The world is rapidly transforming. Economic, ecological and technological developments transcend existing boundaries and challenge the way we innovate. The challenge we face is to reinvent innovation as well, changing the way organisations and industries innovate and cooperate. Only with a new approach we can design a better future: an approach where stakeholders from government, organisations, companies and users participate in new ways of collaboration; an approach where solutions are realised that makes our society future-proof. Participatory innovation means that the innovation team changes: expanding beyond the boundaries of the own organisation. For organisations and companies, this is a huge step. Every partner must be willing to think and act beyond their own borders and participate in a joint effort. Participative innovation is a new way of working, where new challenges are encountered. In the field of urban lighting, this transformation is strongly felt. This paper will further explore the challenge and describe a rich case study where participative innovation is used to rethink, redesign and realise the solutions to transform urban lighting from functional lighting to improving social quality.
DOCUMENT
The potential of technological innovation to address urban sustainability has been widely acknowledged over the last decade. Across cities globally, local governments have engaged in partnership arrangements with the private sector to initiate pilot projects for urban innovation, typically co-funded by innovation subsidies. A recurring challenge however is how to scale up successful projects and generate more impact. Drawing on the business and management literature, we introduce the concept of organizational ambidexterity to provide a novel theoretical perspective on sustainable urban innovations. We examine how to align exploration (i.e., test and experiment with digital technologies, products, platforms, and services) with exploitation (i.e., reaping the financial benefits from digital technologies by bringing products, platforms, and services to the market), rooted in the literature on smart cities. We conclude that the concept of ambidexterity, as elaborated in the business and management literature and practiced by firms, can be translated to the city policy domain, provided that upscaling or exploitation in a smart city context also includes the translation of insights from urban experiments, successful or not, into new routines, regulations, protocols, and stakeholder/citizen engagement methods.
DOCUMENT
In recent years, it has become a commonplace to argue that cities should be the focus point of sustainable development. Various authors have presented a variety of arguments why cities should be the preferred target to foster sustainable development-focused innovation; - The average consumption of resources of urban dwellers is higher. - The population of cities is growing continuously, while rural populations stabilize. - Deteriorating living conditions and segregation in cities caused by processes of gentrification of traditional neighbourhoods that drive out lower income groups to the suburbs. - Cities are ‘concentrated’ emitters of pollutants and therefore solutions and re-use might be easier to implement. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185013 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/karel-mulder-163aa96/
MULTIFILE
Uit de samenvatting: "Sinds medio 2017 is het Nationaal Lectorenplatform Urban Energy actief. De betrokken lectoren beogen het praktijkgericht onderzoek rond de gebouwde omgeving op hogescholen te verbinden en te stroomlijnen. Dit doen ze teneinde bij te dragen aan de energietransitie: met duurzame bronnen voorzien in onze energievoorziening. Een belangrijk instrument om de expertise van de lectoren te delen is een digitale onderzoekskaart, die beschikbaar is via: http://www.nlurbanenergy.nl. Daarnaast is er behoefte aan meer inzicht als het gaat om termen als vraagarticulatie en onderzoekssamenwerking. Meer precies wilden we achterhalen wat de behoefte is van het mkb aan praktijkgericht onderzoek van hogescholen in het domein Urban Energy. Daartoe hebben we een verkennende studie uitgevoerd naar praktijkgericht onderzoek binnen het domein Urban Energy. Hiervoor interviewden we de betrokken lectoren en ondernemers uit het innovatief MKB. Daarnaast maakten we gebruik van een enquête die we via verschillende kanalen onder de aandacht brachten bij het innovatief mkb."
DOCUMENT
Kwaliteit van samenleven in een stedelijke omgeving is een uitdagend onderwerp. In deze notitie is de context geschetst en zijn de eerste aanbevelingen gegeven op welke wijze de HU dit thema optimaal kan ontrafelen om het in te zetten ter versterking van (de kennisinstelling in) haar omgeving. Steden ontwikkelen zich sterk en snel, daaruit ontstaan allerlei kansen en bedreigingen. Tegelijkertijd is in steden ook de veranderkracht het grootst. Op verschillende manieren kan tegen deze ontwikkeling aangekeken worden. Het perspectief waarmee naar de stad gekeken wordt, leidt tevens tot een categorisering van de meest actuele thematieken en geeft een prioritering aan relevante vraagstukken. Hogeschool Utrecht staat midden in de samenleving en haar onderwijs en onderzoek draagt direct bij aan de kwaliteit van samenleven in de stedelijke omgeving. De specifieke unieke kenmerken van de stad Utrecht zijn daarbij van belang, waarbij Utrecht als proeftuin voor innovaties op het gebied van kwaliteit van samenleven in de stedelijke omgeving beschouwd wordt. Een inventarisatie van de verschillende perspectieven hoe een stad ‘beschouwd’ kan worden, leidt tot de driedeling: a. gezonde duurzame stad; b. sociale, zorgzame en rechtvaardige stad; en c. economisch sterke, creatieve en culturele stad. Lectoren opereren binnen deze driedeling, of begeven zich juist op de cross-overs tussen deze manieren om naar de stad te kijken. Een systeembenadering, waarbij kwaliteit van samenleven in de stad het overkoepelende thema is, is hierbij krachtig in het besef dat de stad leert, zich ontwikkelt en feitelijk ook als proces beschouwd kan worden.
DOCUMENT
Why are some regions and cities so good at attracting talented people, creating high-level knowledge, and producing exciting new ideas and innovations? What are the ingredients of success? Can innovative cities be created and stimulated, or do they just flourish by mere chance? This book analyses the development and management of innovation systems in cities, in order to provide a better understanding of what makes such systems perform. The book opens by developing a conceptual model that combines insights from urban economics with economic geography, urban governance and place marketing. This highlights the relevance of path dependence, different types of proximity (and the role of clusters, networks and platforms), institutional conditions, place attractiveness and place identity in the evolution of local innovation systems. The authors then draw on this conceptual framework to structure empirical case studies in three cities with a relatively high innovation performance: Eindhoven (the Netherlands), Stockholm (Sweden) and Suzhou (China). Through these case studies they provide a detailed analysis of how successful innovation systems evolve and what makes them tick.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: There are good reasons to study urban innovation from a systemic perspective. A key finding in innovation research is that organizations rarely innovate in isolation, but in interaction with clients, competitors, suppliers, and other organizations. A system perspective is useful in understanding and analyzing these interactions. Cities and urban regions are increasingly recognized as key milieus in which these interactions occur. The urban innovation system approach conceptualizes the city or urban region as a context in which innovations emerge from complex interactions between urban actors—firms, citizens, governments, knowledge institutes— in a particular institutional setting. The systemic view of innovation departs from traditional linear models that depict innovation as a staged process that starts with (basic) scientific research and ends with commercialization by companies. Innovation processes are much more complex and diverse, influenced by multiple actors that interact in networks with feedback loops, and involving many types of knowledge beyond scientific knowledge. Urban innovation systems are nested in innovation systems on other spatial levels—regional, national, international. Studies on urban innovation systems seek to explain how innovations emerge in an urban context, why urban regions differ in their innovative performance, and also address questions on the governance and management of such systems. Studies in this field draw from a variety of disciplines including economic geography, urban and regional economics, political sciences, innovation studies, social sciences, and urban planning.
MULTIFILE
This paper analyses Amsterdam’s Startup-in-Residence (SiR) programme as new type of policy to engage startups in the development of urban innovation through a challenge-based public procurement of innovation (PPI) process. The programme is being mimicked by other cities and government agencies, but so far there has not been a rigorous, theoretically-informed analysis of the approach. In this paper, we specify and focus on the role of city-based, public-affiliated intermediaries as initiators, moderators and influencers of conversations between startups and the local government. The main contribution of SiR as a PPI intermediation programme has been to launch new types of fruitful conversations on several levels, that lead to institutional innovations rather than direct solutions for urban problems or startup development. In this sense, SiR fulfils a role inquiring and ascribing urban challenges with values and notions of “worth” that preceded and shaped innovation directions. We also suggest that engaging startups is effective for only a limited bandwidth urban challenges; different types of intermediation are required to foster collaborative innovation in more complex settings.
DOCUMENT
Post-war urban neighbourhoods in industrialised countries have been shown to negatively affect the lifestyles of their residents due to their design. This study aims at developing an empirical procedure to select locations to be redesigned and the determinants of health at stake in these locations, with involvement of residents’ perspectives as core issue. We addressed a post-war neighbourhood in the city of Groningen, the Netherlands. We collected data from three perspectives: spatial analyses by urban designers, interviews with experts in local health and social care (n = 11) and online questionnaires filled in by residents (n = 99). These data provided input for the selection of locations to be redesigned by a multidisciplinary team (n = 16). The procedure yielded the following types of locations (and determinants): An area adjacent to a central shopping mall (social interaction, traffic safety, physical activity), a park (experiencing green, physical activity, social safety, social interaction) and a block of low-rise row houses around a public square (social safety, social interaction, traffic safety). We developed an empirical procedure for the selection of locations and determinants to be addressed, with addressing residents’ perspectives. This procedure is potentially applicable to similar neighbourhoods internationally.
DOCUMENT
This paper examines how a serious game approach could support a participatory planning process by bringing stakeholders together to discuss interventions that assist the development of sustainable urban tourism. A serious policy game was designed and played in six European cities by a total of 73 participants, reflecting a diverse array of tourism stakeholders. By observing in-game experiences, a pre- and post -game survey and short interviews six months after playing the game, the process and impact of the game was investigated. While it proved difficult to evaluate the value of a serious game approach, results demonstrate that enacting real-life policymaking in a serious game setting can enable stakeholders to come together, and become more aware of the issues and complexities involved with urban tourism planning. This suggests a serious game can be used to stimulate the uptake of academic insights in a playful manner. However, it should be remembered that a game is a tool and does not, in itself, lead to inclusive participatory policymaking and more sustainable urban tourism planning. Consequently, care needs to be taken to ensure inclusiveness and prevent marginalization or disempowerment both within game-design and the political formation of a wider participatory planning approach.
MULTIFILE
