IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i23p13276-d691981.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Barriers to the Adoption of Urban Living Labs for NBS Implementation: A Systemic Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Shahryar Sarabi

    (Information Systems in the Built Environment (ISBE) Group, Department of Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 3, 5612 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Qi Han

    (Information Systems in the Built Environment (ISBE) Group, Department of Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 3, 5612 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • A. Georges L. Romme

    (Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 3, 5612 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Bauke de Vries

    (Information Systems in the Built Environment (ISBE) Group, Department of Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 3, 5612 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Rianne Valkenburg

    (Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 3, 5612 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Elke den Ouden

    (Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Groene Loper 3, 5612 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands)

  • Spela Zalokar

    (ENoLL, Pleinlaan 9, 1050 Ixelles, Belgium)

  • Laura Wendling

    (VTT Technical Research Centre Ltd., 02150 Espoo, Finland)

Abstract

Urban Living Labs (ULLs) are widely believed to provide a safe environment for experimentation, co-creation and evaluation of innovations in real-life settings. A growing number of cities have been adopting ULLs to co-create and test Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). However, many of these cities have been facing major barriers in trying to adopt the ULL approach for implementing NBS. In this study, we seek to identify these barriers and provide a systemic understanding. Barriers are identified by means of workshops and interviews. Subsequently, interpretive structural modelling serves to identify the interdependencies among the barriers, resulting in a structural model of barriers in adopting ULLs for NBS. Our results show that political and institutional barriers are significantly limiting the adoption of ULLs. Moreover, knowledge brokers and other intermediaries, as well as cross-sectoral collaboration, play a key role in getting ULLs adopted. The findings from this study can help cities to develop strategies that overcome the main barriers for ULL adoption in the context of nature-based solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Shahryar Sarabi & Qi Han & A. Georges L. Romme & Bauke de Vries & Rianne Valkenburg & Elke den Ouden & Spela Zalokar & Laura Wendling, 2021. "Barriers to the Adoption of Urban Living Labs for NBS Implementation: A Systemic Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-15, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13276-:d:691981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13276/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13276/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lea Fuenfschilling & Niki Frantzeskaki & Lars Coenen, 2019. "Urban experimentation & sustainability transitions," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 219-228, February.
    2. Sophie Mok & Ernesta Mačiulytė & Pieter Hein Bult & Tom Hawxwell, 2021. "Valuing the Invaluable(?)—A Framework to Facilitate Stakeholder Engagement in the Planning of Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Carolyn M. Johns, 2019. "Understanding barriers to green infrastructure policy and stormwater management in the City of Toronto: a shift from grey to green or policy layering and conversion?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(8), pages 1377-1401, July.
    4. Polzin, Friedemann & von Flotow, Paschen & Klerkx, Laurens, 2016. "Addressing barriers to eco-innovation: Exploring the finance mobilisation functions of institutional innovation intermediaries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 34-46.
    5. Sindhu, Sonal & Nehra, Vijay & Luthra, Sunil, 2016. "Identification and analysis of barriers in implementation of solar energy in Indian rural sector using integrated ISM and fuzzy MICMAC approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 70-88.
    6. Timo von Wirth & Lea Fuenfschilling & Niki Frantzeskaki & Lars Coenen, 2019. "Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 229-257, February.
    7. Klaus Eisenack & Susanne C. Moser & Esther Hoffmann & Richard J. T. Klein & Christoph Oberlack & Anna Pechan & Maja Rotter & Catrien J. A. M. Termeer, 2014. "Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 4(10), pages 867-872, October.
    8. Ines Mergel, 2018. "Open innovation in the public sector: drivers and barriers for the adoption of Challenge.gov," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 726-745, May.
    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. Yichao He & Anna Jorgensen & Qian Sun & Amy Corcoran & Maria Jesus Alfaro-Simmonds, 2022. "Negotiating Complexity: Challenges to Implementing Community-Led Nature-Based Solutions in England Pre- and Post-COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Elena Di Pirro & Rúben Mendes & Teresa Fidélis & Lorenzo Sallustio & Peter Roebeling & Marco Marchetti & Bruno Lasserre, 2022. "The Embeddedness of Nature-Based Solutions in the Recovery and Resilience Plans as Multifunctional Approaches to Foster the Climate Transition: The Cases of Italy and Portugal," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Erick Elysio Reis Amorim & Monique Menezes & Karoline Vitória Gonçalves Fernandes, 2022. "Urban Living Labs and Critical Infrastructure Resilience: A Global Match?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Beatriz Kauark-Fontes & César E. Ortiz-Guerrero & Livia Marchetti & Jaime Hernández-Garcia & Fabio Salbitano, 2023. "Towards Adaptive Governance of Urban Nature-Based Solutions in Europe and Latin America—A Qualitative Exploratory Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Paola Piazza & Nadia Ursino, 2023. "On the Reason to Implement a Sustainable Urban Drainage Nature-Based Solution to Decrease Flood Threat: A Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-13, June.
    6. Yilmaz, Ozge Celik & Ertekin, Ozhan, 2024. "Towards setting a standard for evaluating living labs with case studies in Turkiye," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    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. Carlos Smaniotto Costa & Marluci Menezes & Petja Ivanova-Radovanova & Tatiana Ruchinskaya & Konstantinos Lalenis & Monica Bocci, 2021. "Planning Perspectives and Approaches for Activating Underground Built Heritage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Lindsay P. Galway & Charles Z. Levkoe & Rachel L. W. Portinga & Kathryn Milun, 2021. "A Scoping Review Examining Governance, Co-Creation, and Social and Ecological Justice in Living Labs Literature," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Devon McAslan & Farah Najar Arevalo & David A. King & Thaddeus R. Miller, 2021. "Pilot project purgatory? Assessing automated vehicle pilot projects in U.S. cities," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Rachel Greer & Timo Wirth & Derk Loorbach, 2023. "The Circular Decision-Making Tree: an Operational Framework," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 693-718, June.
    5. Frans Sengers & Bruno Turnheim & Frans Berkhout, 2021. "Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 39(6), pages 1148-1171, September.
    6. Waes, Arnoud van & Nikolaeva, Anna & Raven, Rob, 2021. "Challenges and dilemmas in strategic urban experimentationAn analysis of four cycling innovation living labs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    7. Daniel Black & Susanne Charlesworth & Maria Ester Dal Poz & Erika Cristina Francisco & Adina Paytan & Ian Roderick & Timo von Wirth & Kevin Winter, 2023. "Comparing Societal Impact Planning and Evaluation Approaches across Four Urban Living Labs (in Food-Energy-Water Systems)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Paula Kivimaa & Karoline S. Rogge, 2020. "Interplay of Policy Experimentation and Institutional Change in Transformative Policy Mixes: The Case of Mobility as a Service in Finland," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-17, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Tim Strasser & Joop de Kraker & René Kemp, 2020. "Three Dimensions of Transformative Impact and Capacity: A Conceptual Framework Applied in Social Innovation Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-40, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Inés Aquilué & Angélica Caicedo & Joan Moreno & Miquel Estrada & Laia Pagès, 2021. "A Methodology for Assessing the Impact of Living Labs on Urban Design: The Case of the Furnish Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-29, April.
    12. Kelly Bronson & Rachana Devkota & Vivian Nguyen, 2021. "Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Kivimaa, Paula & Rogge, Karoline S., 2022. "Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    14. Uyarra, Elvira & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Flanagan, Kieron & Magro, Edurne, 2020. "Public procurement, innovation and industrial policy: Rationales, roles, capabilities and implementation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    15. Chris McPhee & Margaret Bancerz & Muriel Mambrini-Doudet & François Chrétien & Christian Huyghe & Javier Gracia-Garza, 2021. "The Defining Characteristics of Agroecosystem Living Labs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    16. Wilde, Kerstin & Hermans, Frans, 2021. "Deconstructing the attractiveness of biocluster imaginaries," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 23(2), pages 227-242.
    17. Rutger de Graaf-van Dinther & Anne Leskens & Ted Veldkamp & Jeroen Kluck & Floris Boogaard, 2021. "From Pilot Projects to Transformative Infrastructures, Exploring Market Receptivity for Permeable Pavement in The Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, April.
    18. Kristiaan P. W. Kok & Alanya C. L. den Boer & Tomris Cesuroglu & Marjoleine G. van der Meij & Renée de Wildt-Liesveld & Barbara J. Regeer & Jacqueline E. W. Broerse, 2019. "Transforming Research and Innovation for Sustainable Food Systems—A Coupled-Systems Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-23, December.
    19. Marina Van Geenhuizen & Razieh Nejabat, 2021. "Municipalities’ Policy on Innovation and Market Introduction in Sustainable Energy: A Focus on Local Young Technology Firms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    20. Laatsit, Mart & Grillitsch, Markus & Fünfschilling, Lea, 2022. "Great expectations: the promises and limits of innovation policy in addressing societal challenges," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/9, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13276-:d:691981. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.