Abstract
Cities, where more than half of the world’s population resides nowadays, face a number of challenges that require innovative solutions. This paper pays attention on the emergence of Urban Living Labs that foster urban innovations by bringing various stakeholders, ranging from local governments to citizens, together to co-create innovation. Based on the concept of ‘Living Labs’ - “user-driven innovation environments where users and producers co-create innovation in a trusted, open ecosystem that enables business and societal innovation” (The European Network of Living Labs, 2015) – various types of Urban Living Labs have emerged over the recent years. This paper explores different ways Urban Living Labs operate and contribute to fostering urban social innovation. Three cases of urban living labs - Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab (Seoul, Korea), Living Lab The Neighborhood (Malmö, Sweden), and Living Lab Shanghai (Shanghai, China) – are studied. The three urban living labs are geographically, culturally, and structurally different, but have in common that they aim to foster urban sustainability, with a focus on social innovation. Main actors of each urban living lab, their motivation and roles, representative projects, and (expected) outcomes are examined. Based on the case studies and literature review, this paper highlights the distinctive nature and potential of ‘design-driven’ urban living labs.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Emergence of Urban Living Labs
In 2015, the United Nations announced an agenda for sustainable development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals [1]. The 17 goals include ‘sustainable cities and communities’, as the population living in cities has already reached 50 percent of the world population, and is projected to grow up to 70 percent by 2050 [2]. Cities face a number of challenges that require ‘increasingly sophisticated tools and solutions’ [3].
This paper pays attention on the potential of ‘Urban Living Labs’ that have emerged around the world in recent years. Originally developed as a methodology to develop and test new technologies with end-users in real-life environments, the ‘Living Lab’ approach has been adopted in various contexts, including ‘territorial innovation’ in urban and regional settings. Based on the concept of ‘Living Labs’, defined as “user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real life communities and settings” [6], Urban Living Labs refer to a city or regional level living lab [7]. The principles of living lab approaches, such as multi-method approaches, user engagement, multi-stakeholder participation, real-life setting, and co-creation [8], are the basis of urban living labs, but there are various working definitions about Urban Living Labs. As an example, McCormick and Hartmann define urban living labs as “sites devised to design, test, and learn from social and technical innovation in real time” [4]. According to them, urban living labs can be considered “both as an arena (geographically or institutionally bounded spaces), and as an approach for intentional collaborative experimentation of researchers, citizens, companies and local governments” [ibid.]. Voytenko et al. define urban living labs as “a form of experimental governance, whereby urban stakeholders develop and test new technologies, products, services and ways of living to produce innovative solutions to the challenges of climate change, resilience and urban sustainability” [7]. Key characteristics of urban living labs are geographical embeddedness, experimentation and learning, participation and user involvement, leadership and ownership, and evaluation of actions and impact [4]. Similarly, Steen and van Bueren [5] described defining characteristics of urban living labs from four aspects: Goal (Innovation, Knowledge development for replication, Increasing urban sustainability), Activities (Development of innovation, Co-creation, Iteration between activities), Participants (Users, private actors, public actors, and knowledge institutes), and Context (Real-life use context).
This paper studies three cases of urban living labs - Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab (Seoul, Korea), Living Lab The Neighborhood (Malmö, Sweden), and Living Lab Shanghai (Shanghai, China) - that are geographically, culturally, and structurally different, but have in common that they aim to foster urban sustainability, with a particular emphasis on social innovation. These three cases also represent different types of urban living labs. According to McCormick and Hartmann [4], there are three types of urban living labs: strategic, civic, and grassroots. The first case Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab is an example of ‘strategic’ type of urban living labs that are led by government, and often ‘operate in the whole city area with multiple projects under one umbrella’. The third case Living Lab Shanghai is an example of ‘civic’ type of urban living labs that are led by urban actors such as universities, and focus on ‘economic and sustainable urban development’, and ‘represented by either stand-alone project or city-districts’. The second case Living Lab The Neighborhood is an example of ‘grassroots’ type of urban living labs that are led by urban actors in not for profit actors, and focus on a ‘broad agenda of well-being and economy, often host micro-projects or single issue projects and have limited budgets’. This study examines objectives, key stakeholders and their roles, representative projects, and (expected) outcomes of each urban living lab.
2 Case Studies
2.1 Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab, Seoul, Korea
Seoul Metropolitan Government, which has been actively promoting social innovation at a city level, established various intermediary organizations such as Seoul Community Support Center, and Share Hub, to facilitate innovation in the public sector. Seoul Innovation Park, a city-funded social innovation platform, is one of such organizations that connects and supports innovators, citizens, and various stakeholders [9]. Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab itself does not develop or experiment innovative ideas, but enables organizations that have promising ideas to experiment the ideas in real context. Every year, it announces a call for a project proposal that can address urban problems of the Seoul city through innovative solutions. Some calls target at specific issue (e.g. affordable housing) that Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab intends to address, but most calls are open to any urban problems defined by the applicants. This paper analyses the 2016’s program implemented with a budget of 250 million won.
The 2016’s call, titled “Changing Seoul, 100 days of experiment”, aimed to solve urban problems of Seoul through citizens’ ideas and involvements [10]. Any organization that has an innovative idea to address urban problems and capability to develop a concrete plan to experiment the idea in the city could apply. During one month of application period, 48 proposals were submitted. The submitted proposals were evaluated by a group of experts based on several criteria including innovativeness of the proposed solution. Six proposals, addressing different issues, ranging from lack of parking lots in the neighborhood to integrated education system for physically challenged students as well as unchallenged students, were selected. The selected proposals were financially supported up to 50 million won to experiment the ideas for 100 days in real-life contexts [10].
Making ‘Happy Parking Lot’ Sharing Alleys Project
One of the six proposals selected in the 2016’s call was a proposal to address parking problems in residential areas. The idea proposed by the ‘Happy Parking Lot Resident Committee’ of Doksan 4-dong, a neighborhood located in the southwest of the city, aimed to solve the lack of parking spaces in this neighborhood by changing current ‘resident priority parking’ system to ‘parking lot sharing’ system. The idea of sharing parking spaces, which used to be allocated to individual residents in the neighborhood, was a solution proposed not only to solve parking problems, but more importantly to change the alleys in the neighborhood from a ‘car-centered’ one to ‘people-centered’ one [10]. The experiment was carried out with the support of the neighborhood administrative office and a company that provided technical support. The new system was implemented through three stages, starting with introducing the new system to the residents and inviting them to join. The implementation of the new solution was not easy especially during the first two months, as it required residents’ acceptance of the new solution and collaboration, but resulted in noticeable changes beneficial to residents as well as visitors in the neighborhood. The project was highly evaluated by Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab as it led to active participation of local residents and changes in daily life, which many existing similar IT-based solutions did not succeed.
Living Lab as Innovation Incubation System
The way Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab fosters urban innovation shows characteristics similar to those of incubators. As mentioned above, unlike many Living Labs, Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab itself does not conduct any experiment or implement new solutions to address urban problems. Instead, it creates an enabling ecosystem that increases the probabilities of social entrepreneurs, NGOs, and local communities that have concrete ideas to improve urban life to emerge and survive. In this sense, what Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab produces is not only a collection of diverse ideas to address urban problems (which can be further developed into policy recommendations for the city government), but also more importantly, urban innovators nurtured through its program. In other words, it cultivates seeds of innovation in the city (Fig. 1).
Furthermore, it produces a multitude of small-scale innovation ecosystems created by participating organizations for their projects. As an example, the ‘Making Happy Parking Lot Sharing Alleys’ project created a “solid system for cooperation among private-public-industry-academia” [10] which includes a neighborhood administrative office, a private company specialized in technical aspects of the proposed solution, researchers from public/private research institutions - that had a common goal to find the right solution for the problem [10]. More importantly, the project led to the formation of a local community highly motivated and engaged in the neighborhood innovation, as the project team had raised attention and participation of the local residents throughout the 100-day experiment. It did not happen automatically. It was an outcome of dedicated efforts of the project team – especially the project manager – who spent considerable amount of time in talking with the residents to get to know and persuade them to join the experiment. In the beginning of the project, the project manager spent almost everyday in the parking lots in the alleys to make observations on the use of parking spaces (e.g. number of cars parked in designated parking spaces at different moments of a day, number of cars parked illegally), and also to explain the idea of the parking lot sharing to the residents. A report by Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab [10] mentioned that the reaction of local residents was very cold in the beginning: “Many did not want to respond to his questions but some talked to him to express their thoughts. Some requested solving the problem of illegal parking and some said that building more parking lots is more important. It was hard not to be embarrassed when some said that they understand the good purpose of this project, but they do not want this project to be done in front of their building”. The residents started to “open their heart” gradually as the project manager’s efforts continued everyday: “Some gave drinks and bread encouraging him and some even brought out their portable burner and a pot to cook instant noodles for him. He was very happy, but because of this irregular unhealthy eating habits instead of regular meals, the project manager gained 13 kg in just three months.” [ibid.] The relationship, and ‘solid system for cooperation’ built through the 100-day experiment became a fertile ground to carry out another experiment in the following year.
2.2 Living Lab the Neighborhood, Malmö, Sweden
Living Lab The Neighborhood - one of three Malmö Living Labs (MLL) established by Medea at Malmö University, a trans-disciplinary research lab focusing on media, design and public engagement [11] - was initiated in 2007 to explore ‘how a platform that could facilitate social innovation and collaborative services could be set up in the city of Malmö’. [12] Malmö used to be an industrial city, but went through an extensive transformation over the last decade, and became a university city with an increasing number of small and medium-sized IT, media and design companies [13]. The city, now described as a ‘knowledge city’ and a ‘regional growth engine’ [14], is also characterized by a high number of immigrants who mostly live in the southeastern part of the city that has high rates of child poverty and unemployment [12].
Living Lab The Neighborhood was established in this context by a group of design researchers of Medea that have been working on social innovation (Malmö DESIS Lab) with a particular attention to immigrant communities in Malmö who are socially and geographically segregated from middle and upper class people in the city.
Living Lab as a Platform for Inclusion and Infrastructuring
The founders of Living Lab The Neighborhood - design researchers who have strong background in participatory design - aimed for an ‘inclusive approach’ that will allow marginalized actors to participate [12]. Particular attention was paid on identifying and collaborating with ‘resourceful but less visible’ actors that can be considered as ‘unused assets’ [15]. In this sense, Hillgren - a researcher at Medea responsible for running Living Lab The Neighborhood - once described Living Labs as enabling platforms for “inclusion and serendipity” [16]. One of such actors they found was an organization of immigrant women called ‘Herrgård’s Women’s Association (HWA)’. The organization, founded in 2002 by five women ‘as a response to the feeling of being excluded from Swedish society’ [12], consists of approximately 400 members, including children, with diverse ethnic backgrounds, ranging from Iran to Afghanistan. Although most of the members are underprivileged, lack higher education and Swedish language skills, they are active in addressing problems in their neighborhoods and have an extensive social network among immigrant women in Malmö. [12, 15] The core members of the organization meet on a regular basis for activities such as cooking, making carpets and clothing.
Living Lab The Neighborhood connected Herrgård’s Women’s Association to diverse stakeholders - ranging from a private ICT company, to departments of the municipality, and to other NGOs - to explore opportunities and values that can be created together. Some ideas developed through a series of meetings and co-design workshops include a catering service offered by HWA to a firm in the city by using the cooking skills of the members of HWA. Another idea was to utilize the knowledge and skills of HWA for refugee children in the city. As the city opened the door for refugee children, a number of Afghan and Iraqi orphans settled down over the recent years. The idea of offering home-made Afghan meal to the refugee children was prototyped together with a company that provides accommodation for refugee children. The positive results of the prototype led to another idea – offering a cooking class to refugee children – which was prototyped with another partner that provided its kitchen for the cooking class.
The distinctive characteristics of Living Lab The Neighborhood are represented by its strategy of ‘infrastructuring’ and ‘prototyping’, both characterized by an open nature. Living Lab The Neighborhood was focused on connecting (potential) ‘actors’, rather than problems to solve or new ideas to test. Although the living lab was run by a group of design experts, they did not design any solutions directly. Their main design work was what they call ‘infrastructuring’, a process of “cultivating long-term working relationships with diverse actors and slowly build a designing network” [12]. Infrastructuring is different from a project-based partnership that has clearly defined goals and partners, with a time frame, in that it is a continuous match-making process that allows ‘for various constellations to develop and for different possibilities to be explored’ [17]. The rationale behind it is that new ideas do not always need to be “designed” by designers, but can be facilitated and co-designed by mobilizing the competences and creative potential of diverse actors. As the way two ideas - catering service, and cooking class for refugee children - were developed and prototyped illustrates, new ideas were emerged through interactions and collaboration among diverse actors mediated by the living lab in an open-ended way.
2.3 Living Lab Shanghai, Shanghai, China
Established by the College of Design and Innovation (D&I) at Tongji University in Shanghai, Living Lab Shanghai has focused on fostering sustainable development of a neighborhood by mobilizing knowledge and resources of the design college together with local stakeholders. A physical platform of Living Lab Shanghai officially opened in 2017, but even before the creation of a physical platform, design researchers of the college have been carrying out several projects in the neighborhood, with (sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit) support of the district government. The underpinning idea of those projects was that the whole neighborhood - where the college is located - could be a living laboratory. The neighborhood called ‘Siping’ is a sub-district located in Yangpu district, in northeastern part of Shanghai. Yangpu district used to be an old industrial district, but has become a knowledge-intensive district, where several top universities are located, such as Fudan university, Tongji university, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, and Shanghai university of finance and economics. In 2010, Yangpu district has become one of the first pilot districts included in the national innovation program of China.
N-ICE 2035 Project
Contrary to the prevailing approach of place development in Shanghai that has been oriented to large-scale, top-down development, Living Lab Shanghai has promoted small-scale, community-centered design approaches. The concept of ‘urban acupuncture’ [18] or ‘acupunctural design’ [19] represents such approaches. By using an analogy with acupuncture, the acupunctural design approach intends to foster large-scale, long-term changes through a number of interconnected, small-scale projects that ‘stimulate improvements and positive chain reactions’ [18].
N-ICE 2035 (Neighborhood of Innovation, Creativity and Entrepreneurship towards 2035) project is one of the projects that have been carried out in the Siping neighborhood based on the acupunctural design approach. The project, officially launched in February 2018, intends to explore and prototype future urban life through several ‘labs’ - ranging from ‘Food lab’ to ‘Fab lab’ - built in a lane in the neighborhood. The ground floor of a residential building, which used to be occupied by small local shops selling products and services to neighborhood residents, was renovated into the labs. The labs under the N-ICE 2035 project share overall project goals, but each lab is run autonomously by different groups of experts, with their own programs and business models.
Living Labs as Diffused Platforms for Collaborative Future-Making
As N-ICE 2035 project has just kicked off at the moment this paper is written, the outcomes are unknown yet. Still, two distinctive characteristics are observable already. One is its organizational structure. As illustrated in the concept of the ‘acupunctural design’ approach, Living Lab Shanghai is a constellation of small labs that are spread in the neighborhood. These diffused living labs function as ‘acupoints’ that are inter-connected to each other, thus create synergic impacts on a larger scale. One of the strengths of such structure is its potential for expansion. As each lab runs autonomously with its own program - although all labs are framed under an overarching goal - Living Lab Shanghai is a structurally open system. New labs can be set up and added to the existing ones without causing restructuring Living Lab Shanghai. Considering that each lab focuses on different topics (e.g. food, health), this implies Living Lab Shanghai as a whole can broaden its scope by adding new labs when necessary (Fig. 2).
Another characteristic of Living Lab Shanghai lies in its (expected) role in the neighborhood and the city. The diffused labs in the Siping neighborhood are open platforms for local residents as well as potential stakeholders including companies and the district office, who are invited to explore and envision possible futures together. The fact that the labs do not aim to test a new product or service with them or to design a ‘solution’ to address particular problems, but aim to envision possible futures characterizes Living Lab Shanghai. In this sense, they can be described as platforms for ‘future-making’ [20]. The year 2035 – as in the project name ‘N-ICE 2035’ - serves as a point of reference for the future to be envisioned. This time frame is in line with the municipality’s master plan for city development (Shanghai Master Plan 2017–2035) that aims to build the city into ‘an innovative, humanistic and eco-friendly metropolis with global influence’ by 2035 [21]. While future-making practices in the tradition of participatory design have a strong emphasis in democratizing the process of planning and making ‘alternative’ futures with marginalized publics, often in opposition to ‘centralized bureaucratic planning’ [20], the future-making activities of Living Lab Shanghai have more focus on providing inspirational models that can be in a synergic relationship with the master plan.
3 Potential of Design-Driven Urban Living Labs
This paper studied three cases of urban living labs that illustrate different forms and roles of urban living labs. The first case Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab was studied as an example of a ‘strategic’ type of urban living labs, funded by the city government and ‘operates in the whole city area with multiple projects under one umbrella’ [4]. The second case Living Lab The Neighborhood was studied as an example of a ‘grassroots’ type of urban living labs, which ‘focus on a broad agenda of well-being and economy, often host micro-projects or single issue projects and have limited budgets’. Although a ‘grassroots’ type of urban living labs defined by McCormick and Hartmann [4] are led by urban actors in civil society or not for profit actors, this study considered Living Lab The Neighborhood as an example of a grassroots type, rather than a ‘civic’ type led by universities, as the grassroots organization ‘Herrgård’s Women’s Association (HWA)’ was a pillar of Living Lab The Neighborhood. Also, the activities of Living Lab The Neighborhood that focused on the needs of marginalized communities in the city, and issues of social cohesion fit to the characteristics of grassroots-type urban living labs described as being ‘concerned with highly contingent and specific contextual issues that are related to the needs and priorities of particular local communities’ [22]. Lastly, the third case Living Lab Shanghai was studied as an example of a ‘civic’ type of urban living labs, which is led by urban actors such as universities, and focus on ‘economic and sustainable urban development’ [22].
Living Labs can be also differentiated by the roles of actors leading living labs [23]. The four types of actors that often appear in the literature are enablers, utilizers, providers, and end-users (e.g. [23, 24]) According to Leminen et al. [23], ‘enablers’ include ‘various public-sector actors, non-governmental organizations, and financiers, such as towns, municipalities, or area-development organizations’. Enabler-driven living labs are typically public sector projects that pursue societal improvements, built around a regional development body or program [23]. ‘Utilizers’ are companies that ‘launch and promote living labs to develop their businesses’ [23]. Utilizer-driven living labs focus on developing and testing firms’ products and services, and supporting the firms’ business development based on data collected from users [23]. Provider-driven living labs are established by various developer organizations such as educational institutes, universities, and consultants, with aims at ‘promoting research and theory development, augmenting knowledge creation, and finding solutions to specific problems’ [23]. Lastly, user-driven living labs established by user communities focus on solving users’ everyday life problems, ‘in a way consistent with the values and requirements of users and user communities’ [23]. Similarly, Juujärvi and Pesso [24] described contributions of the four types of actor roles in an urban living lab as below (Table 1).
While these typologies provide useful knowledge to understand different types of urban living labs (for instance, Seoul Innovation Park Living Lab), this paper finds the two cases studied in this paper - Living Lab The Neighborhood, and Living Lab Shanghai - cannot be fully explained by them. In both cases, the actors who established and led the urban living labs are researchers working at universities (Malmö University and Tongji University, respectively), but their roles in the construction and operation of urban living labs are somewhat different from those of educational institutions illustrated as ‘providers’ in the literature.
Living Lab The Neighborhood, and Living Lab Shanghai have in common that they were established and led by researchers specialized in ‘design’. Their ‘design’ activities are more in line with the ‘new description of design’ given by Manzini [25], than the traditional notion of design. Manzini pointed out what ‘design’ means today differs from the traditional notion of design, thus offered a new description: Design is a culture and a practice concerning how things ought to be in order to attain desired functions and meanings. It takes place within open-ended co-design processes in which all the involved actors participate in different ways. (…) The role of design experts is to trigger and support these open-ended co-design processes, using their design knowledge to conceive and enhance clear-cut, focused design initiatives [25]. Living Lab The Neighborhood, which started with the issue of social exclusion of immigrants in the city, focused on facilitating possible opportunities to emerge - without predefined outcomes - by connecting local immigrants communities to diverse stakeholders. New ideas were emerged and prototyped along the way, but not directly designed by the designers who led the living lab. Similarly, Living Lab Shanghai, illustrated as platforms for collaborative future-making in this paper, brings diverse stakeholders to explore and prototype future urban life together in an open-ended way. In fact, design activities of the both labs are not oriented to producing ‘finished products’ [25]. Rather, they are closed to “an exploratory process that aims to create new kinds of value relation between diverse actors within a socio-material configuration” [26].
It is not unknown that design can play a role in living labs. Yet, this paper argues the characteristics and roles of design found in the cases of Living Lab The Neighborhood and Living Lab Shanghai are noteworthy. This study is limited in generalizability, but provides a starting point for further exploration into the potential of ‘design-driven’ urban living labs that can be differentiated from other types of urban living labs.
References
United Nations. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities. Accessed 7 Feb 2018
United Nations: World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision (2015)
Eskelinen, J., Robles, A.G., Lindy, I., Marsh, J., Muente-Kunigami, A. (eds.): Citizen Driven Innovation. World Bank Publications, Washington, D.C. (2015)
McCormick, K., Hartmann, C. (eds.) The Emerging Landscape of Urban Living Labs: Characteristics, Practices and Examples (2017). http://lup.lub.lu.se/search/ws/files/27224276/Urban_Living_Labs_Handbook.pdf. Accessed 17 Feb 2018
Steen, K., van Bueren, E.: Urban living labs: a living lab way of working. Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions (AMS) (2017)
ENoLL. http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/node/1429. Accessed 7 Feb 2018
Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J., Schliwa, G.: Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Product. 123, 45–54 (2016)
Living Lab Methodology Handbook. https://www.scribd.com/document/366265932/U4IoT-LivingLabMethodology-Handbook. Accessed 7 Feb 2018
Seoul Innovation Park. https://www.innovationpark.kr. Accessed 7 Feb 2018
Youn, C.: The beginning of the era of “Living Labs”. Internal report, Seoul Innovation Park (2016)
Medea. http://medea.mah.se. Accessed 7 Feb 2018
Emilson, A., Hillgren, P.-A., Seravalli, A.: Designing in the neighborhood: beyond (and in the shadow of) creative communities. In: Ehn, P., Nilsson, E. (eds.) Making Futures, Marginal Notes on Innovation Design and Democracy. MIT, Cambridge (2014)
Seravalli, A.: Making Commons (Attempts at Composing Prospects in the Opening of Production). Doctoral Dissertation in Interaction Design. School of Arts and Communication. Malmö University, Malmö (2014)
Hillgren, P., Seravalli, A., Eriksen, M.A.: Counter-hegemonic practices: dynamic interplay between agonism, commoning and strategic design. Strat. Des. Res. J. 9(2), 89–99 (2016)
Hillgren, P.: Participatory design for social and public innovation: living labs as spaces for agonistic experiments and friendly hacking. In: Manzini, E., Staszowski, E. (eds.) Public and Collaborative: Exploring the Intersection of Design, Social Innovation and Public Policy, pp. 75–88. DESIS Network (2013)
Hillgren, P.: Living labs as enabling platforms for inclusion and serendipity. In: Nilsson, E.M. (eds.) Prototyping Futures. Malmö university, Malmö (2012)
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., Hillgren, P.A.: Design things and design thinking: contemporary participatory design challenges. Des. Issues 28(3), 101–116 (2012)
Lerner, J.: Urban Acupuncture. Island Press, Washington, D.C. (2014)
Lou, Y., Valsecchi, F., Diaz, C.: Design harvest: an acupunctural design approach toward sustainability. Mistra Urban Futures Publication, Gothenburg, Sweden (2013)
Ehn, P., Nilsson, E., Topgaard, R., Watts, L.: Making futures – challenging innovation. In: Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference 2012 (2012)
Information Office of Shanghai Municipality. http://en.shio.gov.cn/resource/press/3104.shtml. Accessed 17 Feb 2018
GUST Policy Brief: Typology of Urban Living Labs (2017). https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Y5wjmLzF2YajO7Urax6t1HJwXHKNSD9w. Accessed 17 Feb 2018
Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., Nyström, A.G.: Living labs as open-innovation networks. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2(9), 6–11 (2012)
Juujärvi, S., Pesso, K.: Actor roles in an urban living lab: what can we learn from Suurpelto, Finland? Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 3(11), 22–27 (2013)
Manzini, E.: Design When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2015)
Kimbell, L.: Designing for service as one way of designing services. Int. J. Des. 5(2), 41–52 (2011)
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted as part of two research projects: “Urban environmental and social innovation design research” project and “Interaction and Service design research” project (DB17010) supported by Shanghai Summit Discipline in Design.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cho, E.J. (2018). Transforming a Neighborhood into a Living Laboratory for Urban Social Innovation: A Comparative Case Study of Urban Living Labs. In: Rau, PL. (eds) Cross-Cultural Design. Applications in Cultural Heritage, Creativity and Social Development. CCD 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10912. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92252-2_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92252-2_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92251-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92252-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)