to describe a living lab?
§ Academic literature and practitioners describe user-driven innovation in a
variety of ways. City labs. Urban labs. Change labs. Transition labs. Etc. How
do you think this impacts how living labs are perceived in society and how do
you think this impacts the proliferation of living labs?
§ With people using the term living labs in a variety of ways to mean many
things, do you think this is an impact on the funding of living labs?
§ Why do you think living labs are being as widely used in Europe in relation to
the rest of the world?
§ What do you see as the potential of living labs in urban sustainability
transitions?
§ What are the desired outcomes of funded projects?
§ What is your opinion of living labs as a buzzword? Does the use of the term
impact how evaluators look at proposals?
§ How are funded projects evaluated?
§ Do you see any obstacles or problems in the current way living labs are
funded?
§ Building trust in the communities living labs operate is important. A criticism
of the current funding regime is that they fund projects over platforms and
processes. How do you respond to this criticism? Is there any validity to it?
How can it be overcome?
§ What do you think is the future of living labs? What can we expect to see in
five years?
Social Equity Issues and Continued Research:
§ Living labs have been described as demonstration projects that are dropped
into their local communities without integrating with their local contexts.
What is your opinion of this critique of living labs? How do funding agencies
consider issues of social equity in choosing which projects to fund?
§ Does the funding agency have a role in ensuring social equity and inclusion
within the projects they fund?
§ Are you familiar with the term territorial living lab? How does a funding
agency view the promise of a territorial living lab?
§ How can living labs be able to become self-sustaining? What is your opinion
of co-financing? Conditional funding?
§ Among the motivations for funding living labs, funding agencies and the EU
want to see increased EU and national competiveness, innovation and
employment. Further, commercialisation is important when discussing
innovation. Do you have any insights in how funding agencies can facilitate
the up-scaling and proliferation of solutions for sustainability from living labs?
§ How do you see academics looking to research living labs working together
with practitioners of living labs? How can the process be improved?

90
Appendix V. Living Labs for Sustainability
Name of Living Lab Country City
Smart City Project Graz Austria Graz
VIsion Step I Austria Villach
Lakecity Aspern Vienna Austria Vienna
Smart District Gnigl Austria Salzburg
Smart City Hartberg Austria Hartberg
E-Mobility: Greater Graz Austria Graz
Erntelaa, Wien Liesing Austria Vienna
Vienna Shares Austria Vienna
Urban Farm Austria Leonding
ICEC: Interethnic Coexistence in European
Cities - Gumpendorf
Austria Vienna
Cities - Hippviertel
Austria Vienna
Cities - Breitensee
Austria Vienna
Flemish Living Lab Platform Belgium Mechelen
Ghent Living Lab Belgium Ghent
Virtual Services and Open Innovation Bulgaria Sofia
Rijeka iLiving Lab Croatia Rijeka
WIRELESSINFO – Czech Living Labs Czech
Republic
Cholinská
Copenhagen Living Lab Denmark Copenhagen
Regional strategic impact through creative
use of ICT (LLMidt)
Denmark Viborg
Helsinki Living Lab - Forum Virium
Helsinki
Finland Helsinki
Agro Living Lab Finland Seinäjoki
Kainuu Living Lab (Snowpolis) Finland Sotkamo
Northern Rural-Urban Living Lab
(NorthRULL)
Finland Oulu
HumanTech LivingLab Finland Jyväskylä
TAMK Living Lab Finland Tampere
Smart City Living Lab France Paris
Lorraine Smart Cities Living Lab France Nancy
Live with Risk Living Lab France Tarascon
Paris Region Lab France Paris
Espace et Living Labs - E2L (PATS - E2L) France Toulouse
Design Creative Living Lab (DCC-L) France Saint-Etienne
CIMLAB France Le Marigot
OFF-ROAD MEMORY Living Lab France Nantes
Urban Living Lab (Versailles Saint-Quentin-
en-Yvelines)
France Versailles
CAREEP LIVING LAB France Saint-Mande
Bremen Ambient Assisted Living Lab Germany Kaiserslautern

91
Homokháti Rural Living Laboratory Hungary Szeged
Green Living Lab Hungary Szombathely
Iceland LL Iceland Reykjavik
Dublin Living Lab Ireland Dublin
Enerlab Italy Monte San Giusto
X-Lab Italy Bologna
Knowledge-based Lifecycle Innovation
living Lab (KLIO Lab)
Italy Lecce
City of the Future Living Lab Italy Milan
Leaning Lab Italy Pisa
Living Piemonte Italy Torino
C.LAB - Piedmont Community Labs Italy Torino
Torre Guaceto Living Lab: the living lab in
the Natural Reserve
Italy Milan
Research Innovation Centre Italy Rome
Green Schools Italy Treviso
Living Lab Malta Malta Kalkara
Amsterdam Living Lab Netherlands Amsterdam
Eindhoven Living Lab Netherlands Eindhoven
Foundation the Hague Innovation Motor
(HIM)
Netherlands Rotterdam
Concept House Netherlands Rotterdam
Open Ebbinge Lab Netherlands Groningen
Maastricht Lab Netherlands Maastricht
Veerkracht Carnisse Netherlands Rotterdam
Living Lab Nieuw West Netherlands Amsterdam
Living Lab Buiksloterham Netherlands Amsterdam
European Urban Transportation
Experience Lab, or the EU/t ELab
Netherlands
Urban Gro Lab Netherlands Groningen
Stadslab Leiden Netherlands Leiden
RENER Living Lab – Portuguese Smart
Cities Network
Portugal Lisbon
Lighting Living Lab Portugal Agueda
Sustainable Construction Living Lab Portugal Sintra
ECO LivingLab@Chamusca Portugal Chamusca
Smart Rural Living Lab Portugal Penela
ISaLL - Intelligent Sensing and Smart
Services Living Lab
Portugal Coimbra
E-zavod Living Lab Slovenia Ptuj
Tragsa R&D Labs Spain Madrid
Subbética Cordobesa Living Lab Spain Cordoba
Living Lab La Serena Spain Castuera
Platja de Palma Living Tur (PdP LL) Spain Palma
Man & Earth Living Lab Spain Madrid

92
Living Lab Campiña de Jerez Spain La Barca de la Florida
RURAL LIVING LAB PIRINEUS Spain Solsona
EVOMOBILE Spain Valencia
BIRD LIVING LAB Spain San Sebastian
Cudillero Living Lab Spain Madrid
IoT Smart Santander Living Lab Spain Santander
Guadalhorce Living Lab Spain Malaga
AGDR Sierra de las Nieves Spain Sierra de las Nieves
Málaga Living Lab Spain Malaga
LivingCAR Living Lab Spain Madrid
Malmö Innovation Platform Sweden Malmö
Shape your world Urban Living Lab Sweden Botkyrka
New light on Alby Hill Urban Living Lab Sweden Botkyrka
Vacant space Alby Urban Living Lab Sweden Botkyrka
Living Lab UbiGo Sweden Gothenburg
Living Lab Fabriken (The Factory) Sweden Malmö
Experimental house Hållbarheten Sweden Malmö
Färgfabriken Sweden Stockholm
Norrby Innovation Platform Sweden Borås
TEEA-LL Sweden Malmö
The Elis Platform: Enabling Energy
Efficiency Apps
Sweden Malmö
HS 2020 Sweden Hammarby Sjöstad (Stockholm)
iHomeLab Living Lab Switzerland Horw
Energy Living Lab Switzerland Sierre
Centre for Sustainable Technologies (CST) United
Kingdom
Newtownabbey
City Lab Coventry United
Kingdom
Coventry
Future City Glasgow United
Kingdom
Glasgow
MK: SMART United
Kingdom
Milton Keynes
Future Cities Catapult United
Kingdom
London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Leeds,
Manchester, Bristol, Aarhus, Santander, etc.
Sensing London (Fiture Cities Catapult) United
Kingdom
London
OrganiCity (Future Cities Catapult) United
Kingdom
London, UK (together with Aarhus, Denmark,
and Santander, Spain)
Newcastle Science City United
Kingdom
Newcastle upon Tyne
London Electric Mobility United
Kingdom
London
Muswell Hill (Haringey) Low Carbon Zones
(one of 10 London Low Carbon Zones*)
United
Kingdom
London
NW Bicester Ecotown (Phase One: NW
Bicester Exemplar)
United
Kingdom
Bicester, Oxfordshire
Eco Bicester Living Lab United
Kingdom

93
Eco Bicester United
Kingdom
Bristol Energy Network United
Kingdom
Bristol
The Selby Trust: The Community Energy
Lab
United
Kingdom
London
Greening Wingrove United
Kingdom
Newcastle upon Tyne
Greater Manchester Low Carbon Hub United
Kingdom
Manchester
Corridor Manchester ('Lighthouse Project') United
Kingdom
Manchester
York Without Walls United
Kingdom
York

StevenCurtis_Thesis_LivingLabsforSustainability

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to StevenCurtis_Thesis_LivingLabsforSustainability (20)

StevenCurtis_Thesis_LivingLabsforSustainability