IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i16p12556-d1220078.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Urban (Living) Labs: A Model Tailored for Central and Eastern Europe’s Context

Author

Listed:
  • Bartosz Piziak

    (Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Cieszynska 2, 30-015 Kraków, Poland)

  • Magdalena Bień

    (Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Cieszynska 2, 30-015 Kraków, Poland)

  • Wojciech Jarczewski

    (Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Cieszynska 2, 30-015 Kraków, Poland)

  • Katarzyna Ner

    (Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Cieszynska 2, 30-015 Kraków, Poland)

Abstract

The article attempts to synthesise existing knowledge and research related to the functioning of urban (living) labs and to analyse the particular experiences of their dozens of representatives from all over the world in order to develop a definition and model of an urban lab adapted to the conditions of Central and Eastern European countries. The lack of a systematised definition concerning functioning urban labs has influenced the development of a single, possibly precise definition of an urban lab, adapted to the socio-economic conditions of CEE countries. On the basis of a systematic review of the literature on the subject and a questionnaire survey of 24 urban labs from different countries of the world regarding their functioning, an attempt was made to develop an integrated model of an urban lab, taking into account elements such as stakeholder groups, thematic areas of activities, or stages of the design process, among others. The various definitions and typologies of urban (living) labs presented in this article, as well as the different approaches to their operation in many countries, indicate what an elaborate and heterogeneous tool they are. Despite the noticeable differences, their overarching goal of operation is invariably to improve the quality of life of city dwellers, taking into account the interests of different audiences. The growing interest in urban labs is reflected in the increasing number of publications on the subject of their functioning and the rising number of ”urban lab” initiatives, which influences the larger number of cities considering their implementation. So far, this tool has not been used in Central and Eastern European countries, including Poland, which led the authors of this study to develop the concept of an urban lab (2018/2019), based on which a pilot project was implemented in two Polish cities between 2019 and 2021.

Suggested Citation

  • Bartosz Piziak & Magdalena Bień & Wojciech Jarczewski & Katarzyna Ner, 2023. "Exploring Urban (Living) Labs: A Model Tailored for Central and Eastern Europe’s Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12556-:d:1220078
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12556/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/16/12556/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uģis Bratuškins & Kęstutis Zaleckis & Sandra Treija & Alisa Koroļova & Jūratė Kamičaitytė, 2020. "Digital Information Tools for Urban Regeneration: Capital’s Approach in Theory and Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Anil Engez & Seppo Leminen & Leena Aarikka-Stenroos, 2021. "Urban Living Lab as a Circular Economy Ecosystem: Advancing Environmental Sustainability through Economic Value, Material, and Knowledge Flows," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Robert Strand & R. Freeman, 2015. "Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 65-85, March.
    4. Barbara Scozzi & Nicola Bellantuono & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo, 2017. "Managing Open Innovation in Urban Labs," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 857-874, September.
    5. Carina Veeckman & Laura Temmerman, 2021. "Urban Living Labs and Citizen Science: From Innovation and Science towards Policy Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Robert Strand & R. Freeman, 2015. "Erratum to: Scandinavian Cooperative Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Stakeholder Engagement in Scandinavia," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 87-87, March.
    7. Diego Hernando Florez Ayala & Anete Alberton & Aksel Ersoy, 2022. "Urban Living Labs: Pathways of Sustainability Transitions towards Innovative City Systems from a Circular Economy Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-29, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hildegunn Mellesmo Aslaksen & Clare Hildebrandt & Hans Chr. Garmann Johnsen, 2021. "The long-term transformation of the concept of CSR: towards a more comprehensive emphasis on sustainability," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Mariusz Zielinski & Izabela Jonek-Kowalska, 2020. "Profitability of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities from the Perspective of Corporate Social Managers," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 264-280.
    3. Araniyar C. Isukul & John J. Chizea, 2017. "Corporate Governance Disclosure in Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis in Nigerian and South African Banks," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(3), pages 21582440177, July.
    4. Erick Auma Omondi, 2024. "Enviropreneurial Marketing Strategies on Sustainability of Cement Industry in Kenya," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(3s), pages 1945-1968, March.
    5. Mähönen Jukka, 2020. "Integrated Reporting and Sustainable Corporate Governance from European Perspective," Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 1-40, July.
    6. Sharon Kwaramba & Stanley Murairwa, 2022. "Enhancing the quality of decisions by administrators: A framework for identifying, classifying and engaging primary school stakeholders in Harare, Zimbabwe," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(1), pages 46-56, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Andrew Ebekozien & Mohamed Ahmed Hafez & Clinton Aigbavboa & Mohamad Shaharudin Samsurijan & Abubakar Zakariyya Al-Hasan & Angeline Ngozika Chibuike Nwaole, 2024. "Appraising Education 4.0 in Nigeria’s Higher Education Institutions: A Case Study of Built Environment Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-16, October.
    9. Wendy Phillips & Elizabeth A. Alexander & Hazel Lee, 2019. "Going It Alone Won’t Work! The Relational Imperative for Social Innovation in Social Enterprises," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 315-331, May.
    10. Melsa Ararat & Asli M. Colpan & Dirk Matten, 2018. "Business Groups and Corporate Responsibility for the Public Good," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 911-929, December.
    11. Rebecca Chunghee Kim & Akira Saito & V. Mohan Avvari, 0. "Interpretation and integration of “creating shared value” in Asia: implications for strategy research and practice," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-28.
    12. Dimitri Schuurman & Seppo Leminen, 2021. "Living Labs Past Achievements, Current Developments, and Future Trajectories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-6, September.
    13. Diego F. Uribe & Isabel Ortiz-Marcos & Ángel Uruburu, 2018. "What Is Going on with Stakeholder Theory in Project Management Literature? A Symbiotic Relationship for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    14. Indrawati Yuhertiana & Maheran Zakaria & Dwi Suhartini & Helmy Wahyu Sukiswo, 2022. "Cooperative Resilience during the Pandemic: Indonesia and Malaysia Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-13, May.
    15. Olivia Aronson & Irene Henriques, 2023. "Shared Value Creation in Equivocal CSR Environments: A Configuration Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(4), pages 713-732, November.
    16. Veronica, Scuotto & Alexeis, Garcia-Perez & Valentina, Cillo & Elisa, Giacosa, 2020. "Do stakeholder capabilities promote sustainable business innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises? Evidence from Italy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 131-141.
    17. Polterovich, Victor, 2022. "Конкуренция, Сотрудничество И Удовлетворенность Жизнью. Часть 2. Основа Лидерства – Коллаборативные Преимущества [Competition, Collaboration, and Life Satisfaction Part 2. The Fundament of Leadersh," MPRA Paper 113053, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Kim, Rebecca Chunghee & Yoo, Kate Inyoung & Uddin, Helal, 2018. "The Korean Air nut rage scandal: Domestic versus international responses to a viral incident," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 533-544.
    19. Andersen, Sophie Esmann & Høvring, Christiane Marie, 2020. "CSR stakeholder dialogue in disguise: Hypocrisy in story performances," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 421-435.
    20. Ana Nave & João Ferreira, 2019. "Corporate social responsibility strategies: Past research and future challenges," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 885-901, July.

    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:15:y:2023:i:16:p:12556-:d:1220078. 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.