How can campus living labs thrive to reach sustainable solutions?

Annika Herth, Robert Verburg, Kornelis Blok
{"title":"How can campus living labs thrive to reach sustainable solutions?","authors":"Annika Herth,&nbsp;Robert Verburg,&nbsp;Kornelis Blok","doi":"10.1016/j.clpl.2024.100078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Many Higher Education Institutions utilize living labs to address complex societal challenges and foster innovative and sustainable solutions on campus. Despite the perceived benefits of campus environments for transdisciplinary real-world innovation, living labs often encounter challenges. As such, there is a growing need for more knowledge on facilitating these on-campus initiatives in different development phases. Here, enabling factors for on-campus living labs are investigated and their salience across the living labs’ development process established. First, a systematic literature review was conducted, identifying sixteen enabling factors. The most pertinent ones were stakeholders and networks, coordination on the organizational level, a conducive work culture, co-creation and collaboration, and suitable methods and practices for living labs. Second, all factors’ relevance across living labs’ development phases were assessed through the input of an expert panel. To that end, a mapping exercise was developed, which can in itself serve as a discussion tool for living lab practitioners. The results suggested that the initiation phase relies on leadership, coordination, stakeholder engagement, a conducive work culture, and funding. In contrast, operational phases were enabled by shared understanding, internal management, stakeholder collaboration, methodological appropriateness, and evaluation. Lastly, the dissemination phase hinged on transfer, scaling, evaluation, learning, and bridging stakeholders and contexts. These insights contribute to a better understanding of enabling factors for campus living labs during different phases of development, offering tailored guidance for stakeholders while stressing adaptability to local contexts. Subsequently, campus living labs may be better equipped to effectively generate sustainable solutions for the complex societal questions of this time.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100255,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner Production Letters","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100078"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner Production Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666791624000241","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many Higher Education Institutions utilize living labs to address complex societal challenges and foster innovative and sustainable solutions on campus. Despite the perceived benefits of campus environments for transdisciplinary real-world innovation, living labs often encounter challenges. As such, there is a growing need for more knowledge on facilitating these on-campus initiatives in different development phases. Here, enabling factors for on-campus living labs are investigated and their salience across the living labs’ development process established. First, a systematic literature review was conducted, identifying sixteen enabling factors. The most pertinent ones were stakeholders and networks, coordination on the organizational level, a conducive work culture, co-creation and collaboration, and suitable methods and practices for living labs. Second, all factors’ relevance across living labs’ development phases were assessed through the input of an expert panel. To that end, a mapping exercise was developed, which can in itself serve as a discussion tool for living lab practitioners. The results suggested that the initiation phase relies on leadership, coordination, stakeholder engagement, a conducive work culture, and funding. In contrast, operational phases were enabled by shared understanding, internal management, stakeholder collaboration, methodological appropriateness, and evaluation. Lastly, the dissemination phase hinged on transfer, scaling, evaluation, learning, and bridging stakeholders and contexts. These insights contribute to a better understanding of enabling factors for campus living labs during different phases of development, offering tailored guidance for stakeholders while stressing adaptability to local contexts. Subsequently, campus living labs may be better equipped to effectively generate sustainable solutions for the complex societal questions of this time.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信