Zoekresultaten

Living Lab Toolkit: Insights from the Sport and Social Cohesion Lab (SSCL) Project

Over the last decade, sport and physical activity have become increasingly recognised and implemented as tools to foster social cohesion in neighbourhoods, cities and communities around Europe. As a result, numerous programmes have emerged that attempt to enhance social cohesion through a variety of sport-based approaches (Moustakas, Sanders, Schlenker, & Robrade, 2021; Svensson & Woods, 2017). However, despite this boom in sport and social cohesion, current definitions and understandings of social cohesion rarely take into account the needs, expectations or views of practitioners, stakeholders and, especially, participants on the ground (Raw, Sherry, & Rowe, 2021). Yet, to truly foster broad social outcomes like social cohesion, there is increasing recognition that programmes must move beyond interventions that only focus on the individual level, and instead find ways to work with and engage a wide array of stakeholders and organisations (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Moustakas, 2022). In turn, this allows programmes to respond to community needs, foster engagement, deliver more sustainable outcomes, and work at both the individual and institutional levels. The Living Lab concept - which is distinguished by multi-stakeholder involvement, user engagement, innovation and co-creation within a real-life setting - provides an innovative approach to help achieve these goals. More formally, Living Labs have been defined 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” (European Network of Living Labs, 2021). Thus, this can be a powerful approach to engage a wide array of stakeholders, and create interventions that are responsive to community needs. As such, the Sport for Social Cohesion Lab (SSCL) project was conceived to implement a Living Lab approach within five sport for social cohesion programmes in four different European countries. This approach was chosen to help programmes directly engage programme participants, generate understanding of the elements that promote social cohesion in a sport setting and to co-create activities and tools to explore, support and understand social cohesion within these communities. The following toolkit reflects our multi-national experiences designing and implementing Living Labs across these various contexts. Our partners represent a variety of settings, from schools to community-based organisations, and together these experiences can provide valuable insights to other sport (and non-sport) organisations wishing to implement a Living Lab approach within their contexts and programmes. Thus, practitioners and implementers of community-based programmes should be understood as the immediate target group of this toolkit, though the insights and reflections included here can be of relevance for any individual or organisation seeking to use more participatory approaches within their work. In particular, in the coming sections, this toolkit will define the Living Lab concept more precisely, suggest some steps to launch a Living Lab, and offer insights on how to implement the different components of a Living Lab.

Evaluating living labs?

Living labs are complex multi-stakeholder collaborations that often employ a usercentred and design-driven methodology to foster innovation. Conventional management tools fall short in evaluating them. However, some methods and tools dedicated to living labs' special characteristics and goals have already been developed. Most of them are still in their testing phase. Those tools are not easily accessible and can only be found in extensive research reports, which are difficult to dissect. Therefore, this paper reviews seven evaluation methods and tools specially developed for living labs. Each section of this paper is structured in the following manner: tool’s introduction (1), who uses the tool (2), and how it should be used (3). While the first set of tools, namely “ENoLL 20 Indicators”, “SISCODE Self-assessment”, and “SCIROCCO Exchange Tool” assess a living lab as an organisation and are diving deeper into the organisational activities and the complex context, the second set of methods and tools, “FormIT” and “Living Lab Markers”, evaluate living labs’ methodologies: the process they use to come to innovations. The paper's final section presents “CheRRIes Monitoring and Evaluation Tool” and “TALIA Indicator for Benchmarking Service for Regions”, which assess the regional impact made by living labs. As every living lab is different regarding its maturity (as an organisation and in its methodology) and the scope of impact it wants to make, the most crucial decision when evaluating is to determine the focus of the assessment. This overview allows for a first orientation on worked-out methods and on possible indicators to use. It also concludes that the existing tools are quite managerial in their method and aesthetics and calls for designers and social scientists to develop more playful, engaging and (possibly) learning-oriented tools to evaluate living labs in the future. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/overdiek12345/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/mari-genova-17a727196/?originalSubdomain=nl

Co-creation in urban Living Labs

This paper analyses co-creation in urban living labs through a multi-level network perspective on system innovation. We draw on the case House of Skills, a large, multi-stakeholder living lab aimed at developing a ‘skills-based’ approach towards labour market innovation within the Amsterdam Metropolitan Region. Ouranalysis helps understand stakeholder dynamics towards system innovation, drawing on an innovative living lab example and taking into consideration the multi-layered structures that comprise the collaboration. Our conceptual framework provides an important theoretical contribution to innovation studies and offers a practical repertoire that can help practitioners improve co-creation of shared value in living labs, towards orchestrating flexible structures that strengthen the impact of their initiatives.

Guidebook Living Labs

From Freight Partnerships to City Logistics Living Labs - Giving Meaning to the Elusive Concept of Living Labs

The paper discusses the growing importance of urban freight research given the increasing urban population trends. The complexity of urban freight systems means that it is essential for the public and private sectors to work together - one way to achieve this has been through freight partnerships. A short review of freight partnerships highlights the way in which they have fostered mutual understanding among urban freight stakeholders. The literature on shared situational awareness (SSA) and joint knowledge production (JKP) has been adapted to position freight partnerships and to further develop and link these partnerships to the concept of a living laboratory concerned with urban freight transport. This novel application of the living lab concept is introduced. Next, the first phases of a city logistics living lab brought in practice in Rotterdam are shortly mentioned. The living lab concept fits the complexities of the urban freight system well and has been a cornerstone of a recently started major freight project in the EU (CITYLAB). © 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Towards Responsible Rebellion

In the Netherlands, there is an increasing need for collective forms of housing for older people. Such housing bridges the gap between the extremes of living in an institutionalised setting and remaining in their own house. The demand is related to the closure of many residential care homes and the need for social engagement with other residents. This study focuses on housing initiatives that offer innovative and alternative forms of independent living, which deviate from mainstream housing arrangements. It draws on recent literature on healthcare ‘rebels’ and further develops the concept of ‘rebellion’ in the context of housing. The main research question is how founders dealt with challenges of establishing and governing ‘rebellious’ innovative living arrangements for older people in the highly regulated context of housing and care in the Netherlands. Qualitative in-depth interviews with 17 founders (social entrepreneurs, directors and supervisory board members) were conducted. Founders encountered various obstacles that are often related to governmental and sectoral rules and regulations. Their stories demonstrate the opportunities and constraints of innovative entrepreneurship at the intersection of housing and care. The study concludes with the notion of ‘responsible rebellion’ and practical lessons about dealing with rules and regulations and creating supportive contexts. Original article at MDPI; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176235 And atachment "Supplementary Materials" (This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers "Age-Friendly Cities & Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives")