The Effect of Living Lab on the Glocalization Process in Smart City Governance

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 335 - 350, 24.07.2021

Rukiye Gizem Öztaş Karlı , Sebahat Açıksöz

https://doi.org/10.30692/sisad.904749

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Smart cities, where one of their main goals is to improve the quality of life of people, is a glocal phenomenon. The fact that each city has unique and different problems requires cities to be addressed at the local level with glocal City Development Strategies (CDS). The local city management model affects smart CDS and ways of implementation. The smart city concept, emerging with globalizing and developing technology, offers solutions to overcome the difficulty of finding the appropriate governance model. Cities all over the world are adopting a new concept to manage their cities and implement CDS. This concept is called "smart governance". Smart city governance involves all stakeholders in the participation process using various tools. One of these tools is living lab. Although living laboratories are suitable to involve stakeholders in the process, the interaction between smart city governance and living laboratories is not emphasized enough in the literature. This article discusses the necessity of adopting a living lab approach as a solution to the challenges of stakeholder engagement in the process of establishing glocal city development strategies and smart city governance. The main contribution of the article is to introduce the idea that the living lab approach can be used to create global CDS and to address the challenges of stakeholder engagement and service development in smart city governance. In this way, the study is expected to contribute to the ongoing debate about what living lab should be.

Keywords

Smart city, smart city governance, glocalization, living lab

AKILLI KENT YÖNETİŞİMİ VE YAŞAYAN LABORATUVARLAR

Abstract

Temel hedeflerinden birinin insanların yaşam kalitesini iyileştirmek olan akıllı kentler küyerel bir fenomendir. Her kentin benzersiz ve farklı problemlere sahip olması kentlerin yerel düzeyde küyerel Kent Gelişim Stratejileri (KGS) ile ele alınmasını gerekli kılmaktadır. Yereldeki kent yönetimi modeli akıllı KGS’yi ve uygulama yollarını etkilemektedir. Küreselleşen ve gelişen teknoloji ile ortaya çıkan akıllı kent kavramı uygun yönetişim modelini bulma zorluğunun üstesinden gelmeye çözümler sunmaktadır. Dünyanın her yerindeki kentler, kentlerini yönetmek ve KGS’yi uygulamak için yeni bir kavramı benimsemektedir. Bu kavrama “akıllı yönetişim” adı verilmektedir. Akıllı kent yönetişimi, çeşitli araçları kullanarak katılım sürecine tüm paydaşları dâhil etmektedir. Bu araçlardan biri de yaşayan laboratuvarlardır. Yaşayan laboratuvarlar paydaşları sürece dâhil etmeye uygun olsa da literatürde akıllı kent yönetişimi ve yaşayan laboratuvarlar arasındaki etkileşimin üzerinde yeteri kadar durulmamıştır. Bu makale, küyerel kent gelişim stratejileri oluşturma ve akıllı kent yönetişimi sürecinde paydaş katılımının zorluklarına çözüm olarak yaşayan laboratuvarlar yaklaşımının benimsenmesinin gerekliliğini tartışmaktadır. Makalenin ana katkısı, yaşayan laboratuvarlar yaklaşımının küyerel KGS oluşturmada ve akıllı kent yönetişiminde paydaş katılımının zorluklarına çözüm bulma ve hizmet geliştirme amacıyla kullanılabileceği fikrinin tanıtılmasıdır. Bu sayede çalışmanın, yaşayan laboratuvarların ne olması gerektiğine dair devam eden tartışmalara da katkı sunması beklenmektedir.

Keywords

Akıllı kent yönetişimi, Akıllı kent, Küyerelleşme, Yaşayan laboratuvar

References

• Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2008). Living labs and open innovation: roles and applicability. eJOV: The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organization & Networks, 10.
• Bakıcı, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). A smart city initiative: the case of Barcelona. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 135-148.
• Ballon, P., & Schuurman, D. (2015). Living labs: concepts, tools and cases. Info, 17 (4).
• Bergvall-Kareborn, B., & Stahlbrost, A. (2009). Living Lab: an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 356-370.
• Bifulco, F., Tregua, M., & Amitrano, C. C. (2017). Co-governing smart cities through living labs top evidences from EU. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 13(50), 21-37.
• Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2013). Smart cities in Europe. In M. Deakin (Ed.), Smart Cities: Governing, Modelling and Analysing The Transition (p. 173). Routledge.
• Cities Alliance (2005a). Cities Without Slums. Annual Report. Retrieved from https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/ar-05-full.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 19.10.2020
• Cities Alliance (2005b). The Impacts of City Development Strategies. Oslo, Norway, Broadway NSW: ECON Analysis & Centre for Local Government, University of Technology, Sydney. Retrieved from https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/cds-impact-study-final-report-august-11-2005%5B1%5D.pdf, Erişim tarihi: 19.10.2020
• Dameri, R. P., & Ricciardi, F. (2017). Leveraging smart city projects for benefitting citizens: the role of ICTs. In S. Rassia & P. Pardalos (Eds.), Smart City Networks (pp. 111-128). Springer, Cham.
• Dell'Era, C., & Landoni, P. (2014). Living Lab: a methodology between user‐centred design and participatory design. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(2), 137-154.
• Evans, J., Jones, R., Karvonen, A., Millard, L., & Wendler, J. (2015). Living labs and co-production: university campuses as platforms for sustainability science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 1-6.
• Folstad, A. (2008). Towards a living lab for development of online community services. Electronic Journal of Organizational Virtualness, 10, 47-58
• Franz, Y. (2015). Designing social living labs in urban research. Info: the Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and Media, 17(4), 53.
• Fu, S. (2007). Smart café cities: testing human capital externalities in the Boston metropolitan area. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(1), 86-111.
• Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanović, N., & Meijers, E. (2007). Smart Cities-Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities, Centre of Regional Science, Vienna. Final Report. Retrieved from www.smart-cities. eu/download/smart cities final report. pdf. Erişim tarihi: 12.10.2020
• Graaf, R. S., & Dewulf, G. P. (2010). Applying the lessons of strategic urban planning learned in the developing world to the Netherlands: a case study of three industrial area development projects. Habitat International, 34(4), 471-477.
• Guzman, J. G., del Carpio, A. F., Colomo-Palacios, R., & de Diego, M. V. (2013). Living labs for user-driven innovation: a process reference model. Research-Technology Management, 56(3), 29-39.
• Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial?. City, 12(3), 303-320.
• Hossain, M., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2019). A systematic review of living lab literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 976-988.
• Hyysalo, S., & Hakkarainen, L. (2014). What difference does a living lab make? Comparing two health technology innovation projects. CoDesign, 10(3-4), 191-208.
• Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460-472.
• Innes, J. E. (2004). Consensus Building: clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(5), 5-20.
• Kim, K. H. (2002). China CDS Performance Indicators: Final Report: UN Habitat-Fukuoka Office. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.607.4705&rep=rep1&type=pdf, Erişim tarihi: 3.11.2020
• King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The question of participation: toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317-329.
• Kourtit, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). Smart cities in the innovation age. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 93-95.
• Koussouris, S., Lampathaki, F., Misuraca, G., Kokkinakos, P., & Askounis, D. (2015). The Decalogue of Policy Making 2.0: Results from analysis of case studies on the impact of ICT for governance and policy modelling. In I. Boughzala, M. Janssen & S. Assar (Eds.), Case Studies in e-Government 2.0 (pp. 163-182). Springer, Cham.
• Kronsell, A., & Mukhtar-Landgren, D. (2018). Experimental governance: the role of municipalities in urban living labs. European Planning Studies, 26(5), 988-1007.
• Leminen, S., Niitamo, V. P., & Westerlund, M. (2017). A brief history of living labs: from scattered initiatives to global movement. Proceedings of the Research Day Conference (pp. 42).
• Leminen, S., Nyström, A. G., & Westerlund, M. (2015). A typology of creative consumers in living labs. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 37, 6-20.
• Leminen, S., Nyström, A. G., Westerlund, M., & Kortelainen, M. J. (2016). The effect of network structure on radical innovation in living labs. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31(6), 743-757.
• Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A.-G. (2012). Living labs as open-innovation networks (September 2012). Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9): 6-11.
• Letaifa, S. B. (2015). How to strategize smart cities: revealing the SMART model. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1414-1419.
• Levén, P., & Holmström, J. (2012). Regional IT innovation: a living lab approach. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 4(2), 129-143.
• Lopes, N. V. (2017). Smart governance: A key factor for smart cities implementation. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid and Smart Cities (ICSGSC) (pp. 277-282), IEEE.
• Lopes, N. V. M., & Farooq, S. (2020). Smart city governance model for Pakistan. In N.V. M., Lopes (Ed.), Smart Governance for Cities: Perspectives and Experiences (pp. 17-28). Springer, Cham.
• Lopes, N. V. M., & Rodrigues, J. (2020). Smart methodologies for smart cities: a comparative analysis. In N.V. M., Lopes (Ed.), Smart Governance for Cities: Perspectives and Experiences (pp. 3-15). Springer, Cham.
• McLoughlin, S., Maccani, G., Prendergast, D., Donnellan, B., & Lero, N. (2018). Living labs: a bibliometric analysis. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).
• McPhee, P., Leminen, S., Schuurman, D., Westerlund, M., & Huizingh, E. (2016). Living labs and user innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(1), 3-6.
• Meijer, A. (2016). Smart city governance: a local emergent perspective. In JR. Gil-Garcia, T.A. Pardo & T. Nam (Eds.), Smarter as the new urban agenda (pp. 73-85). Springer, Cham.
• Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392-408.
• Mulder, I., Velthausz, D., & Kriens, M. (2008). The living labs harmonization cube: communicating living lab’s essentials. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10, 1-14.
• Nam, T. (2012). Modeling municipal service integration: a comparative case study of New York and Philadelphia 311 systems. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, Retrieved from https://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1038380201.html?FMT=ABS, Erişim tarihi: 05.10.2020
• Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Smart city as urban innovation: focusing on management, policy, and context. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference On Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 185-194).
• Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban transition labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111-122.
• Nyström, A. G., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Kortelainen, M. (2014). Actor roles and role patterns influencing innovation in living labs. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 483-495.
• Odendaal, N. (2003). Information and communication technology and local governance: understanding the difference between cities in developed and emerging economies. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27(6), 585-607.
• Örselli, E. ve Dinçer, S. (2019). Akıllı kentleri anlamak: Konya ve Barcelona üzerinden bir değerlendirme. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 2(1), 90-110. Özdil, S. (2017). Şehirlerimiz nasıl akıllanır. İTÜ Vakfı Yayını, 77, 20-22.
• Praharaj, S., Han, J. H., & Hawken, S. (2018). Towards the right model of smart city governance in India. Sustainable Development Studies, 1.
• Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Badarulzaman, N., & Jaafar, M. (2013). A review of city development strategies success factors. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 8(3), 62-78.
• Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Badarulzaman, N., & Jafaar, M. (2011). City development strategies (CDS) contribution toward sustainable urban development in developing countries. Planning Malaysia, 9, 1-18.
• Rodrigues, M., & Franco, M. (2018). Importance of living labs in urban entrepreneurship: a Portuguese case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 780-789.
• Ruijsink, S., & Smith, A. (2016). Transformative Social Innovation: European Network of Living Labs: Summary Report. http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/european-network-of-living-labs, Erişim tarihi: 09.01.2021
• Satterthwaite, D. (2009). The implications of population growth and urbanization for climate change. Environment and Urbanization, 21(2), 545-567.
• Schuurman, D., & De Marez, L. (2012). Structuring user involvement in panel-based living labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9), 31-38.
• Schuurman, D., Baccarne, B., De Marez, L., & Mechant, P. (2012). Smart ideas for smart cities: investigating crowdsourcing for generating and selecting ideas for ICT innovation in a city context. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7(3), 49-62.
• Schuurman, D., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. (2015). Living labs: a systematic literature review. İstanbul: Open Living Lab Days 2015.
• Schuurman, D., De Moor, K., De Marez, L., & Evens, T. (2011). A living lab research approach for mobile TV. Telematics and Informatics, 28(4), 271-282. Shapiro, J. M. (2003). Smart cities: explaining the relationship between city growth and human capital. SSRN, 1-24.
• Steinberg, F. (2005). Strategic urban planning in Latin America: experiences of building and managing the future. Habitat International, 29, 69–93.
• Toppeta, D. (2010). The smart city vision: how innovation and ICT can build smart, “livable”, sustainable cities. The Innovation Knowledge Foundation, 5, 1-9.
• Veeckman, C., & Van Der Graaf, S. (2015). The city as living laboratory: empowering citizens with the citadel toolkit. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(3).
• Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J., & Schliwa, G. (2016). Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 45-54.
• Walravens, N. (2012). Mobile business and the smart city: developing a business model framework to include public design parameters for mobile city services. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7(3), 121-135
• Watson, V. (2009). “The planned city sweeps the poor away …”: urban planning and 21st century urbanization. Progress in Planning, 72, 151-193.
• Webster, C. W. R., & Leleux, C. (2018). Smart governance: opportunities for technologically-mediated citizen co-production. Information Polity, 23(1), 95-110.
• Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2011). Managing the challenges of becoming an open innovation company: experiences from living labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(1).
• Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., & Rajahonka, M. (2018). A topic modelling analysis of living labs research. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(7).
• Willke, H. (2007). Smart governance: governing the global knowledge society. Campus Verlag.
• Wong, S. W., Tang, B. S., & Van Horen, B. (2006). Strategic urban management in China: a case study of Guangzhou development district. Habitat International, 30(3), 645-667.