Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
There are an estimated 170 active living labs across the globe. All have common elements but not all of them contribute to the delivery of sustainable living. Here we consider the business models of sustainability in living labs (SusLabs). Specifically we review four active living laboratories that are part of the SusLab North West Europe network. We show that the business cases are different for at least two reasons. One is that each SusLab project has a specific focus even though all are seeking to develop energy efficient innovative products, services or systems. Examples of focus include demonstration projects, knowledge generation through research and business to business development. The other is that each came about for different reasons which might include significant public or private sponsorship, or through academia-business co-creation, and this too is reflected in the business case. We also show that the business cases are not static, but may evolve over time as opportunities are created and as partners develop a clearer understanding of the potential of each SusLab. We propose that, based on a common definition of a SusLab, theoretical considerations and societal needs, as well as insights from the cases, it should be possible to build a business case for a SusLab which draws on knowledge rather than learning-by-doing.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Baedeker, C., Greiff, K., Grinewitschus, V., Hasselkuß, D., Keyson, D., Knutsson, J., et al. (2014). Transition through sustainable Product and Service Innovations in Sustainable Living Labs: application of user-centred research methodology within four Living Labs in Northern Europe. Paper for presentation at the 5th International Sustainable Transitions (IST) Conference, August 27–29, 2014 Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bednar J., Jones-Rooy, A., & Page, S. (2015). Choosing a future based on the past: Institutions, behaviour, and path dependency. European Journal of Political Economy (in print).
Carlsson, B. (2006). Internationalisation of innovation systems: a survey of the literature. Research Policy, 35, 56–67. CrossRef
Christensen, C. (1997). The innovators dilemma. Harvard Business Review, USA.
Commission of the European Communities. (2006). Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities, education, research and innovation. COM(2006) 208 final, Brussels.
Dell’Era, C., & Landoni, P. (2014). Living Lab: A methodology between user-centred design and participatory design. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23, 137–155.
Dolan, P. (2015). Happiness by design. London: Plume.
ENoLL (European Network of Living Labs. Retrieved November 17, 2015, from http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorf, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and mode 2 to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123. CrossRef
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–320. CrossRef
Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Social Sciences Information, 52(3), 486–511. CrossRef
Erosa, V. (2012). Dealing with cultural issues in the Triple Helix Model implementation: A comparison among Government, University and Business Culture. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 52, 25–34.
Franzen, S. (2015). Sustainable transitions at home: HSB living lab project member organisations’ view on sustainability and the living lab itself. Dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology.
Gebhardt, C. (2015). The spatial dimension of the triple helix: the city revisited—towards a mode 3 of innovation systems. Triple Helix, 2(11).
Geels, F., & Kemp, R. (2007). Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies. Technology in Society, 29, 441–455. CrossRef
Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S., & Wiesmann, U. (2006). Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics, 60, 119–128. CrossRef
Hessels, L., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking knowledge production: A literature review and research agenda. Research Policy, 37, 740–760. CrossRef
Jantsch, E. (1970). Inter- and transdisciplinary University: A systems approach to education and innovation. Policy Sciences, 1, 403–428. CrossRef
Leydesdorff, L., & Deakin, M. (2011). The triple helix model of smart cities. A neo-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 53–63. CrossRef
Liedtke, C., Baedeker, C., Hasselkuß, M., Rohn, H., & Grinewitschus, V. (2015). User-integrated innovation in Sustainable LivingLabs: An experimental infrastructure for researching and developing sustainable product service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 106–116. CrossRef
Malm, A., Ljunggren, O., Bergstedt, O., Pettersson, T., & Morrison, M. (2012). Replacement predictions for drinking water networks through historical data. Water Research, 46, 2149–2158. CrossRef
Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2010). The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications. Higher Education, 6, 757–769.
Max-Neef, M. (2005). Foundations of trandisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53, 5–16. CrossRef
Nee, V., & Cao, Y. (1999). Path dependent societal transformation: Stratification in hybrid mixed economies. Theory & Society, 28, 799–834. CrossRef
Nicolescu, B. (2015). How can we enter in dialogue? Transdisciplinary methodology of the dialogue between people, cultures and spiritualities. Dialogue and Universalism, 1, 9–19. CrossRef
Nyman, G. (2015). University-business-government collaboration: From institutes to platforms and ecosystems. Triple Helix, 2(2).
Pohl, C. (2008). From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 46–53. CrossRef
Pohl, C. (2011). What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures, 43, 618–626. CrossRef
Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2015). Triple Helix Systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. H-STAR, Stanford University
Salter, R. & White, S. (2013). Collaborative research in the real world: review of living labs. Living Lab Framework Project, CRC for Low Carbon Living
Senge, P. (1995). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Doubleday.
Spaargaren, G. (2011). Theories of practice: Agency, technology, and culture. Exploring the relevance of practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption practices in the new world-order. In Global Environmental Change, 21, 813–822.
Sunitiyoso, Y., Wicaksono, A., Utomo, A., Putro, U., & Mangkusubroto, K. (2012). Developing strategic initiatives through triple helix interactions: Systems modelling for policy development. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 52, 140–149.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world—the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York: United Nations.
Vanaker, T., Manigart, S., & Meuleman, M. (2014). Path dependent evolution versus intentional management of investment ties in science based entrepreneurial firms. Baylor University,. doi: 10.111/etap.12007.
- Business Models for Sustainability in Living Labs
Gregory M. Morrison
Menno van Rijn
David V. Keyson
- Chapter 30
in-adhesives, MKVS, Hellmich GmbH/© Hellmich GmbH, Zühlke/© Zühlke