IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v68y2022ics0160791x21003250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of living labs to support gendered energy technology innovation in poor urban environments

Author

Listed:
  • Mukama, Matia
  • Musango, Josephine Kaviti
  • Smit, Suzanne
  • Ceschin, Fabrizio
  • Petrulaityte, Aine

Abstract

Working together with end-users and different private and public stakeholders towards a common goal in a real-life setting creates a rich environment for co-design, co-creation, co-innovation and sharing of different ideas in an iterative fashion. Such spaces are termed Living Labs. This paper builds on the understanding of Living Labs and explores the best application of the concept to support gendered energy technology innovation in poor urban environments. Using a case study of a poor urban informal environment in South Africa, this paper describes the implementation of the Living Lab concept in seeking security of energy services in the household energy sector and the roles of the identified stakeholders towards operationalisation of the Lab. Living Labs are dynamic innovation spaces that consider a multidimensional approach (technical, economic, usability, regulative, environmental, social, etc.) to problem solving and ease future implementation and diffusion of solutions, technologies, and innovations, if managed well.

Suggested Citation

  • Mukama, Matia & Musango, Josephine Kaviti & Smit, Suzanne & Ceschin, Fabrizio & Petrulaityte, Aine, 2022. "Development of living labs to support gendered energy technology innovation in poor urban environments," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:68:y:2022:i:c:s0160791x21003250
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101850
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X21003250
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101850?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laurent Dupont & Joëlle Mastelic & Nathalie Nyffeler & Sophie Latrille & Eric Seulliet, 2019. "Living lab as a support to trust for co-creation of value: application to the consumer energy market," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 53-78.
    2. JinHyo Joseph Yun, 2017. "Dynamics of Open Innovation," Management for Professionals, in: Business Model Design Compass, chapter 7, pages 99-117, Springer.
    3. Breukers, Sylvia & Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation in changing institutional landscapes: An international comparison," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2737-2750, May.
    4. Mónica E. Edwards-Schachter & Cristian E. Matti & Enrique Alcántara, 2012. "Fostering Quality of Life through Social Innovation: A Living Lab Methodology Study Case," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(6), pages 672-692, November.
    5. Zoellner, Jan & Schweizer-Ries, Petra & Wemheuer, Christin, 2008. "Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4136-4141, November.
    6. Laurent Dupont & Alex Gabriel & Mauricio Camargo & Claudine Guidat, 2017. "Collaborative Innovation Projects Engaging open communities: a Case Study on Emerging Challenges," Post-Print hal-01582548, HAL.
    7. Atanu Sengupta & Sanjoy De, 2020. "Review of Literature," India Studies in Business and Economics, in: Assessing Performance of Banks in India Fifty Years After Nationalization, chapter 0, pages 15-30, Springer.
    8. Laurent Dupont & Joëlle Mastelic & Nathalie Nyffeler & Sophie Latrille & Eric Seulliet, 2019. "Living lab as a support to trust for co-creation of value: application to the consumer energy market," Post-Print hal-02010217, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aine Petrulaityte & Fabrizio Ceschin & Josephine Kaviti Musango & Betty Karimi Mwiti & Christer Anditi & Peris Njoroge, 2022. "Supporting the Development of Gendered Energy Innovations for Informal Urban Settlements: GENS Codesign Toolkit for Multistakeholder Collaboration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-29, May.
    2. Sphokazi Phelokazi Mbatha & Josephine Kaviti Musango, 2022. "A Systematic Review on the Application of the Living Lab Concept and Role of Stakeholders in the Energy Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-20, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    2. Fedoua Kasmi & Ferney Osorio & Laurent Dupont & Brunelle Marche & Mauricio Camargo, 2022. "Innovation Spaces as Drivers of Eco-innovations Supporting the Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review," Post-Print hal-03590438, HAL.
    3. Hastik, Richard & Basso, Stefano & Geitner, Clemens & Haida, Christin & Poljanec, Aleš & Portaccio, Alessia & Vrščaj, Borut & Walzer, Chris, 2015. "Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 608-623.
    4. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2022. "Embedding non-industrial private forest owners in forest policy and bioeconomy issues using a Living Lab concept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    5. Feurtey, Évariste & Ilinca, Adrian & Sakout, Anas & Saucier, Carol, 2016. "Institutional factors influencing strategic decision-making in energy policy; a case study of wind energy in France and Quebec (Canada)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1455-1470.
    6. Azadian, Farshad & Radzi, M.A.M., 2013. "A general approach toward building integrated photovoltaic systems and its implementation barriers: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 527-538.
    7. Chad Walker & Jamie Baxter & Danielle Ouellette, 2014. "Beyond Rhetoric to Understanding Determinants of Wind Turbine Support and Conflict in Two Ontario, Canada Communities," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 730-745, March.
    8. Paul Lehmann & Felix Creutzig & Melf-Hinrich Ehlers & Nele Friedrichsen & Clemens Heuson & Lion Hirth & Robert Pietzcker, 2012. "Carbon Lock-Out: Advancing Renewable Energy Policy in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-32, February.
    9. Adams, Michelle & Wheeler, David & Woolston, Genna, 2011. "A participatory approach to sustainable energy strategy development in a carbon-intensive jurisdiction: The case of Nova Scotia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2550-2559, May.
    10. Suškevičs, M. & Eiter, S. & Martinat, S. & Stober, D. & Vollmer, E. & de Boer, C.L. & Buchecker, M., 2019. "Regional variation in public acceptance of wind energy development in Europe: What are the roles of planning procedures and participation?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 311-323.
    11. Jones, Christopher R. & Eiser, J. Richard, 2009. "Identifying predictors of attitudes towards local onshore wind development with reference to an English case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4604-4614, November.
    12. Grashof, Katherina, 2019. "Are auctions likely to deter community wind projects? And would this be problematic?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 20-32.
    13. Christian Omobhude & Shih-Hsin Chen, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability: The Case of Oil Producing Communities in the Niger Delta region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-26, November.
    14. Thomas Hoppe & Antonia Graf & Beau Warbroek & Imke Lammers & Isabella Lepping, 2015. "Local Governments Supporting Local Energy Initiatives: Lessons from the Best Practices of Saerbeck (Germany) and Lochem (The Netherlands)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-32, February.
    15. Georg M. Eichler & Erich J. Schwarz, 2019. "What Sustainable Development Goals Do Social Innovations Address? A Systematic Review and Content Analysis of Social Innovation Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    16. Jones, Christopher R. & Orr, Barry J. & Eiser, J. Richard, 2011. "When is enough, enough? Identifying predictors of capacity estimates for onshore wind-power development in a region of the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 4563-4577, August.
    17. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    18. Merethe Dotterud Leiren & Stine Aakre & Kristin Linnerud & Tom Erik Julsrud & Maria-Rosaria Di Nucci & Michael Krug, 2020. "Community Acceptance of Wind Energy Developments: Experience from Wind Energy Scarce Regions in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, February.
    19. Eefje Cuppen & Suzanne Brunsting & Udo Pesch & Ynke Feenstra, 2015. "How stakeholder interactions can reduce space for moral considerations in decision making: A contested CCS project in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1963-1978, September.
    20. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2021. "Developing the persona method to increase the commitment of non-industrial private forest owners in French forest policy priorities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:68:y:2022:i:c:s0160791x21003250. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.