the role of urban living labs for gothenburg¹s sustainable development final_dacomm160830(1)

!!

!!

!Challenge!Lab!!CHALMERS!UNIVERSITY!OF!TECHNOLOGY!Gothenburg,!Sweden!2016!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!The Role of Urban Living Labs for Gothenburg’s sustainable development A case study of Jubileumsparken Master’s thesis of the Challenge Lab 2016 Caroline Seleryd Malte Glatthaar

The Role of Urban Living Labs for Gothenburg’s Sustainable Development !

! 1!

The Role of Urban Living Labs for Gothenburg’s Sustainable Development A case Study of Jubileumsparken��Caroline Seleryd, Malte Glatthaar

© CAROLINE. SELERYD, 2016. © MALTE. GLATTHAAR, 2016.

Master Thesis no �Challenge Lab Chalmers University of Technology��SE-412 96 Göteborg��Sweden��Telephone + 46 (0)31-772 1000

Seleryd & Glatthaar, Chalmers University of Technology Göteborg

! 2!

Abstract The master thesis “The Role of Urban Living Labs for Gothenburg’s Sustainable

Development” explores the contemporary concepts Placemaking and Urban Living

Lab for urban development, by analysing the case of Jubileumsparken, an area within

one of Scandinavia’s largest urban development projects situated in the centre of

Gothenburg. The theoretical discussion concludes that the concept of Urban Living Lab

has greater potential to contribute to sustainable urban development while focusing on

involving citizens and other strategic important stakeholders in the process of

developing the city as the concept of Placemaking. This argument is build on the strong

partnership called PPPP, between the private and public sector as well as people

(citizens), a characteristic crucial for the effectiveness of Urban Living Labs.

Furthermore, the focus on learning processes based on monitoring and evaluation

strategies for sustainable and social transformations of Urban Living Labs underlines the

concept’s importance in today’s urban environment, which requires more resilience

towards climate change, faces social inequality, contributes to the majority of emissions

and is thus is a major focus within the sustainability debate.

The Transition Management Cycle, a governance tool of Transition Management, is

applied as an analytical framework in order to assess Jubileumsparken as an Urban

Living Lab. The results indicate that the approach followed by the management of

Jubileumsparken lack monitoring and evaluation strategies which are crucial for

learning from experiments, prototyping and other activities in Jubileumsparken. The

thesis concludes with recommendations for the municipality of Gothenburg and the

public institution Älvstranden Utveckling AB, which is responsible for developing and

managing Jubileumsparken.

Keywords: Urban Living Lab - Placemaking - Transition Management - Social

Sustainability - Multi-Level-Perspective


! 3!

Acknowledgements

This master thesis is the result of an intensive but very fruitful semester at the Challenge

Lab 2016 at Chalmers University of Technology. Moreover, it is the final project of our

master programs in Environmental Science and Sustainability, Economics and

Management.

We would like to express our fullest gratitude to our supervisor David Andersson, who has

guided us through our research project. We greatly appreciate the many hours that

you have spent tutoring us in our project. We would also like to thank our examiner John

Holmberg, as well as Örjan Söderberg, Daniella Mendoza and Johan Larsson from the

Challenge Lab team for all the valuable advices. The Challenge Lab has provided us

with the opportunity to explore our own values towards sustainable development and

helped us broaden our perspective of our future ambitions. Moreover we would like to

thank all participants of the Challenge Lab 2016 for creating an inspiriting, motivating

and empowering environment through this this project.

And finally we would like to show our gratitude to those working at Älvstranden

Utveckling AB, Fastighetskontoret, Stadslandet, Business Region Gothenburg and those

researchers that have made this research possible through their support.


! 4!

Executive Summary The research for this master thesis analyses Gothenburg’s sustainable urban

development and governance approaches in order to assess the city’s strategy for

sustainable development. The overall aim of this research is to identify concepts that

enable the facilitation of urban sustainability transitions and thus contribute to the

transformation of the current system for sustainable urban development in Gothenburg.

The city of Gothenburg recognizes the need for new forms of urban development that

fulfil both, more citizen involvement in decision-making processes and finding strategies

that are in line with the ambitious vision of the municipality for sustainable

development. Gothenburg’s strategy for urban development is based on various

concepts as stated in the RiverCity Vision 2012; “to develop Gothenburg as a hub of

creativity and innovation and as a Testbed and Living Lab building on a pool of talents

and firms, […]” (RiverCity Vision, 2012).

However, when interviewing practitioners form several departments in Gothenburg, the

different concepts, such as Testbed, Living Lab or Placemaking were used

interchangeably. When asked for more in-depth information which would differentiate

the different concepts, answers to the question were often ambiguous. In order to

analyse Gothenburg’s approach to sustainable urban development the three

concepts, Testbed, Placemaking and urban living lab, all concepts that are currently

employed by the city, were discussed based on literature. Furthermore, the research

provides a case study of an area that is within one of Scandinavia’s largest urban

development projects, the RiverCity development in Gothenburg.

The case study focuses on the governance strategies employed by the municipality

owned company Älvstranden Utveckling AB, for developing Jubileumsparken.

The theoretical analysis of the different concepts concludes that the urban living lab

concept has the greatest potential for sustainable urban development by being able

to address all dimensions of sustainability, environmental, societal economic. If

employed according to literature, the urban living lab concept upholds a strong

potential to involve citizens and co-create urban development together with a nexus of

stakeholders including the private and public sector.

davidandersson

Highlight

You are saying you adress all dimensions, but the well-being dimension is not mentioned. If do not adress this dimensions, you should then instead say what dimensions you adress.


! 5!

The concept for urban development applied at Jubileumsparken has been called a

Living Lab, Testbed and Placemaking. However, due to the afore mentioned qualities

of the urban living lab concept, Jubileumsparken was analysed as an Urban Living Lab

by answering the following questions;

1.! How can the concept of urban living lab contribute to sustainability transitions in

Gothenburg?

2.! What theoretical frameworks can be applied for analysing urban living labs?

3.! What challenges and benefits are perceived by stakeholders in the process?

The theoretical framework identified for analysing Jubileumsparken was derived form

Transition Management, as this branch of theory is concerned with understanding and

facilitating social transitions towards a sustainable future.

Transition Management Cycle, based on Loorbach (2010)


! 6!

The Transition Management Cycle, was applied to analyse and assess Jubileumsparken

as an Urban Living Lab. The cycle identifies four different governance activities relevant

for social transitions, called the (i) Strategic, (ii) Tactical, (iii) Operational and (iv)

Reflexive phase, as represented above in the figure.

Empirical data was collected through fourteen semi-structured interviews with

stakeholders involved at Jubileumsparken. Interview questions were structured and

formulated according to the four phases of the Transition Management Cycle. The goal

was to gain an understanding on their insights on perceived challenges and benefits of

the current process at Jubileumsparken. The findings indicate that Jubileumsparken has

potential to be developed into an Urban Living Lab, based on the current types of

business experiments and prototypes, which have been established in this urban area.

However, the management team of the park is lacking monitoring and evaluation

procedures, which are important for learning and knowledge creation for urban

development. The thesis concludes with recommendations for the Jubileumsparken

management team at Älvstranden Utveckling AB.


! 7!

Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS!....................................................................................................................................!3!EXECUTIVE SUMMARY!......................................................................................................................................!4!TABLE OF CONTENTS!.........................................................................................................................................!7!LIST OF FIGURES!.................................................................................................................................................!8!LIST OF TABLES!...................................................................................................................................................!8!1. INTRODUCTION!.............................................................................................................................................!9!

1.1 BACKGROUND!....................................................................................................................................................!9!1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT!.........................................................................................................................................!11!1.3 THE CHALLENGE LAB!.........................................................................................................................................!12!1.4 RESEARCH PURPOSE & RESEARCH QUESTION!....................................................................................................!14!1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS!...................................................................................................................................!14!1.6 TARGET AUDIENCE!.............................................................................................................................................!15!

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK!.......................................................................................................................!16!2.1 SUSTAINABILITY IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT!...........................................................................................................!16!2.2 NEW APPROACHES FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT!.................................................................................................!21!2.3 PLACEMAKING!..................................................................................................................................................!23!2.4 URBAN LIVING LABS – DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS!.................................................................................!24!

3. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK!........................................................................................................................!31!3.1 TRANSITION MANAGEMENT!................................................................................................................................!31!3.2 UNDERSTANDING TRANSITIONS USING THE MULTI-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE!.................................................................!32!3.3 TRANSITION ARENA!............................................................................................................................................!34!3.4 TRANSITION CYCLE!............................................................................................................................................!35!

4. METHODOLOGY!..........................................................................................................................................!39!5.1 CASE STUDY JUBILEUMSPARKEN!.........................................................................................................................!44!

5.2 Analysis of Jubileumsparken!............................................................................................................!46!5.2.1 Strategic Activities!.............................................................................................................................................!46!5.2.2 Tactical Activities!...............................................................................................................................................!53!5.2.3 Operational Activities!.......................................................................................................................................!57!5.2.4 Reflexive Activities!.............................................................................................................................................!62!5.3 Key Findings!.........................................................................................................................................!64!

6. DISCUSSION!.................................................................................................................................................!66!6.1 System Analysis Using the Multi-Level Perspective!....................................................................!66!6.2 Discussion of the Case Study: Jubileumsparken!........................................................................!70!

8. CONCLUSION!..............................................................................................................................................!75!9. RECOMMENDATIONS!.................................................................................................................................!77!

9.1 FUTURE STUDIES!..................................................................................................................................................!80!REFERENCES!.....................................................................................................................................................!81!


! 8!

APPENDIX I: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS!...............................................................................................................!1!APPENDIX II: TABLES AND FIGURES!.................................................................................................................!2!

FRAMEWORK FOR URBAN LIVING LAB DESIGN: AS DESCRIBED BY GUST (2015)!.........................................................!2!PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT!..........................................................................................................................................!3!

APPENDIX III: THE CHALLENGE LAB: PROJECT PHASE I!................................................................................!5!

List of figures FIGURE!1:!THE!TRIPLE!HELIX!...............................................................................................................................................!12!FIGURE!2:!INNOVATION!MECHANISM!IN!LIVING!LABS,!BASED!ON!LEMINEN!(2013)!.......................................................................!27!FIGURE!3:!TRANSITION!MANAGEMENT!CYCLE,!BASED!ON!LOORBACH!(2010!...............................................................................!36!FIGURE!4:!LOCATION!OF!JUBILEUMSPARKEN!(ÄLVSTRANDEN,!2016)!..........................................................................................!44!FIGURE 5: OPEN CALL BRIEFING!....................................................................................................................................!56!FIGURE!6:KAJ!ODLING!SITE!AT!JUBILEUMSPARKEN!..................................................................................................................!58!FIGURE!7:!ALLMÄNNA!BASTUN!...........................................................................................................................................!60!FIGURE!8:!ILLUSTRATION!OF!FINDINGS!..................................................................................................................................!70!FIGURE!9:!RECOMMENDATIONS!..........................................................................................................................................!77! List of tables TABLE!1:!CONTEMPORARY!URBAN!DEVELOPMENT!CONCEPT!......................................................................................................!22!TABLE!2:!ROLES!OF!LIVING!LABS,!BASED!ON!CAPDEVILLA!(2014)!..............................................................................................!27!TABLE!3:!ANALYTICAL!FRAMEWORK!.....................................................................................................................................!38!TABLE!4:!INTERVIEW!PARTNER!............................................................................................................................................!42!TABLE 6 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS ENGAGED IN THE PARK!................................................................................................!53!


! 9!

1. Introduction

1.1 Background The urban environment has become home to the majority of human life; more than half

of the world’s population (53%) is now living in urbanized areas (UN, 2009). Cities today

are facing major global challenges such as population growth, increased urbanisation

and climate change (Opitz et al., 2016). At the same time, urban areas also represent a

highly intensified agglomeration of industry, infrastructure and residential buildings,

which produce an estimated 70 % of global energy related CO2 emissions (IAE, 2009).

Cities are “[…] entering an epoch of protracted crisis. All urban settlements face a

practical crisis of sustainability, just as human beings face a comprehensive crisis of

social life on this planet” (James, 2015, p. 3).

The importance for sustainability transitions in urban development has thus become

increasingly apparent. The United Nations have responded to these concerns by

including sustainable city life as one of the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. The proposed target is to “build cities and human settlements inclusive,

safe, resilient and sustainable” (UN, 2016). According to the UN (2016), a sustainable city

is “an urban area that enables its inhabitants to enjoy a good economic and social life

without using the earth's resources in an unsustainable way” (UN, 2016). These issues are

by no means exclusively related to less industrialized countries or fast developing

nations, such as The People’s Republic of China. European cities are also under

immense pressure to provide for economic prosperity and social cohesion, while

developing environmentally sustainable (Breitfuss-Loidl et al., 2016).

Sustainable development is a wide and complex concept that can be approached in

multiple ways. The challenge is to find ways to reach the ambitious visions for

sustainable development in an unthreatening and socially just manner, while also

reducing the barriers for social, economic and environmental sustainable innovations to

be integrated as part of the transition. The urban sustainability challenges require new

forms of collaboration, more awareness for the issues from all actors in cities and an

arena for learning, exploring and testing new ideas and innovations. According to

Radywyl and Biggs (2013), public city space provides an entry-point for sustainable


! 10!

urban transformation, as “it represents an environment that links people, practices,

institutions and supports the transfer of knowledge and ideas transfer from individual to

municipal level” (Radywyl & Biggs, 2013 p. 169).

The Urban Living Lab concept may just provide a concept for facilitating sustainable

urban transformation, by designing, testing and learning of social and technical

innovations in real-time (Breitfuss-Loidl et al., 2016). This thesis explores the Urban Living

Lab concept for urban sustainability transitions by investigating this concept in the

regional context of Gothenburg, Sweden.

davidandersson

Highlight

You come to this conclusion very quick. Did we not say that it needed a more in-depth reasoning before presenting it?


! 11!

1.2 Problem Statement Like in other European harbour cities, the port of Gothenburg has been relocated

outside the city centre, leaving behind a vast uninhabited space in the heart of

Gothenburg. The municipality owns this land and has started to develop some parts into

residential areas. The so called RiverCity development is one of Scandinavia’s largest

urban development projects.

In the past the city has been publically criticized for its urban development approach.

The criticism has been targeted towards a lack of citizen involvement in the decision-

making processes in urban development. In order to build trust and create mutual

understanding between Gothenburg’s residents and the municipality, the city has

conducted dialogues with over 3000 adults and an estimated 300 children, to create a

common vision for the development of the RiverCity development.

Main challenges for Gothenburg identified in the RiverCity vision include, “[…]

globalisation, increasing social exclusion and the effects of climate change” (RiverCity

Vision, 2012 p.9). Furthermore, the vision intends to develop the RiverCity as “an

attractive and sustainable regional centre” (RiverCity Vision, 2012 p.10). Issues such as

social exclusion and segregation in the region as well as the need for re-examining the

current economic models while exploring new strategies for economic development

are recognized and addressed in this co-created vision for urban development

(RiverCity Vision, 2012). The RiverCity vision has been translated into action by

employing contemporary approaches for urban development by the city of

Gothenburg. Älvstranden Utveckling AB, a municipal owned company in Gothenburg,

has implemented the concept of Placemaking, Testbed and Living Lab as a

development strategy. However, these new forms of governance and facilitation in

urban development is new territory for most practitioners in the municipality. The

different concepts have been used synonymously in discussions with actors in the field.

Furthermore, the company Älvstranden Utveckling AB perceives a lack for assessment

methods for the different concepts and their impact.

davidandersson

Highlight

References?


! 12!

1.3 The Challenge Lab

The subsequent chapter will provide a brief summary on how this master thesis research

project came into existence. For a more in-depth description see Appendix IV.

This master thesis was conducted in the Challenge Lab 2016 at Chalmers University of

Technology Gothenburg. The Challenge Lab is a platform where master students from

different disciplines and countries collaborate with local industry, government and

academia, in order to develop strategies for sustainability transitions in the region of

Gothenburg. The students work within the triple helix independently, (see figure 1). The

Challenge Lab is based on the assumption that students are perceived as

unthreatening and neutral from local stakeholders, as they do not represent the interest

of private or municipal organizations. Therefore, the role of students is key in identifying

crucial and pressing sustainability challenges in the region.

!Figure!1:!The!triple!helix

Throughout the first project phase, students were trained in self-leadership, dialogue,

system thinking and other tools that increase the comprehension for the complexity of

those systems and furthermore enable students to identify where and how to intervene

in currently unsustainable systems, in order to develop strategies for sustainability

transitions.

!

davidandersson

Sticky Note

The Triple Helix does not include the Challenge Lab. Change to: "The triple helix in relation to the Challenge Lab."


! 13!

The overall methodology applied at the Challenge Lab is Backcasting. Backcasting is a

tool for strategic planning for sustainable development (Holmberg & Robèrt (2000).

By following the four steps of the Backcasting process, the students place themselves

first in the future and envision a sustainable future by developing sustainability criteria

based on literature, group discussions and presentations. Following the second step of

the backcasting methodology, the students step into dialogues with important

stakeholders of the Gothenburg region, from academia, the private and public sector.

The dialogues are based on different topics, such as urban development, material

flows, energy, waste and building materials. The stakeholder dialogues allow students to

identify leverage points in the systems, which represent pressing sustainability

challenges. This process also enables students to identify the level of interest from

different actors involved in these systems, which is a crucial driver for change. Bringing

experts from different sectors together and providing a neutral platform for discussion

enabled a more in-depth analysis of the challenges that were identified, as well as for

the points of intervention in the respective systems.

The motivation for this research project is based on the first project phase of the

Challenge Lab, the identification of urgent challenges with perceived high interest in

the region of Gothenburg and the students’ own interest aligned with their educational

background. Stakeholders working on the RiverCity project in Gothenburg attended

the dialogues and addressed their difficulties in planning and governing for sustainable

development of one of Scandinavia’s largest urban development projects.

Jubileumsparken as part of the RiverCity project was identified as an area with great

potential for a central hub for innovation in Gothenburg.


! 14!

1.4 Research Purpose & Research Question The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the transformation of the current system for

sustainable urban development in Gothenburg and to integrate new perspectives and

ideas, in order to transfer the knowledge created to other projects in the region.

Our research questions are; (i) how can the concept of Urban Living Lab contribute to

sustainability transitions in Gothenburg? (ii) What theoretical frameworks can be

applied for analysing Urban Living Labs? (iii) What challenges and benefits are

perceived by stakeholders in the process?

1.5 Scope and Limitations

In order to understand how the concept of Urban Living Lab can contribute to

sustainability transitions in Gothenburg, this thesis focuses on Transition Management

theories. Transition Management has been applied to several other studies on Urban

Living Lab, thus it was considered a useful framework for this study.

Since the concept of Urban Living Lab is set in a real-life environment this thesis will use a

case study approach, in order to provide empirical evidence of how the concept

operates practically. The study aims to understand sustainability transitions in the

Gothenburg region, therefore the scope of thesis will focus on the case study of

Jubileumsparken. Jubileumsparken is located in the city centre of Gothenburg and

within one of Scandinavia’s largest urban development project, the RiverCity

development. Empirical data was obtained from researchers, practitioners at various

municipality departments and stakeholders involved in the development process of

Jubileumsparken. Therefore, the empirical scope of this thesis is limited to the

knowledge provided by actors from the Gothenburg region.


! 15!

1.6 Target Audience

The target audience for this thesis are municipalities that have the courage to develop

and explore new ways for sustainable urban development and those actors working in

the public sector that have recognized that the business as usual approach will not

succeed in transforming the urban landscape into a sustainable future. Furthermore, this

research is aimed at private companies involved or operating within urban living labs,

researchers in the fields of sustainable development, innovations and transitions in the

urban sphere, policy makers and other potential users of temporary urban

development.


! 16!

2. Theoretical Framework

The purpose of the theoretical framework is to provide in-depth knowledge on

contemporary urban development concepts that are currently employed as

governance tools by the city of Gothenburg, which provide alternatives for the business

as usual case of urban development. These three concept aim for more social,

environmental and economic sustainability. The first chapter is an introduction to the

sustainability debate in the context of urban development. The chapter has a strong

focus on the social domain of the sustainability dimensions. The discussion concludes

with a positive approach towards governing sustainable development. The second

chapter introduces three different concepts for urban development employed by the

city of Gothenburg, Placemaking, Testbed and Urban Living Lab. This chapter

concludes that the concept of Urban Living Lab offers the most potential for

sustainability transitions out of these three concpets.

2.1 Sustainability in Urban Development After the 21st session of the Conference of Parties COP21 on the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) in 2015, the content and form of

the agreement was published in December 2015. It states that

“[…] aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global

average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre- industrial levels and pursuing

efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre- industrial levels […]”

(UN, 2015).

The above mentioned goal requires a major shift in the way we as a global community

live life today. For decades now, and at least since the book by Meadows et al. (1972),


! 17!

The Limits to Growth, the finite availability of non-renewable resources is widely

understood. Experts in economics have been trying for years now to alternate the

mechanisms of the global economy, in order to reduce or even eradicate externalities1.

Unfortunately, with little or no success, if global emission levels are the main criterion for

judgement, which still continue to rise (IPCC, 2014). A study on the Swedish economy,

policy and lifestyle impacts, which reviewed data from 1960-2011, indicates “[…] that

the implemented policies have failed to reduce resources and energy to desired levels”

(Heshmati, 2015).

The sustainability crisis becomes especially apparent in the urban space. For the first

time ever in human history more than half of the world’s population lives in urban

areas.2 This number is expected to grow to 70% by 2050 (Dahkal, 2010). In highly

developed countries, such as Sweden, 86% of the population already lives in cities

(World Bank, 2016). Urban areas consume as much as 80% of global energy (James,

2015). On a local level, cities mitigation strategies often revolve around technical issues

that promise mitigation strategies through technical innovations. A strong focus on

technical innovations, which will replace and thus mitigate the impact of unsustainable

technology seems to be a popular strategy for sustainable development among city

officials.

When reviewing the presentation of the city of Gothenburg’s sustainability strategies,

the region where this research project is conducted, the focus lies on high-tech

solutions. Examples for Gothenburg’s sustainable development strategies include

projects such as, SmartCity, ElectriCity or Green Gothenburg, which includes issues such

as waste, transport, energy and urban development projects (City of Gothenburg,

2016), all of which have a strong focus on high-tech innovations. The citizen as a user of

the new technology and as a dweller in the urban space is left unconsidered as a mere

user and consumer in the sustainability strategy Green Gothenburg. The key actors for

sustainable development are presented as what James (2015), calls the knowledge

1 Externalities; externalized environmental effects of goods, services, processes or systems (Lettenmeier et al, 2009). 2 According to the UN, 53% of the world’s population lives in cities. (UN, 2009)!


! 18!

industry. Another example is the promotion film for the RiverCity, which showcases the

planned development, but focuses only on computer animations of buildings, rather

than the urban dwellers who will live in this area (Älvstranden Utveckling AB, 2016).

According to James (2015), the strong emphasis on the smart city concepts is inflated

and tends to prioritize the “[…] so-called knowledge industries as a separate and

dominating domain of social life” (James, 2015. p. 43). The author continues, “the

current fetish for smart cities is oriented around economic return and knowledge for

profit’s sake” (James, 2015. p. 44). The one-sided focus on experts and technological

development appears more comfortable to the general public, as one’s own

behaviour is left untouched in the sustainability debate. Furthermore, the smart city

approach with a strong focus on expert knowledge and technological innovation for

sustainable development holds potential to lower the perceived responsibility of citizens

towards the sustainability issue. This becomes also apparent when the focus on policy

design for sustainability is mainly based on technological innovations.

The concept circular economy (as opposed to a linear economy) or cradle-to-cradle

have become buzz words in the field of sustainability. The idea is to design or substitute

materials with other materials that can be reused and repurposed infinitely, meaning

the system would (in theory) eradicate waste. The concept promises a decoupling of

raw materials from economic growth (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2014). While these

intentions are highly noble, there is no real-life example of a circular economy that

actually achieves to eradicate waste and energy use. Nonetheless, the circular

economy and the cradle-to-cradle concept have been embraced by politics and

industry (De Man and Brezet, 2016). According to De Man and Brezet (2016), this is a

misleading message in the sustainability discourse, as it simplifies the debate and

reduces the complexity of sustainable development to a mere technological issue of

resource consistency and efficiency3. Instead de Man and Friege (2016), postulate to

equally consider all three strategies for sustainable development; efficiency,

3 Resource consistency; “feeding back materials in a way that is optimally consistent with natural substance flows” (de Man & Friege, 2016. p. 94). Resource efficiency; increasing product output by using less resources.


! 19!

consistency and sufficiency4. The idea of sufficiency is in stark contrast to the neoliberal

economic assumption of the homo economicus. The idea of homo economicus,

reduces humans to rational decision makers, who constantly seek to maximize their self

interest. The same presumption is made for agents in the green economy5. The

neoliberal assumption serves here again as a prerequisite of the green economy, where

environmental consequences are decoupled form economic activity through eco-

efficiency and technical innovation (Deflorian, 2015). A sustainability strategy based on

sufficiency will require a strong focus on human behaviour and consumption patterns,

as compared to production efficiency and consistency. Sufficiency as a concept is

straightforward; there can be enough of an activity (Princen, 2005). According to

Princen (2015), sufficiency is common sense when for instance a farmer aims for as

much yield as the market demands, without pushing land and workers too much, in

order to avoid risking soil quality and workers’ reliability.

The notion of sufficiency in economics is used for instance as a strategy in the de-

growth debate for a de-commercialization of our lives and as a political tool aiming to

foster personal resources, such as time, health, education, knowledge, as well as the

freedom to choose one’s own path (Deflorian, 2015). Furthermore, sufficiency is a

critique of increasing the gross domestic product (GDP) as the main social and political

goal (Deflorian, 2015). Therefore, sufficiency strategies for economic policy and

governance require a focus on the behaviour of people, within markets, rather than

focusing on technology and its advancement. The behavioural approach of the

sufficiency domain offers a direction in the sustainability debate towards the social

dimension, the least developed and understood dimension of sustainability (Patridge,

2005).

Considering the factors outlined above, technical centred policies for sustainable

urban development might undermine the complexity of the sustainability discourse.

Moreover, in some regions, such as Sweden, policies addressing sustainable 4 Sufficiency; “reducing the need for products and services” (de Man & Friege, 2016. p. 94). 5 Green Economy as a concept aims to reduce resource input by increasing resource efficiency of industrial production (Deflorian, 2015).


! 20!

development have missed their targets for decades. Therefore, given the complexity

and urgency for sustainable urban development, it seems beneficial to create more

pluralism in the sustainability debate by equally considering all dimensions of

sustainability.

2.1.2 Towards a Positive Approach for Sustainability

A one dimensional and fragmented policy landscape might lead to rigidity and

contradiction in the system and a slowing down of processes for development. Also

urgently needed social and technical sustainability innovations will be affected by a

fragmented policy landscape, especially in their implementation and testing phase.

The question arises how to approach sustainability and how to enable plurality and a

more equal integration of the sustainability dimensions in policy.

Within this debate, James (2015) suggests positive sustainability as a new approach

towards sustainability. James (2015), bases his argument on the fact that “[…] the

dominant focus of the last three decades on mutually assured negative sustainability

has not saved us from the current manifold crisis, then something more radical is

needed” (James, 2015. p. 23). Negative sustainability is related to the endurance and

prolonging of negative effects and reducing the impact of change. In contrast, positive

sustainability resembles “[…] practices and meanings of human engagement that

make for lifeworlds that project the ongoing probability of natural and social flourishing,

vibrancy, resilience and adaptation” (James, 2015. p.23). The focus on ‘lifeworlds’

describes the local environment with its relations to the global context. This positive

framework for sustainability provides a strong focus for the social domain of

sustainability, without the prerequisite of economic sustainability as the prevailing

domain. Furthermore, as the positive sustainability framework is ‘human’ centred and

not ‘things’ centred, positive sustainability is about negotiating on how we want to live.

Therefore, the concept offers room for discussion on “how issues of social equity and

communality, ecological sustainability, grassroots economic viability and respect for

different ways of life to be negotiated in the practice of sustainable development”

(James, 2015. 20). This negotiation process requires a supporting governance approach

and moreover, a physical space in the city for it to evolve.


! 21!

2.2 New Approaches for Urban Development

The city of Gothenburg recognizes the need for new approaches for urban

development and embeds new concept based on experimentation an innovation in its

long term vision. The RiverCity vision includes statements such as, “develop Gothenburg

as a hub of creativity and innovation and as a test-bed and living lab building on a

pool of talents and firms, […]” (RiverCity Vision, 2012). The concepts Testbed and Living

Lab stem from the idea of innovation experiments for development. Other municipal

departments state to use Strategic Placemaking, a process aiming at improving public

space by involving citizens in building local identity (Älvstranden, 2016).

However, during interviews with stakeholders form the region of Gothenburg, including

practitioners working for the municipality or operating living labs, ambiguity about the

different concepts became apparent. Therefore, the following chapters provide an

overview of the three temporary concepts that the city of Gothenburg employs for its

urban development; Placemaking, Testbed and Urban Living Lab. Even though all three

concepts are kept broad in literature as well as in their real-life implementation in terms

of application, profound differences between these concepts can be determined. The

following table provides an overview of the main differences between the three

concepts.


! 22!

Table!1:!Contemporary!urban!development!concept!

CONCEPT URBAN LIVING LAB PLACEMAKING TESTBED

Definition “Urban Living Labs test new technologies, solutions and policies in real-world conditions in highly visible ways, which can prompt radical social and technical transformation” (Voytenko et al. 2016).

"The strategic component of processes of space- and place-related identity building and the use of culturally coded attributes of location in town development processes" (Bürkner, 2005).

“A testbed is a controlled experimentation platform, where applications can be deployed and tested in an environment that resembles real-world conditions. The approximation of, but insulation from, the real world allows the issues of safety, security, reproducibility ect. To be managed during an experiment.[…]” (Krafzig. et al. 2005).

Who Stakeholders (PPPP: public-private-people-partnerships)

Local community, citizens, municipalities

Researches (users are not necessary involved)

How Test, develop, co-create new activities, processes, business and technologies. In order to can gain access to ideas, experiences, and knowledge that users possess based on their daily needs

Building on the bottom-up principle of involving citizens in decision making processes. By seeking to enhance the local environment as a resource for revitalization. (Dean & McClelland, 2013)

By identifying new business opportunity or problems, and provide insights of new products, services or technological innovations

What A real life urban laboratory Identity building of a local area

A platform for testing scientific theories, tools or technologies (Sanchez et. al, 2014)

Where The concept is broad and can be; a park, a street, a building etc.

In local communities In a controlled, laboratory environment (Slama D. et al. 2015)

When In multi-contextual spheres where knowledge co-produce and transferred to other areas and collaborations (Stelzer et al., 2015)

Improve or revitalize socially and economically deteriorated areas (Dempsey & Burton, 2012)

Manly focused on technical industries such as; manufacturing, energy, healthcare, financial services and transportation.

As indicated in table 1, Testbeds do not necessarily involve citizens in their processes.

Furthermore, Testbeds are isolated form real-world conditions, with a focal point on

technologies and economic drivers. These aspects disqualify this concept for the

purpose of this research, as it limits the plurality of the process and the quality of

negotiations over inventions.


! 23!

2.3 Placemaking Placemaking emerged in the 1960s to address social sustainability in urban areas, by

emphasizing a bottom-up approach to urban development and focussing on the

existing environment. Ertan and Eğercioğlu (2015), describe Placemaking as; “[…] a

process that transforms space into place forming a kind of belonging for its residents

and visitors.” Placemaking initiatives have increased throughout the last years as a way

for local residents to shape the city together. It has also gained attention from

municipalities as a planning strategy to address challenges of social suitability. The

initiatives can be relatively small. For example, a group of neighbours deciding to take

responsibility for the public playground. Others can be larger, such as a community

building project aimed to make residents create their own environment (Dempsey &

Burton, 2012). The projects can be either temporary or long-term, which implies a

gradual transformation to a more permanent activity.

Several authors agree that bottom-up Placemaking is a positive way to activate and

create a sustainable urban space (Karacor, 2014; Balassiano & Maldonado, 2014).

According to Dempsey and Burton (2012), social interactions in public spaces can

contribute to the quality of life for individuals as well as society. Shared space can also

contribute to a sense of belonging, by establishing a link between people and places.

They, thus argue that it is vital to create physical places that facilitate citizens’

engagement and community interaction.

Placemaking has been used as a method to help improve socially and economically

deteriorated areas (Karacor, 2014; Balassiano & Maldonado, 2014). The method can

help understand what people want and need in public spaces. The concept rejects

top-down planning, instead local authorities and residents should shape

neighbourhoods together (Balassiano & Maldonado, 2014). Karacor et al. (2014) states

that Placemaking cannot be organised with specific rules that can be transferred to

other projects, since it focuses on the local characteristic of the area. Instead

Placemaking should provide a guidance for other area studies. Strategies for

Placemaking can include surveys of the urban environment and mapping out


! 24!

communities and resources (Karacor, 2014). Attention is put on the characteristics of

the local environment such as: diversity, history, culture and local businesses that can

help contribute to neighbourhood revitalization and economic development (Karacor,

2014).

Criticism of Placemaking has also been raised by several authors (Dempsey & Burton,

2012; Karacor, 2014). When the local governments step back and give citizens

responsibility of an area, little attention is put on who becomes involved in the

Placemaking activities and for what reason. Which might result in that well-resourced

groups can come and dominate the area (Karacor, 2014).

Placemaking has both positive and negative aspects which need to be taking into

account when developing an area using the concept. Placemaking has the potential

to increase quality of life in socially and economically deteriorated areas (Dempsey &

Burton, 2012). However, Placemaking can also lead to an increase of property values

and force out low-income groups and contribute to segregation of communities

(Karacor, 2014). This is one of the main reasons why bottom-up Placemaking is not

recommended as a key planning strategy for sustainable urban development.

2.4 Urban Living Labs – Definition and Characteristics Urban Living Labs is a relatively new concept that has evolved from the Living Lab idea,

which is based on user-centred service and product innovation in a real-life context

(Brask, 2015). The European Network for Living Labs counts 170 active living labs in its

networks today. The organization defines the concept as “[…] user-cantered, open

innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach integrating

research and innovation processes in real life communities and settings […]” (ENoLL,

2916).

The Living Lab concept has developed into a cross-disciplinary research network

concept (Voytenko et al, 2015), based on public-private-people partnerships

(hereinafter PPPP) (Voytenko et al, 2015, Nevens, 2015; Reimer et al, 2012), and thus the


! 25!

trans-disciplinary nature of Urban Living Labs bears great potential for transition

management. Transition Management is currently employed as guiding framework for

Urban Living Labs (Schliwa, 2013; Stelzer, 2015). In those cases, where transition

management is applied to the Urban Living Lab concept, Urban Living Labs become

practical arenas within the transition management cycle, for experimenting, testing

and evaluation of innovations, a concept that will be discussed in chapter 3. The PPPP

might refer to the collaboration between local governments, businesses, researchers

and citizens (Schilwa, 2013). Urban Living Labs are employed in the urban space, based

on openness and accessibility in order to enable learning and testing from social and

technical innovations. The Urban Living Lab concept aims to provide a solution to the

issue of creating and measuring societal impact of research, by creating actionable

knowledge, through testing of “new technologies, solutions and policies in real world

conditions in highly visible ways, which can prompt radical social and technical

transformation” (Voytenko et al., 2015 p.7). The Urban Living Lab concept has also been

further developed by Nevens et al. (2013), into urban transition labs, or by Stelzer et al.

(2015), into real-world laboratories, all of which emphasize on different elements of the

Urban Living Lab idea.

According to Nevens et al. (2013), an urban transition lab is: “[…] a hybrid, flexible and

transdisciplinary platform that provides space and time for learning, reflection and

development of alternative solutions […]” (Nevens et al., 2013. p. 115)

While urban transition labs use transition management as methodological approach

(Nevens et al. 2013), real-world laboratories are less constraint in their approach.

However, Stelzer el al. (2015), suggest to apply what they define as nine core criteria, for

the conceptualizing real-world laboratories. Some of the core criteria for real-world

laboratories include: “knowledge shall be co-produced, real-world interventions guided

by scientist […]” and “[…] developing transferable solutions for other contexts,

transdisciplinary cooperation between science and society (economy, politics,

administration, and civil society stakeholders)” (Stelzer et al., 2015. p.3&4). These spin-

offs of the Urban Living Lab concept indicate that the concept itself is rather broad and

therefore allows for variations of the users themselves.

In order to define the basic elements of Urban Living Labs, five characteristics as

suggested by McCormick (2015), are used for this research, which include both

davidandersson

Highlight

"great". Also, it seems you are coming to the conclusion for both urban living labs as well as TM very quick. The reader would see this as you are telling a story, not investigating. In short: more reasoning behind your conclusion, please.


! 26!

integrative and transformative aspects of the concept; (i) Engagement, (ii) Exploration,

(iii) Experiments, (iv) Evaluation and (v) Entrepreneurs.

Engagement. The PPPP is one of the core concepts for cross-sectorial learning of the

Urban Living Lab. Thus engagement, refers to the collaborative structure of Urban Living

Labs. The overall function or purpose of an Urban Living Lab might be reflected in its

managerial structure. One of the four meanings of Urban Living Labs, as described by

Dutilleul et al. (2010), are “[…] organizations facilitating the network, developing and

maintaining its technological infrastructure and offering relevant services […]” (Dutilleul

et al., 2010. p. 64). Here, the managerial setup, including facilitation and organization,

will determine whether an Urban Living Lab is managed top-down, with an

authoritarian, hierarchical innovation approach, or bottom-up in which “[…] grassroots

ideas and needs are collectively developed, created, prototyped, and validated for

mutual and shared objectives […]” (Leminen, 2013. p. 7).

Engagement requires coordination of stakeholder and reflections on internal structures.

Leminen (2013) suggests what he calls a matrix of innovation mechanisms in living lab

networks. Applied to Urban Living Labs, this matrix (see figure 2) enables the

identification of stakeholder groups that act as driving forces within the Urban Living

Lab. The matrix distinguishes between top-down and bottom-up, where top-down

approaches refer to a managerial process of innovation development and bottom-up

approaches refer to principles of facilitating innovations (Leminen, 2013). The concepts

of exhalation- and inhalation-dominated innovation approaches expose the intention

of the driving stakeholder group of the Urban Living Lab network towards their own

goals. On the one hand, an inhalation-dominated approach indicates that the driving

stakeholder groups focuses “[…] on bringing together distributed knowledge and

expertise to attain its own goal” (Capdevila, 2014). On the other hand, an exhalation-

dominated approach focuses on efforts to reach the goals of other stakeholders in the

living lab (Capdevila, 2014).

According to Capdevila’s matrix the role of the four different actor groups of the Urban

Living Lab can be described as shown in table 2.

davidandersson

Sticky Note

Refer to "transformative and integrative" via the Phase One appendix. Otherwise, the reader do not understand transformative and integrative in this context.


! 27!

Table!2:!Roles!of!Living!Labs,!based!on!Capdevilla!(2014)!

Provider-driven Innovation activities aim to provide a solution for participants and have an

educational purpose

Utilizer-driven Activities focus on fulfilling the need of communities, such as social

development

Enabler-driven Activities focus on improving a product or service of a third party

User-driven Activities focus on fulfilling the need of individual users or communities

Figure!2:!Innovation!Mechanism!in!Living!Labs,!based!on!Leminen!(2013)!

Given the different roles of stakeholder groups, as well as the different coordination

approaches of Urban Living Labs, the PPPP will differ in its structure and quality, based

on its dependency on managerial skills and stakeholder involvement.

Exploration. The exploratory nature of Urban Living Labs addresses the uncertainty that

is inherent with environmental problems (Holmberg & Robert, 2000) and climate

change (James, 2015). New solutions in forms of innovations and ideas must be

explored to disrupt the current unsustainable urban systems to bring about change


! 28!

within these systems. Many unsustainable urban systems, such as waste-, energy- or

water management are in a lock-ins, where the system reinforces itself (Devolder &

Block, 2015). The ridged and complex system-structures, comprised of regulations,

technology, culture, public procurement and so forth, stabilize the currently

unsustainable urban systems. Therefore, new methods must be applied that enable for

strategic exploration of new solutions.

Building on the notion of collaboration, backcasting is a tool that can be utilized for

collaborative envisioning of future scenarios for Urban Living Labs and to explore new

strategies for strategic sustainable development (Holmberg, 1998) within Urban Living

Labs. The backcasting method consist of four steps and allows the user to detach

herself from the current unsustainable path of a system and to (i) define criteria for

sustainability, (ii) analyse the current situation, (iii) envision a future state, based on the

pre-defined sustainability criteria, and (iv) define strategies for sustainability (Holmberg,

1998).

Figure!3:!Backcasting!–!strategic!planning!for!sustainable!development!(Holmberg,!1998)!

Experiments. Testing, prototyping and experimenting are core activities that take place

in the Urban Living Lab in real time. The uncertainty of environmental issues of for

instance climate change, requires new innovations in all sustainability relevant areas.

However, there is also much uncertainty related to the introduction of innovations, due

to rebound effects and unforeseeable risks that could cause irreversible outcomes. The

real-life environment of Urban Living Labs allows testing people’s behaviour and


! 29!

provides potential to evaluate possible rebound effects. Furthermore, the random and

uncontrollable sampling of users that visit the Urban Living Lab might pose a challenge

to the Urban Living Lab project management. However, the setting of Urban Living Labs

in public space provides a more truthful depiction of reality.

The concept of prototyping as a participatory open innovation and design strategy for

urban development has become more vibrant in recent years, for instance the San

Francisco Urban Prototyping Festival, organized by MORELAB. The urban prototyping

festival focuses on prototypes based on a combination of art and engineering. The aim

is to develop and showcase prototypes that address local issues (MORELAB, 2016).

Prototyping enables the production of early samples of new innovations, such as

products, business plans or policies and reduces the associated risks of the innovation,

as the process of prototyping occurs within the fixed and controlled Urban Living Lab

environment. Furthermore, the reduced risks of prototyping allow for a high level of

possible failure, which contributes to knowledge creation. Urban Living Labs provide

physical platforms for innovation testing and experimentation of alternative solutions.

Evaluation. Collective learning and knowledge creation is another key element of

Urban Living Labs. The collaborative process of experimenting and testing requires

monitoring and evaluation methods in order to assess the impact of experiments and

the ULL itself. Urban Living Labs often seek to expand their networks in order to gain

access to scientific evaluation methods (Voytenko et al., 2016). By expanding the PPPP

network through engaging with researchers and universities, monitoring methods can

be co-developed. The evaluation process will have a significant impact on the

development of the Urban Living Lab (Shliwa, 2013). However, the level of quality will

ultimately depend on how the evaluation is conducted.

Entrepreneurs. Engaging with entrepreneurs is crucial for testing new business models

and innovations, which have the potential to set new trends or disrupt the business-as-

usual approach. However, new business models that are less oriented on financial

profits, but rather on social and environmental benefits, might be more vulnerable to

competition on the market. Micro and small enterprises might be constrained in

innovation development and testing, due to limited resources or a lack of


! 30!

competencies (Ståhlbröst, 2013). The support and network structure of Urban Living Labs

can provide a relatively safe environment for testing new business ideas and

innovations (Ståhlbröst, 2013). Furthermore, the Urban Living Lab structure can act as a

mechanism for valuable feedback on business innovations, given the fact that scientists

and a diverse range of experts are involved in Urban Living Labs. Moreover,

entrepreneurs involved in ULLs are agents that provide an opportunity to scale up

successful experiments and transfer them outside the Urban Living Lab arena, a process

that is imperative for the impact of the Urban Living Lab.

The GUST project (Governance for Urban Sustainability Transitions), which aims to “[…]

examine, inform and advance the governance of sustainability transitions through

urban living labs” (GUST, 2016), describes a framework for Urban Living Lab design,

which is based on a set of questions that refer to: (i) The context and background of a

project, (ii) goals and vision, (iii) people and motivation, (iv) management and

decisions and (v) interaction process and methods (McCormick et al., 2016).

See Appendix II for a detailed table including the respective questions for each area.

The framework developed by GUST (2016), can function as a guiding tool for the Urban

Living Lab planning process.

The Urban Living Lab concept offers a mechanism for interacting and empowering

citizens in the process of urban development, through its PPPP network. Furthermore,

the concept aims to address pressing sustainability challenges through testing,

experimenting and prototyping. Urban Living Labs can be utilized for innovation

implementation in a confined area of cities, which reduces the risk of negative effects

of innovations, while at the same time allowing for unconventional ideas to be tested.

The concept also offers a safe environment for entrepreneurs for testing new business

models. The combination of citizen empowerment and engagement with cross-sectoral

expert collaboration for sustainable transition make Urban Living Labs a promising

concept for sustainable urban transitions (Geels, 2004). Based on these findings the

Urban Living Lab concept is applied as guiding concept for this thesis.

davidandersson

Sticky Note

I can not find the reference in Geels 2004 - using Google Scholar at least. Is it the right article?


! 31!

3. Analytical Framework This chapter will introduce Transition Management, which is used as the analytical

framework for this thesis. Transition Management is about understanding and facilitating

social transitions towards a sustainable future (Loorbach & Rotmans, 2006).

Transition Management has been applied in other research studies of Urban Living Labs

(Schliwa, 2013) and was thus considered as a useful framework for this research.

In the following, Transition Management will be explored in accordance to the

research. Moreover, ways in which transitions can penetrate different societal levels will

be discussed. Finally, the implementation tools Transition Management Arena and

Transition Management Cycle and their facilitation aspects will be assessed in the

context of sustainable urban development.

3.1 Transition Management

Transition Management can be utilized in order to understand societal transformations

towards a more sustainable future. Loorbach and Rotmans (2006) explains

transitions as fundamental changes in the structure of society, culture and practices.

Historically, there have been several transitions in economy, agriculture, health care

and social structure (Geels, 2004; Devolder & Block, 2015). These transitions were often

sparked through a crisis that caused societal tensions, which in return initiated the

transition. This again leads to a fundamental transformation in society where new ideas,

technologies and infrastructure is developed (Loorbach & Rotmans, 2006). It is

understood that in Transition Management, societal systems go through long periods of

relative stability that are followed by short periods of radical change. During these

phases, existing structures, values and institutions are replaced by new ones (Loorbach,

et al 2008). Transition Management can thus provide an insight on the necessary levels

of change needed to reach a sustainable future.

Transition Management is a practical governance approach that aims to better

understand persistent problems and identify opportunities that have the potential to


! 32!

influence change in the long term (Loorbach, 2007; Geels, 2002). Transition

Management is based on the idea that transitions can never be fully controlled, instead

transitions need to be steered and facilitated. Transition Management was developed

by Frank W. Geels, a Professor of System Innovation and Sustainability at Manchester

University. Thereafter, Derk Loorbach and Jan Rotmans at the Dutch Research Institute

for Transitions (DRIFT), further developed the concept by focusing more specifically on

societal transitions. Transition Management is based on the Multi-Level Perspective,

which helps to analyse transitions from a system perspective in order to understand

interactions between different societal levels that are necessary for transitions to

emerge. The Multi-Level Perspective which will be further described in the following

chapter.

3.2 Understanding Transitions Using the Multi-Level Perspective To understand transitions, the Multi-Level Perspective offers a useful framework to study

changes and interactions at different societal levels. The framework helps to

understand in which context new developments emerge and how to best support

these initiatives (Elzen et al., 2002). The Multi-Level Perspective is concerned with the

relationships between macro level structures and micro level actors by distinguishing

between three separate societal levels; (i) Niche, (ii) Regime and (iii) Landscape. Opitz

et al. (2016), point out that the interaction between the levels are necessary for

transitions in society to emerge. To understand the relationships, Geels (2005) describes

the Multi-Level Perspective as a hierarchy, see figure 4.


! 33!

Figure 4: The multilevel perspective based on Geels (2004)

The Landscape represents the macro level, which is the top level of the hierarchy, as

illustrated in Figure 4. It can be described as the wider context of systems of

governance, politics, beliefs and values, for example factors such as; oil prices,

economic growth, wars, immigration or environmental problems. Individuals cannot

influence the landscape directly, instead the Landscape influences the existing regimes

and Niches (Geels, 2004).

The Regimes represent the meso6 level, and can be viewed as complex and rigid

system. The Regimes are built on rules and routines that help groups to understand how

society functions. A transition of the Regime means a fundamental change of its

culture, structure, and beliefs (Loorbach, 2007). Once a Regimes is well established, it is

the dominant practice in society. However, society can experience locked-in effects,

where actors and institutions are incapable of acting outside the practice of the

current Regimes (Geels, 2010). This might prevent necessary changes for a sustainable 6!The meso level is the connection between micro and macro level structures, such as shared beliefs of societal practices (Geels, 2004).

davidandersson

Sticky Note

Describe the figure in more detail. Generally the figure text should be describing the figure w/o the aid from the surrounding thesis text.


! 34!

future to occur. On the other hand, dominating trends on the Regimes level have the

potential to influence the broader environment of the landscape.

The Niche is illustrated in Figure 4 as the foundation level of the hierarchy and is based

on actions and projects initiated by individuals at the micro level. Niches consist of

networks, people and organizations. These relationships are not fixed by culture or

societal structures. Niche practices have not yet been institutionalized (Geels, 2007).

Activities that are carried out at the Niches level can be placed at the beginning of the

innovation process. Activities and ideas turn into innovations when the ideas are

matured and established in society (Opitz eta. 2016). In order for transitions to happen

on the level of both Regime and Landscape, the changes need to begin at the Niche

level. The Niche level thus upholds the potential to cause radical changes. However, an

enabling environment is necessary for a Niche to grow. One way for governments to

create a protective environment for innovations is to establish a Transition Arena, which

will be further explained in the following chapter.

3.3 Transition Arena

Transition Management helps to facilitate and support changes between the three

societal levels. It focuses on the process of how to create a protective environment for

radical ideas to emerge (Loorbach, 2010). Transition Management was first developed

to manage transitions in more functional systems such as the energy or transportation

(Devolder & Block, 2015). Therefore, most research on Transition Management is based

on such cases, however Transition Management has now begun to explore how urban

space can help to influence sustainability transitions (Loorbach, 2010).

Urban areas are confronted with complex and persistent problems, such as social

integration. According to Rotmans et al. (2001) these problems arise from a lack of

communication between multiple actors that have different interests and resources,

but are dependent on each other. The problems persist because actors continue to

think and act in ways that are deeply rooted in the existing structures of society and


! 35!

thus have difficulties seeing new perspectives. The aim of Transition Management is to

deal with these issues by engaging diverse groups of people that can learn from each

other and together shape the social environment and the culture around it.

Rotmans and Loorbach (2009) created the concept Transition Arena, in order for

frontrunners from different groups to meet and learn. The aim is to establish partnerships

and together create visions for sustainable development. Loorbach (2010), defines a

Transition Arena as “(…) a small network of frontrunners with different backgrounds,

within which various perceptions of a specific persistent problem and possible directions

for solutions can be deliberately confronted with each other and subsequently

integrated” (p.173). The aim is to create space for frontrunners from both Niche and

Regime actors with different backgrounds, such as government, businesses, NGOs, and

research institutions (Van Buuren & Loorbach, 2009). Loorbach (2010), describes that

within this arena, there are different perceptions of the problems and their possible

solutions. These ideas should be confronted and integrated with each other in order to

challenge the existing way of thinking. The actors need to have an open mindset for

new ideas and change.

3.4 Transition Cycle

Within Transition Management, an instrument that can help actors to deal with complex

societal issues and implement strategies to steer and facilitate sustainability transitions is

the Transition Management Cycle developed by Loorbach (2007, 2010). The Transition

Management Cycle will serve as the analytical framework for the case study analysis in

order to better understand how to manage urban transitions towards sustainability.!

The model promotes a cyclical learning process, where actors first learn about

fundamental structures and institutions of society, then develop a future desired vision,

and finally implement practices that support sustainable development (Loorbach,

2010). In this model, learning is steered towards adopting changes in order to break

through dominating structures, cultures and practices. The aim is to radically transition

the current Regime. The cycle includes four different types of governance activities that


! 36!

are relevant for societal transitions: (i) Strategic, (ii) Tactical, (iii) Operational, and (iv)

Reflexive.

Strategic: The first phase of the cycle is dedicated to system analysis in order to gain a

good understanding of the current situation. Loorbach (2010) states that the strategic

phase; “deals primarily with the “culture” of a societal (sub) system as a whole: debates

on norms and values, identity, ethics, sustainability, and functional and relative

importance for society.” In the strategic phase the aim is also to establish a core group

of actors responsible for the process. The actors involved should together understand

and discuss the current issues that needs to be dealt with, thereafter the aim is to

formulate a joint vision for the desired future (Loorbach, 2010).

Figure!3:!Transition!Management!Cycle,!based!on!Loorbach!(2010!

Tactical: In the second phase the aim is to develop a coalition and establish a transition

agenda based on the long term vision. The tactical phase activities aims to establishing

connections with dominate Regime actors and structures. An example here is to find

partnerships with actors from businesses, government and research institute dealing

with financial and institutional regulation and frameworks (Loorbach, 2010). The author

furthermore states that the arena should build collaborations with care, since regime


! 37!

actors may prevent radical initiatives to emerge. Regime actors might also not be

unaware of the possibility Niche actors can bring into the area. The next step in the

tactical phase is to establish short and long term goals that work towards fulfilling the

desired vision.

Operational: In the third phase, experiments and actions are carried out by individuals

and entrepreneurs that challenge the current culture. The idea is to test the prototypes

against Regime and Landscape pressures to see whether experiments fail or to assess

opportunities for further developments. Another main aspect in the third phase is to

mobilize actors and develop a larger network of actors outside the Transition arena in

order to transfer the skills and knowledge that has emerged from the experiments and

activities within the arena to other areas in the region.

Reflexive: The final phase is dedicated to the monitoring and evaluation of the

prototypes. An essential component here is to learn from the experiments, and making

adjustments to the vision accordingly (Loorbach, 2010). The aim is to re-evaluate long-

term goals and short term-actions and adapting them to the new circumstances.

The Transition Management Cycle is a strategic framework to help guide and

accelerate societal transitions. Loorbach (2010) emphasizes that the model is “[…]

based on the understanding of transitions in complex societal systems, central tenets of

the transition management approach are, for example, the need for a long-term

perspective to guide short-term development, the acknowledgment of uncertainties

and surprise, the importance of networks and self-steering, and the necessity of

creating space for innovation” (p.177).

The Transitions Management Cycle was used as the analytical framework for the case

study analysis. The cycle provides an instrument to better understand how to effectivity

implement strategies for sustainability transitions. The Transition Management Cycle

consist of four governance phases relevant for societal transitions; Strategic, Tactical,

Operational and Reflexive. Within each phase there are a number of key activities

recommended to apply in the development process. The analysis has therefore


! 38!

focused on these activities. Each activity has been analysed through the five

characteristics of Urban Living Labs as suggested by McCormick (2015), Engagement,

Exploration, Experiments, Evaluation and Entrepreneurs, in order to understand how

Jubileumsparken can successfully operate as an Urban Living Lab. The analytical

framework was applied to structure the case study and analyse the empirical findings.

Table 2 provides an overview of the analytical framework. The table was developed

using the Transition Management Cycle’s four phases; (i) Strategic, (ii) Tactical, (iii)

Operational and (iv) Reflexive, which are represented in column one. The key activities

of column two are based on Loorbach’s (2010) description of each phase of the cycle.

The questions in column three derive from the GUST (2015) framework for Urban Living

Lab design, which is used to analyse each activity within the Transition Management

Cycle. The case study analysis is structured according to the analytical framework.

Table!3:!Analytical!Framework!

PHASE

KEY ACTIVITIES

QUESTIONS

1. Strategic

System analysis What are the current trends?

Problem definition What are the main challenges?

Actor analysis Who are important actors within the project and why?

Vision development Is there a common goal or vision?

2. Tactical

Establish transition agenda How will the park continue to develop?

Coalition development Which groups of other stakeholders are important to engage in the

project?

3. Operational

Transition experiments What kind of experiments are carried out in the area?

Scaling up Can activities and projects be scaled up and transferred to other

project sites?

4. Reflexive

Monitoring How are the projects monitored and facilitated?

Evaluation Are there any measures/indicators to evaluate the progress of the

projects?

Learning How does the knowledge which was generated transfer within and

outside the project?

Making adjustments to the

vision

How is new knowledge incorporated in the vision?


! 39!

4. Methodology

Figure!6:!Case!Study!Research,!based!on!Yin!(2009)

This thesis follows the case study research approach, as described by Yin (2009).

According to Yin (2014), “a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a

contemporary phenomenon (Urban Living Lab) in depth and within its real-world

context (Jubileumsparken), especially when the boundary between phenomenon and

context may not be clearly evident” (p. 16). The goal of applying this research method

is to gain knowledge on the contemporary concept Urban Living Lab in tis real-life

context in Jubileumsparken. Moreover, case study research is especially useful when

how or why research questions are formulated in order to gain understanding of a

contemporary set of events (Yin, 2014). Therefore, the research methodology is based

on the case study research approach, as the main research question tries to answer,

how the concept of Urban Living Lab can contribute to sustainability transitions in

Gothenburg.

The case study research method as illustrated in Figure 6, represents this research

process. According to Yin (2014), case study research is a liner but iterative process. This

Identifying next steps What are the next steps?


! 40!

means, the process is straight forward and follows clearly defined steps, such as

designing, preparing collecting and so forth. However, by following each step

throughout the process, new findings in each step might influence previous steps and

vice versa.

The case study research process:

Step 1: Planning

Comparable to other research approaches, the first step of research planning is

determined for defining research questions and narrowing down the topic (Yin, 2014).

Throughout this process, the decision was made to utilize the case study approach for

this research, in order to gain understanding of the contemporary phenomenon Urban

Living Lab and its impact on sustainable development in a real-world context.

Step 2: Designing

According to Yin (2014), within the research design process the unit of analysis and a

likely case to be studied is defined. Furthermore, theory, propositions and related issues

are developed that guide through the anticipated case study (Yin, 2014). Throughout

this process the case of Jubileumsparken was identified. Literature review provided

insights on theoretical concepts, during this process the Transition Management Cycle

was identified as a useful analytical framework for structuring empirical data collection

and analysis. In the final step of the design process, the type of case study is chosen.

Accroding to Yin (2014), two main branches of case study design exist; single- and

multiple-case designs (Yin, 2014).

This research is based on a single-case design. The rationale for choosing a single-case

design is based on the uniqueness of the development approach of Jubileumsparken

in the region of Gothenburg.

Step 3: Preparing

The step of preparation is concerned with reflecting on one’s own skills, such as active

listening or being able of asking good questions and interpreting them fairly (Yin, 2014).

The tools and methods provided in the Challenge Lab process, such as dialogue

facilitation and self-leadership workshops, have supported the preparation for the case

study. Furthermore, in preparation for the case study, clear schedules for planning of

research activities were made.


! 41!

Step 4: Collecting

When conducting research on the object of study, using different methods for

collecting data is often used to increase data validity. Triangulation is a research

method that aims for greater data validation through cross verification of different

types of data. For this research, triangulation of three different methods of data

collection were implemented for greater validation of findings, namely; (i) literature

review, (ii) expert interviews and (iii) a participant observation.

Literature review was used throughout the entire research process, starting with a

preliminary study, in order to identify theoretical concepts that could support the data

collection, such as the Transition Management Cycle. The different types of literature

sources include; academic journals, books, reports, websites, theses and articles.

Expert interviews have a targeted focus on the case study. Conducting interviews with

different stakeholder groups is insightful and provides explanations as well as personal

views, such as perceptions, attitudes and meaning (Yin, 2014).

For analysing Jubileumsparken, a total number of 14 semi-structured interviews were

performed. The aim of the interviews was to gain a better understanding of how the

park is being developed and whether the park fulfils the requirements described in

theory of the Urban Living Lab concept. Furthermore, the purpose of the interviews was

also to understand how the park can contribute to a sustainable societal transition in

Gothenburg. The interviews were conducted with stakeholder from the public sector

involved in the parks development, researchers within urban planning, innovation and

architecture, as well as private actors conducting experiments in the park. The

objective was to gain insights from all three cornerstones of the Triple Helix (see chapter

1.3). The broad range of stakeholders interviewed provided a Multi Level Perspective

(see chapter 3.2) of the park's development. The following table provides an overview

of interview partners. Interview questions can be found in Appendix I.


! 42!

Table!4:!Interview!Partner!

Interview Object Role

Pål Castell Chalmers University of Technology (department of architecture Maria Ådahl & Eva Pavic Johanneberg Science Park

Shea Hagy Chalmers University of Technology (department of civil and environmental engineering

Åsa Swan Älvstranden Utveckling AB (head of urban planning)

Amelie Sandow Gothenburg City (park and nature department)

Lars Jonsson City of Gothenburg (culture department)

Matilda Lindvall Business Region Gothenburg

Jonas Lindh & William Bailey Kajodling (urban farm)

Per Myren Changemaker AB (change agency – collaborations and processes)

Pernilla Lindgren Vägen Ut (social enterprise)

Martin Berg Fastighetskontoret (real estate department Gothenburg)

Malin Andersson Gothenburg City (environmental department

Ulrika Palmblad Älvstranden Utveckling AB (urban development company)

Karl Palmås Chalmers University of Technology (department of technology management/economics)

Communication

Mikael Mangold Chalmers University of Technology (department of civil and environmental engineering)

Jonathan Geib Chalmers University of Technology (department of architecture

Katrin Bohn University of Brighton (department of urban architecture)

Peter Rundkvist Business Region Gothenburg (development manger)

Staffan Bolminger Urban Innovation AB (consultant)

Cecilia Dalman Eek City of Gothenburg (park and nature department)

Kristoffer Nilsson Älvstranden Utveckling AB (urban planner)

Jessica Segerlund Älvstranden Utveckling AB (urban planner)

Participant observation

Participant observation provides the researcher with the opportunity to step into the

role of stakeholders involved by participating in activities being studied, which can be

insightful into interpersonal behaviour (Yin, 2014). The participation as observer during a

briefing session for urban developers at Jubileumsparken allowed to investigate the

working process of the park’s management team in more detail and resulted in gaining


! 43!

a better understanding on the views of a wider range of stakeholders involved (see

table 3, communication for stakeholders present during the briefing session, names are

highlighted in green).

Step 5: Analysing

Using theoretical concepts and propositions for analysing data collected for the case

study is one way of interpreting and structuring the data. According to Yin (2014), these

theoretical propositions, will have shaped the data collection plan, which has yielded

analytical priorities. Especially the concepts of Urban Living Lab and the Transition

Management Cycle as described in literature, had influenced the approach of

collecting empirical data (see chapter 3.4 for the utilization of the analytical

framework).

Step 6: Sharing

Case study research is an iterative process. Therefore, new insights and findings in the

research process were regularly shared with the peer group at the Challenge Lab for

feedback. Furthermore, throughout the research process, results were presented to

stakeholders to keep them informed about latest developments.


! 44!

5.1 Case Study Jubileumsparken

Figure!4:!Location!of!Jubileumsparken!(Älvstranden,!2016)!

In this chapter the case study of Jubileumsparken will be analysed from its potential to

contribute to sustainability transitions in Gothenburg. First, a background of

Jubileumsparken will be presented, then the park processes and activities will be

analysed and embedded within the Transition Management Cycle.

Jubileumsparken is located in Frihamnen which used to be one of Sweden’s major inner

city ports, Frihamnen has therefore played a central role in Gothenburg’s identity as a

harbour city. The port opened up in the beginning of the 20th century and has since

been an important location for trade and shipping (City of Gothenburg, 2016). Over the

years, the harbour continued to develop and in the late 1950s, Frihamnen became

Sweden's main port for ocean traffic and international trade. However, the expansion

ended in the mid-1970s when the shipyards experienced an economic crisis and was

forced to close down (City of Gothenburg, 2016). Frihamnen never recovered and the

area has since been empty and unused.


! 45!

However, due to Gothenburg’s growing population and urban expansion, the city

decided in 2010 to make use of the empty space in Frihamnen. The city therefore

launched The Rivercity Vision, a project aiming at rehabilitation the districts located

next to the Gothenburg’s river. The vision is one of the most ambitious urban

development projects in Sweden, which aims to make Gothenburg denser and

connect the northern and southern parts of the city. Frihamnen will be one of the first

districts to be transformed. The ambition is to develop the area with an urban design

that emphasises its industrial past and furthermore make the space available and

accessible for Gothenburg’s citizens. To meet these two aims, the city initiated an

innovative approach to urban transformation. Firstly the city established the

municipality-owned company Älvstranden Utveckling AB, with the mission is to fulfil The

RiverCity Vision by:

“Develop Gothenburg as a hub of creativity and innovation and as a test-bed and

living lab building on a pool of talents and firms, new functionalities, services,

governance modes and communication systems connecting people and knowledge.”

(Älvstranden, 2011)

Secondly, the city decided to dedicate an area in Frihamnen for co-creating an area

together with the citizens by testing and experimenting new ideas. The reason for

creating the area departs from a collection of ideas from citizens who participated in

the public dialogues for Gothenburg’s 400-year jubilee to be held in 2021. Here, the

people were able to express their desire for a central, modern park close to the water.

The area was named Jubileumsparken, a modern park, aimed to develop into a

diverse meeting space for everyone. Älvstranden Utveckling AB was commissioned to

develop Jubileumsparken, and took the strategic decision to develop the area step-by-

step, and activate the spaces with temporary activities and prototypes. Another

strategic decision was to allow citizens to be a part of the development process, create

an identity of the place and a sense of entitlement of the area. Älvstranden Utveckling

AB (2016) explains the process as new approach to urban development by planning

and building simultaneously. The aim is to explore how the park can develop

potentially. The process to construct the area step-by step has four main phases which


! 46!

is illustrated in Appendix II. Today the park is labelled Jubileumsparken 0.5 and is in its

initial phase.

Jubileumsparken was selected as a case study because of its new and experimental

approach of urban development. The parks vision is to create an arena for

experimenting and testing new ideas, by using alternative urban concepts such as;

Urban Living Labs to developing the space. Therefore, Jubileumsparken provide an

interesting case study for this master thesis. The following chapter will analyse the parks

development and activities through the analytical framework.

5.2 Analysis of Jubileumsparken In the following chapter the process of developing and managing Jubileumsparken will

be analysed according to the Transition Management Cycle’s four phases.

5.2.1 Strategic Activities In the first phase of the Transition Management Cycle the aim is to understand the

current system, establish and organize the core management team as well as to

develop a long-term sustainability vision.

System: What are the current trends?

New alternative bottom-up planning methods are beginning to

emerge in urban communities according to researchers in the

field (Palmås, 2016; Castell, 2016). Gothenburg City is

experiencing a shift away from traditional long-term planning to

more temporary urban concepts. The city is exploring new ways

of urban development through concepts such as Placemaking,

where the municipality together with the citizens shape and

design neighborhoods. Another method the City is implementing

is the concept of Urban Living Labs where the municipality try out temporary structures

“There is a shift

away from the

traditional long-

term planning into

temporary, tactical

urbanism”

(Palmås, 2016)


! 47!

to identify barriers and opportunities for sustainability in the area. Castell (2016),

researcher at Chalmers University of Technology, describes the shift as:

“a global transition in urban planning that has resulted in more stakeholder dialogues

and collaborative planning. Engaging citizens in the space-making process is not

business as usual.”

Castell (2016) describes the transition of urban planning as the old “machine” versus the

new “organism”. Where the machine represent ‘old’ way of urban development where

planners work in structured, rigid systems with clear rules and responsibilities. Whereas

the organism symbolises a new and more flexible way of working, where the future

cannot be predicted or controlled, instead it encourages new alternative methods of

working.

Palmås (2016) states that in the past, municipalities and corporations could plan for the

future and the predictions would be fairly correct. This is not exactly possible today,

because of increased uncertainties such as climate change or urbanisation. Therefore

there is a demand for new tactical ways of dealing with the social, environmental and

economic issues in the urban environment. Temporary urban development concepts

have thus become increasingly popular. Castell (2016) mentions that new young

planners are more open to work with complexity and change, by which they can

support the transition. However, Palmås (2016) points out that long-term planning is still

necessary to some extent because it provides guidelines on how to move forward.

The transition in urban planning is also evident in Gothenburg. A representative from the

environmental department involved in the development of Jubileumsparken states that

this type of collaborative processes is new to the region.

“This is one of my first projects where I have been involved from the beginning. Our

expertise has been identified as important. We have established a process where

actors can learn from each other, gaining a better understanding of the whole process

of planning the city.” (Andersson, 2016)


! 48!

Älvstranden Utveckling AB (2016) claims three main temporary planning strategies are

applied to the planning of Jubileumsparken: (i) Testbed, (ii) Placemaking, (iii) Urban

Living Lab. There however seems to be a lack of understanding of what these concepts

actually mean. These temporary concepts are fairly new and even experts have

difficulties understanding the differences. During the interviews several participants

raised the questioned; what is the difference between Living-Lab, Placemaking and

Testbeds? (Hagy, 2016)

Palmås (2016) points out that Jubileumsparken has applied a combination of these

concepts. However, he continues to explain that the methods are different with

different aims and outcomes. For example, Urban Living Lab comes from the ideas of

how to facilitate innovation, sustainable development and transition whereas

Placemaking is based on co-creating a local identity (Palmås, 2016).

According to Älvstranden Utveckling AB (2016) the aim for the park is to harness

creativity with trial and error, where mistakes are acceptable and a learning

experience. The method is used to better understand how the city should develop

more sustainable, innovative and democratic. Älvstranden Utveckling AB (2016)

describe the park as; “the process of building Älvstranden, and should be continuously

testing and innovation... and providing a living lab for the process”

However, Palmås (2016) questions whether Jubileumsparken can be considered an

Urban Living Lab, he states that the space must “have some lab apparatuses around

it”. Since the concept of an Urban Living Lab, is an open laboratory which test new

activates and ideas, however, according to Palmås (2016) the park has not

implemented the necessary monitoring measurements needed for it to be considered

an Urban Living Lab. The management team, on the other hand, view the whole

Frihamnen area as an Urban Living Lab due to the temporary housing which will be

developed along the pier. The people living in houses will test and evaluate innovative

new materials and designs. The aim for the testing is to find more sustainable methods

of construction of houses in Gothenburg.


! 49!

Problem: What are the main challenges?

During the analysis three main problems were identified as the key challenges for the

area: (i) gentrification, (ii) social sustainability, (iii) rigid regulations.

Gentrification7 was addressed by several interviewees

(Hagy, 2016; Castell 2016). Surrounding developments in

Frihamnen have been accused to cause gentrification, thus

concerns whether Jubileumsparken might be excluding to

marginalized social groups were raised on several

occasions. The tension peaked in the summer of 2015, when the words “Stop

gentrification” were sprayed on a wall in the park. However, the management team

responded and invited the public for a dialogue to discuss the issue. The team also

emphasizes that in order to prevent gentrification, Älvstranden Utveckling AB aims to

create a multi-cultural, diverse neighbourhood with mixed housing surrounding the park.

The mixed housing apartments will consist of a combination of private owned

apartments, rental houses (with a rent limit), student houses and temporary refugee

homes. This will help to prevent gentrification in the area according to the developers.

The second issue raised by the majority of the interviewees

was social sustainability, which was identified as the main

challenge for the city of Gothenburg (Andersson, 2016;

Åhdal & Pavic, 2016; Svebo Lindgren, 2016). The two main

social issues are the increasing social segregation of low-

income groups living in the outskirts of the city, along with

integrating of the new refugees into society.

7!Gentrification is a term where the arrival of wealthier people in an existing urban district lead to increase property values and force out low-income groups, which contribute to the segregation of communities (Karacor, 2014).!!

“Residents have raised

concerns about

gentrification”

(Ivarsson, 2016)

“The biggest challenge

for Gothenburg is

definitely social

sustainability”

(Andersson, 2016)


! 50!

Myren (2016) points out that there is no clear strategy to approach these issues. He

compares social issues with technical problems to highlight the difficulty. Technical

issues are mainly about finding and implementing a more efficient technology.

Whereas, social sustainability is not as easy to address, since there can be several ways

to approach it, and each method might result in multiple outcomes. Therefore, social

sustainability is about daring to implement a solution and challenge its consequences.

To tackle the social issues and prevent segregation in the city, several of the

participants agree that the urban living lab concept is a good instrument to use in

public spaces (Castell, 2016; Palmås, 2016). One interviewee suggests that it is a new

way to address segregation from the citizen’s perspective instead of the usual top-

down approach where the authorities decide how to develop the area. Palmås (2016)

states that the co-creational and innovative process of Urban Living Labs is a

democratic way of developing areas.

“Democracy is usually about voting and having your voice heard, which is important.

But I think here it’s also partly about mobilizing the creativity of the masses. I think those

two thinks are coming together here” (Palmås, 2016).

The third problem highlighted in the interviews are rigid

regulations that might hinder the creative freedom to

experiment and prototype. Practitioners from several

municipality departments in Gothenburg, as well as living

lab managers have raised concerns about the prevailing

regulatory system in Sweden.

“Small-scale temporary business in urban public spaces is a growing sector in Sweden.

But what is hindering these entrepreneurs is a lot of regulations” (Castell, 2016).

The issue of rigid and inflexible regulations in regard to sustainability and prototyping

was raised several times throughout interviews. While practitioners of living labs perceive

the inflexibility of regulations as barriers (Hagy, 2016; Pavic & Ådahl, 2016). However, the

head of urban development at Älvstranden Utveckling AB does not perceive the

“The laws are inflexible

and make social

sustainability transitions

difficult”

(Andersson, 2016)


! 51!

current regulations as an obstacle for prototyping at Jubileumsparken (Swan, 2016).

However, an area constructed for testing and prototyping demand flexibility and

allowance (Hagy, 2016). Flexibility is also a key aspect in order to challenge the current

system and find ways of working outside business as usual. Castell (2016) mentions that,

“one regulation works as a solution to solve one issue but all regulations together create

conflict”. Therefore, development projects need to prioritize which aspects are most

important to achieve. Catell (2016) highlights that, “we will never be free from conflicts

in the city space. We cannot avoid conflicts.” The project team emphasizes that every

area has their own special need and we have to learn to work with constant changes,

and a way to approach it in one place might not work in another area.

Actor: Who is the owner/manager of the project?

Älvstranden Utveckling AB is the managing organisation of Jubileumsparken, although

the core project team consists of several different departments. A multi-disciplinary

project team was established to create an ‘owner’ is separate from the political arena,

to assure a more collaborative process between the different departments in creating

the park. The ‘owner’ or project owner team is responsible for the development process

of the park. Three main roles were distributed within the core project team. Two of the

project leaders, Kristoffer Nilsson and Jessica Segerlund, upholds the same role but are

employed by different departments; Stadsbyggnadskontoret and Älvstranden

Utveckling AB. They were both given the same function and mission to manage the

planning and development of the park. The third project leader, Amelie Sandow, is

employed by Gothenburg city’s Environmental department, and responsible for

observing and facilitating the process.

Vision: Is there a common goal or vision?

The idea to create Jubileumsparken is a result of the public

demands for Gothenburg’s 400-year jubilee in 2021. The aim

according to Älvstranden Utveckling AB was through

dialogues involve many different actors at an early stage of

the development process. The vision of Jubileumsparken is to create a “diverse park

“Our vision is our

motivation”

(Jonsson, 2016)


! 52!

that embraces the water and connects the entire city”. In order to fulfil the aim the

management team establish a hypothesis;

“To step by step develop the area, to test a strategic important place in the beginning

of the process and to create a function that could act and react on discussions and

dialogs within the river city.”

This was done by engaging the public through workshops, open calls, prototypes,

activities, discussions and dialogues.

However, several interviewees pointed out the complexity of these methods, especially

dialogues, due to the fact that it can be difficult to include a diverse variety of different

groups in the process. Jonsson (2016) states that since openness is essential to the vision

for the park, the dialogues should consist of people from different backgrounds, social

groups, ethnicity, age etc. A representative from the Park and Nature Department

mentions that; “Often the people who participates in dialogs are the loud ones, but the

ones we really need to reach are not there, as they are the ones feeling left out”.

Jonsson (2016) emphasises the importance of setting guiding principles for the

dialogues at an early stage in order to make sure that members of different social

groups ranging from young, old, women, men and various cultures are present in the

discussion.

“The mission should be to understand why you have dialogues. Is it because you want

to make changes or just to have dialogues and then you do whatever you want to in

the end….why did they have the dialogue in the first place and what consequences

will the dialogue have. “(Jonsson, 2016)

The dialogues aims to create a more open and democratic planning process.

However, Palmås (2016) questions if public dialogues are mainly for show. He discusses

whether the authorities actually take residents suggestions into consideration in public

dialogues or if it in the end is the politician’s aims that matters for the final decision.


! 53!

5.2.2 Tactical Activities In the second phase of the Transition Management Cycle the aim is to establish

coalitions and a transition agenda with long and short-term goals (Loorbach, 2010).

Network: Which groups of other stakeholders are important to engage in the project?

The city intended from the beginning to involve stakeholders identified from a diverse

range of backgrounds in developing the park. These actors could enable the city to

build a network outside its conventional collaborations, which built new relationships

and created a more diverse atmosphere. Table 3 illustrate the identified stakeholder

groups important for the development of the park.

Table 5 Stakeholder groups engaged in the park

Actor Role in the park

Public (public institutions, policy makers and local governments)

Stadsbyggnadskontoret/ Park och Natur förvaltningen

The two city departments which are together responsible for the parks development.

Ringön: project team Help create both physical and social connection to nearby areas

Fastighetskontoret Has connected niche actors with the management team and helped entrepreneurs to establish their business in the park

People (citizens and users) Public park council (not

yet established)

The project team plans to establish a consul of people and organisations that aims to participate in the development of the park

Youths The project team invited different youth groups to discuss their needs and visions. This resulted in a number of initiatives that aim to strengthen the youth culture in the area

Private (large, small and medium sized companies) Kaj odling A start-up in the park working with urban agriculture

Passalen

A non-profit organization that manages and assists activities in the park. Passalen has employed youth during the summer to work as lifeguards and sailing instructors

Raumlabor Berlin Berlin based designers who built a number of the prototypes in the park

The management team decided at an early stage to put extra attention on

developing social and relational projects in Jubileumsparken. But one expert is

questioning, “How do you then engage the community around and take ownership


! 54!

and pride in these spaces […] you have to engage the community around and let

them be part of the co-creation” (Hagy, 2016).

The project management also recognises the difficulty of finding ways to engage the

public in the park. Therefore, the project management aims at establishing a park

committee that will help create a communal ownership of the space.

Another issue two practitioners working with Living Labs highlight in the interviews is the

challenge of creating coalitions. Pavic (2016) from Johanneberg Science Park discusses

the importance of creating shared visions and trust between partners when working in

new network collaborations. Establishing good relations and a teamwork atmosphere is

essential for a successful project (Pavic, 2016). This has also been evident in the case of

Jubileumsparken according to Palmblad (2016). The management at Älvstranden

Utveckling AB has faced difficulties in working with different municipality departments,

since each department has different ideas of the parks future development. Palmblad

(2016) mentions that stepping away from the business as usual takes a lot of courage,

and it is especially challenging in public organisations. Therefore, the management

team perceives itself as responsible to protect the innovative process from other public

authorities that are not comfortable working with new ideas and routines; “It takes a lot

of courage, otherwise it would not have happened if we didn’t have the guts to do it.

Because not everyone think it’s a good idea” (Palmblad, 2016).

Transition Agenda: How will the park continue to develop? In the transition agenda the project team’s aim is to outline a transition path to be

taken the next coming years. The goal for the park is to allow people to gradually take

over the space and make it their own by providing opportunities for people to test new

activities and features. Multi-functionality and diversity of activities was described as

vital aspects for the development of the park. Therefore, prototyping and place-

making can be seen as a great tool to create a diverse environment. The project team

adopted a strategy called Zeitlücke (timegap), which can be defined as a step-by-step

planning process, as opposed to more conventional strategies where an initial vision is

created, whereupon a set strategy is implemented and finally a result is reached.


! 55!

Zeitlücke is indeed focused on continuous learning, reflection and adjustment of the

strategy according to experiences along the way. According to the management

team it is a more open way to create the park, where failure is allowed (Segerlund,

2016).

The agenda that was established for 2021 consist of five key projects:

1.! Urban Basics: Building basic infrastructure for people to be able to visit the park

such as the bus lines, signs and roads.

2.! Bathing culture: Creating the public bath.

3.! Greening of the park: Introducing urban agriculture and establishing vegetable

boxes for citizens to grown their own food.

4.! Playground: Building a playground in collaboration with children and street

artists.

5.! Yes-we-say-yes: Providing opportunities and land for to various citizen initiatives.

According to the project team, Yes-we-say-yes is an important factor in testing the

place through prototypes and activities and must be one of the park’s most important

driving forces. The project team also mentions how the dialogues has shown “that

everyone has ideas and people wanting to do something and we want to help

facilitate it” (Segerlund, 2016).

The primary goal for Jubileumsparken is openness, however, the management team

points out the difficulty of stepping back and letting the park develop for itself. Yet

emphasises that development process must be facilitated, the management team is

therefore considering a “Do it yourself space‘. The city would then provide tools, space

and direction for groups and individuals to be part of building the public space and

running it. However, Palmblad (2016) states that this process must be facilitated to

avoid the risks of too powerful actors take advantage of the space. This could for

example be well-resourced private companies or individuals that have the ability to

pay for activities which otherwise would free. Since openness is an essential value to the

vision of the park, equal opportunities should be provided for socioeconomically

challenged actors.


! 56!

Figure 5: Open call briefing

The management team also utilizes open calls to invite the public and companies to

join and influence the building processes. The idea is to walk into an existing place and

make it evolve, instead of planning a complete design from the beginning. Every

physical creation/prototype was decided trough open methods. It could be different

forms of joint creation or discussions before, thought and/or after the project. One

example of an open call was when the management invited the public to participate

in a building workshop for the duration of one week. In the open call 24 people from

different backgrounds ranging from students, designers, artists, carpenters and town

planners, participated to discuss the development of the site. The workshop provided

the management with a better understanding of the area’s relationship with the

neighbourhoods and the whole city.


! 57!

5.2.3 Operational Activities Experiments: What kind of experiments are carried out in the area?

Experiments are a core concept of Transition Management and

Urban Living Labs. In order to challenge the regime level of the

Multi-Level-Perspective, entrepreneurs and other actors need to

test and prototype new ideas and innovations in the transition

arena. Thereby, actors benefit from the space, as well as the

existing networks and resources available in the transition arena.

The park management team is rather open minded to project

proposals from citizens, as long as applicants can present logical arguments as to why

their projects would contribute to the overall vision. “Basically everyone can apply,

friends that want to try out their ideas, or small companies” (Swan, 2016). Her colleague

adds, “we consider all applications for projects that come in, but it must fit the vision”

(Palmbald, 2016).

Examples of Projects

Kaj Odling. Urban gardening has existed in the area before

Jubileumsparken was implemented. The park management

team continued to develop the existing urban gardening

projects and invited schools to use the area for educational

purposes. Since 2016, the urban farming start-up Kaj Odling

has moved to Jubileumsparken in 2016. The young company

is in its second year, and was able to win three new

customers this year. Kaj Odling grows vegetables, such as

rocket, kale, radishes and different types of lettuce. Their

produce is sold to high class restaurants in Gothenburg. The

two entrepreneurs rent the space in Jubileumsparken, plant boxes and soil for a low

price from the bureau of real estate in Gothenburg. Regarding their mission, one of the

entrepreneurs states, “we know that we cannot change the world, but we can set a

“We know that we

cannot change the

world, but we can set

a good example, to

show people that it’s

possible to make a

living of growing stuff

in the city”

(Lindh, 2016)

“We consider all

applications for

projects that come

in, but it must fit the vision”

(Swan, 2016)


! 58!

good example, to show people that it’s possible to make a living of growing stuff in the

city” (Lindh, 2016).

Figure!6:Kaj!Odling!site!at!Jubileumsparken

According to the entrepreneurs, being provided with the space

was the foundation that enabled them to implement their

business idea (Lindh, 2016). The city has approached the two

urban farmers and offered them space in Jubileumsparken. The

support has helped them to experiment and lowered their risk of

failing, due to the low investment that was necessary to start the

enterprise. They add, “this is also a huge experiment for us”

(Lindh, 2016).

The two business owners have a strong sense of being ambassadors for their type of

company. Beyond the business aspects, it is also a project to showcase that urban

farming can be economically viable. Kaj Odling is expected to grow one customer per

week during the summer month (Lindh, 2016).

“If we can make a

good example,

hopefully others

will follow.

Because the

demand is so

huge”

(Lindh, 2016)


! 59!

Kaj Odling receives visitors on a regular basis. Usually visitors are interested in the

concept and in gaining more insights on urban farming. Lindh (2016) points out that it

would be a great opportunity to integrate commercial urban farms in public spaces, as

employees of such companies would be present at site almost everyday and could

teach and inform visitors about urban farming and gardening in a practical setting

based on expert knowledge. Their ambition is to set a real-life example of a commercial

urban farm in Gothenburg. “If we can make a good example, hopefully others will

follow. Because the demand is so huge” (Lindh, 2016).

So far, collaboration with the Jubileumsparken team has been limited to occasional

visits by the management of the park for check-up visits. However, the park

management team has already informed the two entrepreneurs that their business, if

successful, can become a permanent part of Jubileumsparken. Moreover, the two

urban farmers have contacted researchers at Chalmers University of Technology for a

collaboration project. The idea is to design an automatic rainwater collection and

irrigation gadget. According to the two farmers, the city has supported them in terms of

provision of affordable land, boxes and soil, as well as the management of

Jubileumsparken, which was especially supportive in solving every day issues, such as

water supply and finding a solution for electricity.

Allmänna Bastun. In 2014, a public sauna was built as a prototype in Jubileumsparken.

The sauna is operated by the city of Gothenburg. Citizens wishing to visit the sauna can

sign up using an online tool. The sauna is free of charge and accessible by wheelchair.

Like other activities and projects in the park, the focus on accessibility for marginalized

groups of society. The geographic location of Jubileumsparken, in the center of

Gothenburg can be of importance for fighting segregation, as it connects the

economic vibrant city centre and low income parts of the city. Even though the

operation of the sauna is costly for the city, the park management team has denied

any inquires form companies wanting to rent the place.

The majority of the building materials are recovered from demolished buildings in and

around Gothenburg, such as the metal frames used as facade, the windows, the

interior panelling or the materials used for the changing rooms. The shower rooms were


! 60!

built using several hundred recycled glass bottles. Furthermore, the attached swimming

pool is the first public outdoor swimming pool that is free of chlorine (Palmblad, 2016).

Figure!7:!Allmänna!Bastun

Even though the sauna was initially planned as a temporary

prototype, the city has in 2016 strengthened the structure of the

sauna to make the building last at least another 15 years, due to

the great popularity among citizens (Palmblad, 2016). Apart

from the number of bookings, no framework exists to measure

the performance of the prototype. “Who decides whether

something that is temporary is deemed a success or not.

Whether it should stay or taken away. How do you access that?

There are no clear ways of doing that” (Palmas, 2016).

“Who decides

whether something

that is temporary is

deemed a success

or not.”

(Palmas, 2016)


! 61!

SEISMIC. Societal Engagement in Science, Mutual Learning in

Cities – SEISMIC is an European Union project that includes

actors from 10 different countries, aiming to bridge the gap

between science and the society, by setting up national

networks to create structural dialogue and mutual learning

with urban actors, such as citizens, NGO’s, businesses, youth

and media (European Union, 2016). According to Palmas

(2016), it is essentially about social innovations in cities”. The

SEISMIC networks are based on the topic of urban challenges

and innovations. On March 15, 2016 the SEISMIC project met in

Jubileumsparken to discuss temporary housing opportunities for

refugees and how to welcome newly arrived immigrants.

“We figured it was nice to have a discussion on welcoming refugees and facilitate this

in a place that was itself in a temporary placemaking environment” (Palmas, 2016).

The temporary housing projects in Jubileumsparken were discussed and used for

inspiration for other SEISMIC projects. Project co-workers of Jubileumsparken, which are

part of the SEISMIC project acted as links between the Jubileumsparken and the

SEISMIC meeting (Palmas, 2016).

Other projects at Jubileumsparken. The all can sail project offers free sailing lessons for

everyone that wants to learn how to sail. The project caters especially to those who

could due to physical conditions not sail without supervision. Furthermore, an annual

roller derby for women has been established, in reaction to a lack of female sport

events in Gothenburg.

In 2016, local schools will have educational training in urban gardening at

Jubileumsparken. Furthermore, an experimental workshop was realized with 10 000

children participating (Ulrika, 2016).

Scaling up: Are activities and projects scaling up or transferred outside the project scope? Successful experiments require a support structure that enables to transfer those

experiments outside the Urban Living Lab. At Jubileumsparken, the financial fund yes-

“We figured it was

nice to have a

discussion on

welcoming refugees

and facilitate this in

a place that was

itself in a temporary

placemaking

environment”

(Palmas, 2016)


! 62!

we-say-yes provides financial capital for project initiation. However, a mechanism that

would lift projects from the micro level of the Urban Living Lab to a meso level (between

micro- and macro level) is currently missing. Furthermore, a network structure that

provides stakeholders with contacts and support within and outside the Urban Living

Lab is important for entrepreneurs to take the next step (Hagy, 2016). The entrepreneurs

at Kaj Odling were not informed by the park management team about the time horizon

of how long their business can remain at Jubileumsparken. Moreover, no alternative

space for their business operation has been offered to them (Lindh, 2016).

An employee at Vägen Ut, a social business form Gothenburg that bases its business

model on providing work for former prisoners replied when asked about the

requirements for the business to collaborate and establish a project at

Jubileumsparken; “[…] a support-structure in some form, like “Coompanion,” (a

cooperative based on training) which helps small start-ups with their business model

and establishment analysis” (Lindgren, 2016). The financial fund yes-we-say-yes is a first

step for initiating projects. However, a support structure including a network for

stakeholders that are currently involved in projects or a concept for further funding for

successful projects is not in the process of planning at Älvstranden Utveckling AB.

5.2.4 Reflexive Activities

Reflexive activities include monitoring methods and evaluation strategies for learning

processes (Loorbach, 2010).

Monitoring: How are projects monitored and facilitated? Monitoring methods for prototypes and projects are crucial for evaluation. The

Jubileumsparken vision states “[…] that in the process of building Älvstranden it should

continuously be testing innovation. Always think what was good and how can we make

it better” (Swan, 2016). Älvstranden Utveckling AB as no monitoring system in place.

Prototypes are evaluated based on factors such as visitor numbers (Palmblad, 2016).

Furthermore, monitoring of prototypes and experiments is important for their assessment.

However, thus far no clear guidelines for monitoring processes exist at Jubileumsparken.

As a stakeholder of Jubileumsparken points out, “who decides whether something that


! 63!

is temporary is deemed a success or not. Whether it should stay or be taken away. How

do you access that? There are no clear ways of doing that” (Palmas, 2016). The lack of

monitoring methods is also recognized by the project management at Älvstranden

Utveckling AB. With regards to this issue Palmblad states, “[…] we don’t always get the

understanding from the users. It would be a dream if we could have someone that

could listen and document everything, but we don’t have it” (Palmblad, 2016). In

reference to the equipment and resources for monitoring and evaluation experiments

at Jubileumsparken Palmas stated, “[…], they have a space but they don’t have the

instruments for running proper experiments” (Palmas, 2016).

Learning and participatory evaluation: How is the generated knowledge

transferred inside and outside the park?

The concept of laboratory is to extract knowledge,

which gives the learning element of the Urban Living

Lab process an important emphasis (Palams, 2016).

The prototypes and experiments are part of the

participatory learning process at Jubileumsparken, as

stated by the head of urban development at

Älvstranden Utveckling AB, “since it says the place

should be developed by using dialogue, the

temporary things that are built are also used to have dialogue” (Swan, 2016).

Furthermore, Älvstranden Utveckling AB has published a booklet in 2016 that contains

information on the park’s development, projects and prototypes. However, there are

no plans to incorporate the knowledge generated at Jubileumsparken into adjustments

for the vision (Palmblad, 2016). The development team at Jubileumsparken perceives a

contradiction between learning processes and involvement. One challenge identified

in regards to this issue is the role of Älvstranden Utveckling AB itself. If the processes are

steered in a top-down manner creativity and motivation for involvement will decrease

among citizens (Swan, 2016). Swan further argues that stepping back as powerful

stakeholder is important, in order for people to get involved and become creative. A

project manager form HSB Living Lab has similar thoughts on this issue; “[…] we have to

“How do you make sure that

the stuff that you learn in

Jubileumsparken can be

used somewhere else? We

don’t know that yet”

(Palmas, 2016).


! 64!

hold ourselves back because we want the residents to come there and co-create

together” (Hagy, 2016). Another issue identified for the learning process at Jubileumsparken is the lack of

methods and overall strategies that are currently implemented, “how do you make sure

that the stuff that you learn in Jubileumsparken can be used somewhere else? We

don’t know that yet” (Palmas, 2016).

5.3 Key Findings

Strategic:

1.! Gothenburg City is experiencing a shift away from traditional long-term planning

to more temporary urban concepts which focuses on collaboration and co-

creation in the development of areas. Älvstranden Utveckling AB has recognized

this and has implemented aspects of the concepts Placemaking, Testbed, and

Urban Living Lab in the development of Jubileumsparken

2.! There is a lack of understanding and differentiation between the urban planning

concepts Placemaking, Testbed, and Urban Living Lab

3.! The municipality must allow for more flexibility in regulations and taxations when

planning areas and establishing businesses, in order to achieve more

effectiveness and promotion of sustainability transitions within Urban Living Labs.

4.! Social sustainability is identified as the main challenge for Gothenburg City

among the interviewees. There is a lack of trust between authority and residents

in socio-economic constrained areas in the City

5.! Urban Living Lab is recognized as a democratic and collaborative tool for

tackling social sustainability issues in the urban space. Co-creating a space can

help build local identity of an area and strengthen the local community.

6.! Economic targets is often prioritised over community building goals such as

communication through dialogues or workshops


! 65!

7.! An interdisciplinary management team can provide for a broader perspective of

identifying challenges and implementing solutions in urban communities. A

diverse team is necessary when working with new concepts outside business as

usual.

Tactical:

1.! Applying a co-creational approach towards urban development can contribute

to democracy in urban development, since offers citizens the possibility to be a

part of developing an area. For example, during the Open Calls and Building-

workshops at Jubileumsparken, residents had the opportunity to be a part of

building prototypes and help shape the design and future state of the park

2.! It is necessary to make sure the area is not dominated by a specific groups by

creating a space with a broad variety of activities and options for young, old,

various cultures and interests

3.! Work outside business as usual is challenging, especially in a public organisation.

It takes courage to test new ideas, therefore, mistakes and errors should be

viewed as learning experiences

Operational:

1.! The project incubator yes-we-say-yes provides a start capital for projects.

Furthermore, all projects must be contributing the the park’s vision

2.! Activities at Jubileumsparken have a strong focus on leisure activities, such as

women roller derby or sailing for everyone

3.! There is currently no network established for niche actors, such as entrepreneurs

and project developers in Jubileumsparken

4.! Support structure that aims at scaling up start-up projects is lacking

Reflexive:

1.! Prototypes and experiments at Jubileumsparken are used as a tool for involving

citizens in the development process of the RIverCity.


! 66!

2.! The management team at Älvstranden Utveckling AB recognizes a lack of

monitoring methods for experiments and prototypes.

3.! There is no clear strategy to diffuse the knowledge created at Jubileumsparken

within and outside the park.

6. Discussion

This chapter will discuss the findings for the case study of Jubileumsparken, based on

the theoretical framework and the interviews with stakeholders. The first part of the

discussion provides an exploration through urban development in Gothenburg using

the Multi-Level Perspective. In the second part, the case of Jubileumsparken will be

discussed according to the Transition Management Cycle.

6.1 System Analysis Using the Multi-Level Perspective

The Multi Level Perspective will serve for the first part of the discussion as a tool to

structure the system of urban development within the local context of Gothenburg. The

three levels of the Multi Level Perspective; Landscape, Regime and Niche are used to

illustrate the urban development system, including barriers and drivers for sustainable

development.

6.1.1 The Landscape Level

Barriers for temporary urban development concepts

The international targets set during United Nation’s COP21 in Paris, are translated on a

regional municipality level among others into ambitious city visions, aiming for long-term

oriented sustainable development. The targets identified on a local level are based on

the issues identified in this context. The city of Gothenburg has identified “[…]

globalisation, increasing social exclusion and the effects of climate change” (RiverCity

Vision, 2012 p.9), as main challenges of the city. However, the approaches aimed to

solve these challenges appear one-dimensional and are either based on high-tech

solutions and expert knowledge or focus mainly on the social domain of sustainability.


! 67!

This becomes evident when reviewing the informational material on sustainable

development of the municipality of Gothenburg, such as greengothenburg.se or the

RiverCity promotional film. Barriers for sustainable urban development on a landscape

level are thus strongly related to the strategies that have been derived from

international and supranational agreements into the regional context. A one

dimensional strategy for sustainability, focused on environmental policy as described in

chapter 2.1, might miss its targets as Heshmati (2015) points out. Local authorities should

consider holistic approaches towards sustainable development that are able to

address all three dimensions of sustainability.

Drivers for temporary urban development concepts

Gothenburg City is experiencing a rapid rate of urbanisation with a growing population

and urban spread. The municipality has recognised the need for a new approach of

urban planning. The new landscape perception among practitioners in the field of

urban development has provided opportunities for innovative temporary urban

development concepts to grow. Planning has before been viewed in a linear fashion,

where companies and municipalities plan long term ahead, and where future growth

could be predicted. However, urbanization has contributed to a more complex social

environment, which thus requires new approaches to urban development. Society can

no longer be planned with controlled methods. The future must be viewed as uncertain

and planning should be versatile to change. The new transition in urban planning

highlights that the past top-down, command-and-control approach is not functioning

in the current urban sphere. Instead urban development should operate through a

decentralized agenda, and push down responsibilities to a local level, by engaging

citizens in the process. Sustainable development practices on a more regional scale

has received increasing attention the last years. The new landscape trend helps to push

forward ideas of how to best create cities that are sustainable.

6.1.2 The Regime Level Barriers for temporary urban development concepts


! 68!

The culture within business as usual creates barriers for sustainable urban development.

The research identified ridged routines within in the municipality departments as one

key barrier for sustainability transitions. These routines are well established within both

the city’s administrative structures as well as the internal organisational culture. These

routines thus become fundamental practices of how the municipality representatives

carry out their work, which makes the city blindsided for new ideas. Geels (2010)

describes the issue as locked-in effects (see chapter 3.2), where actors and institutions

are incapable of acting outside current practices. Working outside the dominant

structure might also be perceived as too risky and uncertain, which prevent new ideas

from emerging. The municipality departments in Gothenburg City such as

Fastighetskontoret, Kulturförvaltningen, Park- och Naturförvaltningen mainly operate in

structured focus areas and have different perspectives of how to create a city that

drive sustainability forward. The lack of effective collaboration creates barriers for new,

alternative urban concepts to emerge.


Courage is necessary when work outside business as usual. Actors within the current

Regime (see chapter 3.2), that have the courage to go against the stream are

important drivers for sustainable urban development. These actors can help trigger

actions and confidence within ridged structures and inspire others. Furthermore, it is

equally important to accept setbacks and errors without being discouraged, since it

provides for learning experiences and new insights. Älvstranden Utveckling AB

highlights; “It’s hard to challenge the business as usual in a public organization… if we

didn’t have the guts to do it, if would never have happened” (Palmblad, 2016). This

illustrates the importance of these change agents that can challenge current systems.

The empirical findings also point out the importance of a multidisciplinary team to drive

sustainability questions forward. Since it provides for different perceptions of persistent

problems, where ideas can be confronted and integrated with each other as well as

challenge existing ways of thinking (Loorbach, 2010).


! 69!

6.1.3 The Niche Level

Barriers for temporary urban development concepts A ridged regulatory system of different municipality departments, such as the

environmental, real-estate or construction departments might hinder innovations,

experiments and prototypes from developing. The empirical findings indicate that

practitioners form the municipality as well as practitioners working with living labs in

Gothenburg perceive the local regulatory system as obstacle in their work. Another

barrier identified for new governance approaches for urban development is a system

that only allows for business as usual methods.


Public space can provide an arena for sustainability transition on the niche level, as

public spaces provide multiple benefits of sustainability, for instance support social

goals by promoting social inclusion, economic security by creating green jobs and

environmental aims by supporting biodiversity (Cowley, 2015). The city of Gothenburg

recognizes the importance of public space for sustainable development by applying

new forms of governance approaches for urban development, such as the Urban

Living Lab concept or placemaking.

davidandersson

Sticky Note

you are stating a plural here. As far as I can see in the list, only Shea Hagy is working practically with Living labs in the city. Who else is working with a living lab?


! 70!

6.2 Discussion of the Case Study: Jubileumsparken

The Transition Management Cycle has been used to analyse Jubileumsparken as an

Urban Living Lab and its potential to contribute to sustainability transition in the city. In

the analysis each step within the four governance phases have been assessed and

compared with the characteristics of Urban Living Labs as suggested by McCormick

(2015), (i) Engagement, (ii) Exploration, (iii) Experiments, (iv) Evaluation and (v)

Entrepreneurs. Figure 8 provides a visual illustration of the assessment of

Jubileumsparken according to the activities within the Transition Management Cycle.

The illustration is presented as a colour scale of a traffic light system using green, red

and yellow for a clear and visual understanding of the results. Green represents areas

where the management team has implemented necessary strategies for transition.

Yellow represents steps where the management team has recognised an issue but is

lacking in strategy implementation, and red represents unawareness of the issues

required.

Figure!8:!Illustration!of!findings


! 71!

Strategic Phase System: What are the current trends?

Cities must plan for smart urban growth that has boundaries and sustainability

measures. The city of Gothenburg’s sustainability strategies has before mainly been

focused on high-tech solutions, and has lacked citizen’s participation. However, the city

has recognized the need for bottom-up measures in order to better understand how a

sustainable city can developed. Jubileumsparken illustrates one example where the

transition is visible. Älvstranden Utveckling AB partly adopted the Urban Living Lab

approach because of the need to explore new ideas in urban planning. The

municipality also wanted to explore citizen’s participation in urban planning, since

surrounding development projects have been criticized for lacking citizen’s

involvement. Limited involvement of residents caused issues of gentrification and social

exclusion in this area. The City therefore adopted the Urban Living Lab concept in

Jubileumsparken in order to try out and explore new ideas and forms of innovations in

urban development.

Problem: What challenges is the area facing?

During the process of developing Jubileumsparken, the management team was

confronted by the rigid and complex structures within the municipality. The city’s

organisational structure is unsustainable since it does not allow for flexibility, which is

necessary in the current environment. These lock-in effects reinforces themselves within

the current system. Devolder & Block (2015) point out that in order to contradict this,

new methods must be applied that enable exploration of new solutions. The

management team at Älvstranden Utveckling AB is trying to work outside business as

usual and challenging the current system, however, the company states that the

internal organisational culture is ridged and difficult to change.


! 72!

Vision: Is there a common goal or vision?

The aim of Transition Management is to influence societal changes in the long term

through a shared vision towards sustainable development (Loorbach, 2007). The goal of

RiverCity Vision Gothenburg’s is to co-create Jubileumsparken together with citizens in

order to better understand how to develop Gothenburg sustainably. The vision is well

incorporated within the organisation and each activity and process relates back to the

vision. However, the empirical findings recognised that promises made during the

public dialogues have not been completely incorporated in the vision. Älvstranden

Utveckling AB states their two main goals are (i)to fulfil the vision and (ii) to build

apartments. Yet, the economic targets, to build apartments have been prioritized. At

first the park was designed to include large green areas, but, after discussions with

property developers the number of houses increased and instead replaced common

spaces.

Tactical Phase

Which groups of other stakeholders are important to engage in the project?

The Urban Living Lab is based on public-private-people partnerships, which enables a

transdisciplinary collaboration among people taking part of the area. Loorbach (2010)

highlights the importance of having different perceptions of existing problems and

possible solutions when working outside business as usual, since it provides for a broader

perspective of how to facilitate change. Since one of the key aspects of Urban Living

Labs is collaboration between actors from all sectors of society, it provide for a more

democratic way of urban development compared to other more top-town methods.

However, the management team found it difficult to include a diverse network of

people in the development process. One reason might be that citizens have a lack of

trust towards authorities in urban development. Communication and dialogues are

ways for the city to re-build trust, however, the city then needs to fulfil promises made

during dialogues. The city also needs to provide feedback relatively quickly in order

show that they have listened to residents’ concerns.


! 73!

How will the park continue to develop?

The management team has provided an arena with a certain freedom to experiment.

However, the team stressed the importance of establishing boundaries and limitations

within the area, to make sure that the space is not dominated by one group. Karacor

(2014) also raises this concern in regards to Placemaking. When the management team

steps back and gives the citizens responsibility of the area, little attention is put on who

becomes involved in these activities. This, in effect, might force away marginalised

groups. However, the management team should also not fully control the park, since it

might result in a loss of creative space for citizens and entrepreneurs. Therefore, the

step-by-step approach is important to evaluate the progress and to understand what

has and has not been successful.

Operational Phase What kind of experiments are carried out in the area? According to Loorbach (2010), the operational phase of the Transition Management

Cycle is driven by individuals, entrepreneurial skills and promising innovations. This stage

of the Transition Management Cycle is about experimenting, which is also a key

characteristic of the Urban Living Lab concept. The Urban Living Lab concept is suitable

for a holistic sustainability approach as it offers opportunity for co-creation, citizen

involvement and a physical arena for experimentation of new innovations.

Thus far there is only one active experiment operating, Kaj Odling, which has the

potential to address several dimensions of sustainability at Jubileumsparken. The urban

farm has the potential to contribute to a transformation of the current food system and

to serve as a showcase for new forms of jobs in the city of Gothenburg. Kaj Odling

upholds the potential to increase visibility for the issue of food production among

citizens. However, this impact has not been verified, due to the lack of monitoring and

evaluation strategies at Jubileumsparken.

In conclusion, many activities that were identified at Jubileumsparken, such as women

roller derby or ‘all can sail’ are mainly focused on the social domain of sustainability

and do not follow a holistic approach for sustainability.


! 74!

Scaling up: Is activities and projects scaling up or transferred outside the project scope? Involving entrepreneurs is another crucial aspects of the Urban Living Lab concept.

According to Ståhlbröst (2013), especially micro and medium sized companies can

benefit from the Urban Living Lab structure. As the only business located at

Jubileumsparken, the support form the municipality by providing the land and materials

has enabled the two entrepreneurs to scale up their business. However, Kaj Odling

remains an exception as the support structure for experiments and prototypes at

Jubileumsparken is mainly built on the financial support provided by the project

incubator yes-we-say-yes. Yes-we-say-yes will enable to kick-start projects, but further

financial support will be needed. A network structure for entrepreneurs and

experimenters that provides contacts to stakeholders within and outside the Urban

Living Lab is lacking at Jubileumsparken. However, the internal network structure of the

public sector is perceived as unique for these types of projects among stakeholders of

this sector The type of collaboration between different departments is perceived as an

experiment in itself.

The support structure at Jubileumsparken might increase the interest of actors to

engage in projects. However, a support structure beyond the first financial injection will

be needed to scale up prototypes and to facilitate the innovation management

among actors involved.

Reflexive Phase Monitoring: How are projects monitored and facilitated? According to Loorbach (2010), monitoring of the Transition Arena can be undertaken in

various ways, such as observing behaviour and networking activities. Furthermore, the

Transition Agenda must be monitored including agendas, goals, projects and

instruments that were initially agreed upon (see chapter 3.3). According to the

management at Älvstranden Utveckling AB, prototypes are used as a dialogue tool.

However, no scientific assessment methods for prototypes are applied at

Jubileumsparken. Universities and research institutes could play a key role in the process

of monitoring Jubileumsparken. However, there are no existing collaboration with


! 75!

stakeholders exist that could undertake this task. The project management team at

Älvstranden Utveckling AB perceive a lack of monitoring and evaluation methods for

prototypes. However, no plans to allocate resources to this task have been made.

Learning and participatory evaluation: How is the generated knowledge transferred within and outside the park?

The cyclic learning process of the Transition Management Cycle aims to adopt change

in order to break through the dominating structures, cultures and practises (Loorbach,

2010). The project management team of Jubileumsparken does not perceive a need to

adopt the current vision of the park, as the vision is based on the RiverCity Vision from

2012, which was co-created with approximately 3000 adults. This indicates a weak

utilization of the knowledge generated in Jubileumsparken at Älvstranden Utveckling

AB. Furthermore, the lack of adjusting the vision and the missing support structures for

scaling up experiments might be reflected in the lack of monitoring and evaluation

methods implemented at Jubileumsparken.

8. Conclusion

The new urban development approaches that are currently emerging in Gothenburg

need to provide for a holistic approach towards sustainability, which is able to

addresses the three main dimensions of sustainability; environmental, social, and

economic. The research identified Urban Living Lab as a new and innovative concept,

which has potential for more integration of sustainability dimensions. Furthermore, if

implemented successfully, the Urban Living Lab concept has strong potential to involve

citizens and co-create urban areas together with stakeholders from both the private

and public sector. The process of planning, establishing and operating Urban Living

Labs requires an effective facilitation instrument. The Transition Management Cycle was

identified as a useful tool for managing Urban Living Labs, as the process of the cycle

offers opportunities for improvement of the Urban Living Lab and the urban area in

which it is embedded for both, environmental and social sustainability. The Transition

Management Cycle can help steer the process of urban development towards

sustainability transitions. The empirical findings from the case study concluded that


! 76!

•! Jubileumsparken can to some extent be considered an Urban Living Lab

according to the characteristics of McCormick. The city and Älvstranden

Utveckling AB engage with entrepreneurs and the public to develop

Jubileumsparken. However, a key partner of Urban Living Labs; universities

and research institutes, have not been approached yet. New concepts, such

as commercial urban farming are being explored and experiments have

been initiated. Evaluation and monitoring methods are lacking at

Jubileumsparken.

•! Jubileumsparken provides an ideal space for creating an Urban Living Lab in

Gothenburg, due to its geographical location and its accessibility.

•! In order for Jubileumsparken to effectively function as an Urban Living Lab

the management team needs to implement evaluation and monitoring

measurements within the operation of the park.


! 77!

9. Recommendations This chapter will provide recommendations established during the research of this

master thesis project. The recommendations are based on a combination of the

theoretical framework and the empirical findings from the interviews as well as the

onsite observations conducted at Jubileumsparken. The findings will be useful for future

operations at Jubileumsparken as well as for other Urban Living Lab developments in

the Gothenburg region.

Figure!9:!Recommendations!

1.System2.Problem

3.Actor

4, Vision

5. Network

6. Transition Agenda

7. Experiments

8. Scaling up

9. Monitoring

10. Learning

11. Adjustment to the vision


! 78!

1.! System: Apply the Backcasting methodology within the Transition Management

Cycle as a tool for strategic planning. By first envisioning a desired future and

then analysing the current system. Backcasting might be more applicable in the

in planning for an Urban Living Lab, as it has the potential to prevent biases and

increase legitimacy of the project developers, since it enables shared vision

creation that addresses all dimensions of sustainability, environmental, societal,

and economic.

2.! Problem: Invite and continually conduct public dialogues to discuss issues and

concerns that residents might have. The project team must also make sure to

fulfil the promises made during the dialogues, by providing quick feedback and

results that stem from public input.

3.! Actors: Establish an interdisciplinary management team that can provide new

perspectives for sustainability transitions. It should be communicated to actors

involved that an open mind is crucial for this type of project. Moreover, actors

should be made aware that it is expected form them to work outside the

business as usual approach.

4.! Vision: Make sure that all stakeholders involved in the project share and work

towards the same vision. The Backcasting method is suitable for this process. It is

also important for actors to feel that their input contributes towards the vision.

Dialogue facilitation tools, such as deep democracy, which aims to make

everyone’s voice heard, can support a shared feeling of inclusiveness.

5.! Network: Engage actors outside the network. New relationships can provide a

diverse atmosphere, and make it easier to open up for new ways of working.

6.! Transition Agenda: Provide guidelines, rules and a common vision that set the

requirements for projects themes and their admired outcome.

7.! Experiments: Experiments should be focused on innovations that challenge the

current systems. Moreover, experiments should aim to address all dimensions of

sustainability.

8.! Scaling up: Offer a support structure for entrepreneurs and experimenters, based

on the PPPP network, which offers mentorship, consultancy and education.

9.! Monitoring: Develop ethical monitoring systems. Monitoring of peoples’

behaviour in public space poses a challenge in ethical as well as legal terms. A


! 79!

focus on collaboration with academia may provide innovative solutions.

Furthermore, the work from actors in academia often contributes to the common

good, which can increase legitimacy for the monitoring methods.

10.!Learning: Find new and innovative ways to diffuse the knowledge generated

from experiments and innovations in the Urban Living Lab. Knowledge transfer is

crucial for scaling-up projects and for an adoption of innovative ideas outside

the Urban Living Lab. Communication strategies should be based on a two-way

communication flow, where actors from inside and outside the Urban Living Lab

have the opportunity to share their input on a common communication

platform.

11.!Adjustment to the vision: Acknowledge that the vision for the Urban Living Lab

should allow for adjustments based on findings and evaluations of innovations,

experiments and prototypes. The TM cycle resembles a cyclic learning progress

therefore the vision should always be reviewed. The adjustment to the vision is a

process of reflection and indicates the progress made in the Urban Living Lab.


! 80!

9.1 Future Studies

In this thesis several gaps in the process of monitoring and evaluation of experiments

and prototypes of Urban Living Labs were identified. Future studies on Urban Living Labs

could focus on the implementation of monitoring methods for experiments in Urban

Living Labs and analyse the ethical, as well as legal drivers and barriers of these

methods. Furthermore, future studies could investigate the Transition Management

Cycle, which bears potential for further development and an integration of other

methods and tools in cycle’s process that contribute to a more effective facilitation of

Urban Living Labs.


! 81!

References

Balassiano, K., & Maldonado, M. M. (2014). Placemaking in rural new gateway communities. Community Development Journal. Brask, M. (2015). The Role of Urban Living Labs in Fostering Sustainable Cities (Unpublished master's thesis). Lund University. Breitfuss-Loidl, M., Hartmann, C., Sauer, A., Fünfschilling, L., McCormick, K., May, L., Van Steenbergen, F. (2016). Graz Infra-Lab Report (Rep.). Graz: Jpi Urban Europe. Dempsey, N., & Burton, M. (2012). Defining place-keeping: The long-term management of public spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(1), 11-20. Capdevila, I. (2014, January). How can living labs enhance the participants’ motivation in different types of innovation activities? [PDF]. Paris: PSB Paris School of Business. Cowley, R.(2015). Reframing the Problem of Public Space in the Sustainable City. Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Westminster, United Kingdom. City of Gothenburg. Green Gothenburg. Retrieved June 14, 2016, from http://www.greengothenburg.se/focus-areas/ Dhakal, S. (2010, February 18). GHG emissions from urbanization and opportunities for urban carbon mitigation [Review]. 277-283. Man, R. D., & Friege, H. (2016). Circular economy: European policy on shaky ground. Waste Management & Research, 34(2), 93-95. doi:10.1177/0734242x15626015 Deflorian, M. (2015). Governing the “Enough” in a Warming World The Discourse of “Sufficiency” from a Climate Governmentality Perspective (Master's thesis, Upsala Universitet, 2015). Upsala: Upsala Universitet. Devolder, S., & Block, T. (2015). Transition thinking incorporated: Towards a new discussion framework on sustainable urban projects. Sustainability, 7(3), 3269-3289. Dutilleul, B., Birrer, F. A., & Mensink, W. (2010). Unpacking European Living Labs: Analysing Innovation’s Social Dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 4(1), 60-85.


! 82!

European Network of Living Labs - ENOLL. Open Living Labs: (2016). Retrieved May 18, 2016, from http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/ MacArthur. (2014). Towards the Circular Economy. Ellen MacArthur Foundation Rethink the Future, (3). Elzen, B., Geels, F., Hofman, P., & Green, K. (2002). Socio-Technical Scenarios as a tool for Transition Policy: An example from the traffic and transport domain. Paper for 10th International Conference of the Greening of Industry Network. Ertan, T., & Eğercioğlu, Y. (2015). An Integrated Approach to Urban Preservation. GSTF Journal of Engineering Technology (JET), 3(3), 1-7. Geels, F. W. (2005). Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 72(6), 681-696. Hayden, A. (2014). Introduction: A Battle of Three Paradigms. In When Green Growth Is Not Enough: Climate Change, Ecological Modernization, and Sufficiency (pp. 3-36). McGill-Queen's University Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt130hcdn.5 Hellström Reimer, M., McCormick, K., Nilsson, E., & Arsenault, N. (2012). Advancing Sustainable Urban Transformation through Living Labs: Looking to the Öresund Region. Copenhagen, Denmark: International Conference on Sustainability Transitions. Heshmati, A. (2015, December). A Review of the Circular Economy and its Implementation. Forschungsinstitut Zur Zukunft Der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor, 1-63. Holmberg, J. (1998). Backcasting: A Natural Step in Operationalising Sustainable Development. The Journal of Corporate Environmental Strategy and Practise, (23), 30-51. Holmberg, J., & Robert, K. (2000). Backcasting from non-overlapping sustainability principles — a framework for strategic planning. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 291-308. IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Work- ing Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y.


! 83!

Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

James, P. (2015). Urban sustainability in theory and practice: Circles of sustainability. New York: Routledge. Jørgensen, U. (2012). Mapping and navigating transitions - the multi-level perspective compared with arenas of development. Research Policy, 41(6), 996. Kajikawa, Y. (2008). Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 3(2), 215-239. Karacor, E. K. (2014). PlaceMaking approachment to accomplish social sustainability. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(4), 253-262. Krafzig, D., Banke, K., & Slama, D. (2005). Enterprise SOA: service-oriented architecture best practices. Prentice Hall Professional. Lazear, E. (2000). Economic Imperialism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99-146. doi:10.3386/w7300. Leminen, S. (2013). Coordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5-14. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161-183. Markard, J., Truffer, B., & Raven, R. R. (2012). Sustainability transitions : An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955. McCormick, K. Sustainable cities. Retrieved June 14, 2016, from https://www.coursera.org/learn/gte-sustainable-cities/lecture/d7xog/urban-living-labs. McCormick, K., Voytenko, Y., Kronsell, A., Coenen, L., & Van Steenbergen, F. (2015). Lund Infra-lab Report. 1-29. Retrieved from www.urbanlivinglabs.net. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.001


! 84!

Opitz, I., Specht, K., Berges, R., Siebert, R., & Piorr, A. (2016). Toward sustainability: Novelties, areas of learning and innovation in urban agriculture. Patridge E. (2005). Social Sustainability: a useful theoretical framework? 28-30 September 2005. Dunedin New Zealand. Published Conference Paper. Institute for Sustainable Futures University of Technology, Sydney. Perman, R. (2003). Natural resource and environmental economics. Harlow, England: Pearson Addison Wesley. Radywyl, N., & Biggs, C. (2013). Reclaiming the commons for urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 159. Roorda, C., Wittmayer, J., Henneman, P, Steenbergen, F. van, Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., Transition management in the urban context: guidance manual. DRIFT, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 2014. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy, Foresight, 3(1), pp. 15–31. City of Gothenburg. (2012, October 11). RiverCity Gothenburg Vision [PDF]. Gothenburg: City of Gothenburg. Sanchez, L., Muñoz, L., Galache, J. A., Sotres, P., Santana, J. R., Gutierrez, V.. . Pfisterer, D. (2014). SmartSantander: IoT experimentation over a smart city testbed. Computer Networks, 61, 217. Schliwa, G. (2013). Exploring Living Labs through Transition Management (Master's thesis, Lund University, 2013) (pp. 1-80). Lund: Lund UNiversity. Stelzer, F., Wanner, M., & Schäpke, N. (2015). Understanding and Creating Societal Impact of Sustainability Transitions Research through “Real-world Laboratories (pp. 1-16). Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Ståhlbröst, A. 2013. A Living Lab as a Service: Creating Value for Micro-enterprises through Collaboration and Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review. November 2013: 37–42.

UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption on the Paris Agreement Proposal by the President (Rep.). Paris: UN.


! 85!

United Nations (UN) (2016). Sustainable Development: Agenda 21. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocument/agenda21https//sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21 United Nations (UN) (2016). Sustainable Development: Open Working Group proposal for Sustainable Development Goals. Viewed 19th April 2016 at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html. Van Buuren, A., and D. Loorbach. 2009. “Policy Innovation in Isolation? Conditions for Policy-Renewal by Transition Arenas and Pilot Projects.” Public Management Review 11 (3): 375–392. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.053 World Bank. (n.d.). Urban population (% of total). Retrieved June 14, 2016, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Yigitcanlar, T., & Teriman, S. (2015). Rethinking sustainable urban development: Towards an integrated planning and development process. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 12(1), 341-352. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Älvstranden Utveckling. (2016). Jubileumsparken. Viewed 20th April 2016 at: http://alvstaden.goteborg.se/jubileumsparken/om-jubileumsparken/om-konsultgrupperna-som-ar-med-och-gestaltar-jubileumsparken-etapp-2021/. Älvstranden Utveckling, (2016). River City Vision. Viewed 18th May 2016 at: http://alvstaden.goteborg.se/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/rivercity_vision_eng_web.pdf


! 1!

Appendix I: Interview Questions Expert interviews:

1.! What do you perceive as currently the biggest sustainability challenge in

Gothenburg?

2.! What is your definition of an urban living lab?

3.! What is unique or different about this approach compared to other methods for

sustainability transition?

4.! Where can urban living labs contribute to social sustainability transitions?

5.! What do you perceive as possible challenges for urban living labs?

6.! What needs to be in place to develop a strategy for relocating and reproducing

successful prototypes and experiments?

7.! What is important (needs to be in place) to transfer and foster the knowledge

generated in the urban living lab?

8.! What success factors from prototypes and experiments of urban living labs could

be used to indicate a positive impact for social sustainability transitions?


! 2!

Appendix II: Tables and Figures

Framework for Urban Living Lab design: as described by GUST (2015) !

Topic Question Context and background information What kind of development is planned and

happening in the area?� What are the strengths and advantages of the area?� What kind of challenges is the area facing? What has been done previously in the area?

Goals and visions Is there a common goal or vision? How is the common goal formulated or visualized?�What are citizens (and other key stakeholders) expected to gain from the development of the area? What is the scope and timeframe of the project?�Are there any measures/indicators to evaluate the progress of the project and how well its goals are being met?

People and motivation Which groups of residents and other stakeholders are important to be engaged in the project?�Are there passive groups or organizations that need to be engaged? How will participants be involved over the short-term and long-term?�Why would people actively participate in the project?

Management and decision Who is the ‘owner’ or ‘manager’ of the project? Who are the driving individuals?�Who defines the methods and types of participation?�Which issues related to the project can the residents influence and in which ways? How is feedback collected and utilized for collective learning and reflection in the project?

Interaction process and method What is the time plan for participation processes?�Which methods can be used for which groups of residents and stakeholders?�What kind of information do participants need throughout the project?�How is the project integrated into the everyday lives of residents and stakeholders?


! 3!

Phases of development

Today During the years 2013-2016 the park has

developed by prototypes, which has been

divided into 5 key projects; Urban Basics (basic

infrastructure for the area), Cultivation Culture

(urban farming), Bathing Culture (a collage of

bathing possibilities for various users), Playground

the future (water art dedicated for children) and

Yes, we say yes! (support projects for citizens and

organizations) (Älvstranden Utveckling, 2016).

Three consulting groups has been selected

through an open call to be part of designing the

park. The work will start during 2016 and be ready

to 2021. The proposals of how to design the area

will be presented during 2016, and then the

public will have the opportunity to submit comments on the proposals.

Phase 2018

By 2018 there will be extensive construction sites

just next to the park due to the developments of

Frihamnen. But at this point the temporary housing

will be completed on Kvillepiren and the green

part of Jubileumsparken will be tested with a

temporary park on the tip of the prier. The

temporary park will for example include public

spaces, jetties, a common room and a nature

playground. Open calls will continually be the

main driver for the development.


! 4!

Phase 2021 In 2021, the 400-year anniversary of Gothenburg

City the main of the park is established. The

renovation of the quays and the majority of the

buildings surrounding the park will be completed

In 2035 After 2021 the park will continue to evolve and

expand out onto Kvillepiren. The park will include

more nature and green elements (Älvstranden

Utveckling, 2016).


! 5!

Appendix III: The Challenge Lab: Project Phase I

The challenge of reaching a sustainable urban future is multidimensional and complex.

Therefore, new approaches and actors that analyse the system as a whole are required

to bring about the opportunity of leapfrogging sustainable urban transitions.

The Challenge Lab at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg strives to be a

major transformative and integrative force for sustainable development. Initiated in

2014, the Challenge Lab takes place for the third time in 2016 as a master thesis project.

It enables students to develop their role as change agents by challenging dominate

societal systems and trends. The students can operate unthreatening and neutral

towards local stakeholders, since they do not represent a certain interest, and can

therefore play an important role as change agents.

The fourteen participants of 2016 come from eight different countries and represent

nine different master programs. The project is divided into two main parts, Phase 1,

where the research question is identified and Phase 2 where the research question is

answered. The process follow the backcasting methodology; by defining criteria for

sustainability, evaluating the present situation, envision future solutions and finally find

strategies towards sustainability (Holmberg, 1998). The central theories of Backcasting

will now be presented, and how it has been applied in the Challenge Lab process to

develop the research question.

Backcasting

Backcasting is a process that first describes a desired future state and then explores

possible strategies of how it could be achieved (Holmberg & Robert, 2000). The

approach illustrates ways of what should happen in order to realise the desired future.

Dreborg (1996) points out that Backcasting should focus on providing stakeholders with

an image of the future as a background for forming opinions and decisions, rather than

the present state and its potential development. Since a positive possible future can

act as a shared mental framework to guide decision-making. According to Holmberg


! 6!

and Robert (2000), backcasting is useful when dealing with complex question which

creates conflicts in short term decisions, however setting a long term vision gives the

group a common unifier. As the group then can find common views of how the future

state should look like, although there can be differences in how to get to that point.

Backcasting has for long been a central strategic approach to planning for sustainable

development. Dreborg (1996) states that Backcasting is particularly useful when;

-! “The problems to be studied are complex”

-! “When present trends are part of the problem”

-! “When there is a need for a major change, and small changes will not be

enough to transform the system”

-! “When the scope is wide enough and the time span is long enough to leave

room for deliberate choice”

-! “The problem to a great extent is a matter of externalities” (Dreborg, 1996)

Backcasting is a tool for change management and can be viewed as an overall

approach that include many different methods and concepts, depending on the

desired vision and the actors involved. Holmberg (1998) developed a systematic

backcasting framework for planning for sustainable development, consisting of four

steps.

Figure 2. Strategic planning for sustainability (Holmberg, 1998).


! 7!

Backcasting - Step 1: Defining criteria for sustainability

The first step is to develop criteria for the desired future vision. The aim of the criteria is to

give a framework for the planning process towards the vision. The vision should be a

guiding instrument for discussing sustainability within a group and the result should

provide an understanding of what the demand for sustainability will involve and what

influence it will have. The criteria must be general enough to on the one hand allow for

coordination of various sectors in society and business while on the other hand cover all

relevant criteria of sustainability. (Holmberg & Robert, 2000). This process demands both,

to take an inside-out and an outside-in perspective. Both perspectives are used as tools

to understand one's own values, strengths, visions and abilities to manage interactions

with stakeholders (inside-out), as well as tools to understand the requirements, global

sustainability will impose on socio-technical systems (outside-in) (Holmberg, 2014).

Backcasting - Step 2: Describing the current situation

In the second step the objective is to get an understanding of the current situation and

identify the transformative and integrative opportunities to intervene in the system. The

aim is also to identify gaps between the present and the future wanted state, as well as

to obtain early warning signals in order to make sure that all principles of sustainability

are covered. In order to understand how to think about complex system the following

concepts can be adopted.

An outside-in perspective through systems thinking

The outside-in perspective is important in order to understanding how the existing global

system is operating. In that way it becomes clear what the most urgent sustainability

issues are and where in the system the transition has the greatest potential to be

successful.

System thinking is a useful method and can help simplify the understanding of how to

think about complex system and sustainability transitions. System thinking can be

adopted through a multi-level perspective, which aims to better understand how


! 8!

societal requirements can change between different socio-technical levels with the

help of innovations. Geels (2004), describes a multi-level perspective of how to

introduce innovations in society. Transition management theory distinguish between

three separate levels where socio-technical change can happen in society; niche,

regime and landscape (Geels, 2004).

An inside-out perspective through dialogues

Dialogue is an important tool for collaboration, since it creates trust and encourage

conversation. Holmberg (2014) states that in the new knowledge-based society, the

ability to talk and think together is a well vital source of competitive advantage and

organizational effectiveness. Today’s organization constantly faces complex global

problems, thus there is a need to think together and develop collaborate actions. Isaac

(1993) highlights that most forms of organizational conversation around complex issues

develop into a debate, where one side wins and the other side loses, which might result

in a deeper friction between parties. Instead dialogs has the power to transform the

quality of the conversation and encourage collective thinking. Dialog is a way to

understand different perspectives of the problem. Listening together is another

important aspect, since it creates an environment of trust, which result in better

collaboration (Sandow & Allen, 2005).


! 9!

Backcasting - Step 3: Envision future solutions At the third step of backcasting, possible solutions to reach the future vision is

explored, by combing the sustainability criteria adapted in step 1 together with

the information of the current state from step 2 (Holmberg, 1998). Design thinking

can be used to explore different strategies towards future solutions (Söderberg,

2014).

Design thinking

Design thinking is a method to explore ideas and concepts without limiting or restricting

the process set by the present circumstances. Söderberg (2014) states that design

thinking should not be seen as linear, instead the approach should be viewed as

learning-by-doing. According to Söderberg (2014) the design process consists of three

main steps. Firstly, the pre-study, which helps the designer to gain a better

understanding of complex problems in the current system. The information gained

during the pre-study will be the platform for the whole design process. The second

stage is the development phase, where the fundament for the design is built, and lastly,

the verification phase, where the model or prototype is tested.

Step 4 – Find strategies towards sustainability:�Phase 2

At the final stage, strategies for the envisioned future are identified based on the

sustainability criteria. The fourth step analyses strategies which can fill in the gap

between the current situation and the desirable future.


! 10!

The Challenge Lab Process: Phase I

Backcasting Step 1:

Establishing an inside-out perspective on personal values and strengths

A self-leadership workshop was organized, with the goal to create trust between the

participants and a common understanding of individual values, strengths and visions

that would later be used to develop a common framework for sustainability.

The two-way communication style of the workshop, between the expert and the

students, demanded much involvement from each participant and required each

individual to reflect on personal skills, as well as personal weaknesses, strengths and

values. The rich personal insights that were created in the workshop, reflected the

strong diversity of the group, both cultural and professional. At the same time these

insights brought about much appreciation for the group’s diversity, as it reflects many

strengths and opportunities that rather homogeneous groups might be lacking.

Feedback sessions were held after each session to deepen the understanding for the

different views of one another. These insights were at a later stage incorporated into

the definition process of the sustainability criteria.

Establishing an outside-in perspective on sustainability

In order to create a common understanding of present global sustainability challenges

among the group, participants reviewed literature on sustainability topics on well-being,

economics, ecology and social sustainability. The group was divided according to the

four main topics to conduct desk research on the issues. At a later stage the group as a

whole presented and discussed the four topics, in order to develop guiding

sustainability criteria. The different educational and cultural backgrounds of

participants, provided diverse views and angles to the four topics of sustainability.

The process of defining the criteria for nature, economy and wellbeing was an iterative

process. Below is the final version and illustrate the student’s desired future vision.


! 11!

Nature Criteria Human activities affecting nature’s function and diversity are done in such a way that they:

•! do not increase the concentration of substances from the lithosphere in the ecosphere;

•! do not increase concentration of human made substances in the ecosphere; •! do not systematically deteriorate the resource base; such as fresh water, fertile

land, and biodiversity through manipulation, mismanagement, or over!exploitation.

Adopted and inspired by Holmberg (1998) and Holmberg & Robe ̀rt (2000), Post!15 Goals, Criteria by C!Lab (2015). Well-being Criteria First we present the basics for survival and continue with components supporting self-fulfillment and self-realization. The goal of the society and economy, lying on the nature as its fundament, is to serve the human wellbeing, where:

•! Everyone has the right to human basic needs; health, security, future security, food, water, sanitation, recreation, shelter, energy; �

•! Human life includes: subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, idleness, creation, identity, freedom; �

•! Everyone should have access to the same opportunity and the freedom to build a meaningful life;

•! Everyone should have access to the same opportunity and freedom to explore and express your ”inner self” and to be your values without limiting others’ freedoms or harming others; �

•! social and economic inequalities are not justified unless they are to the greatest benefit to the least!advantaged members of society. �

Adopted and inspired by Rawls (1971), International Wellbeing Group (2013), Cruz et al (2009), Post!15 Goals, Criteria by C!Lab (2015). � Economic Criteria The economic system is an instrument that enables individuals to meet the other criteria (society, wellbeing, nature) efficiently and effectively, as such:

•! The function of the economic system is driven by the other criteria and not the other way around; �

•! It enables further use of resources and avoids dissipative use of materials; � •! It assures an equitable distribution of resources; � •! It has an inherent mechanism of maintaining and serving societal infrastructure

and institutions that permits human wellbeing to be met over time; �


! 12!

•! It has the ability to change and to adapt when facing shocks and disturbances.

Adopted and inspired by Sen (1999), Anand and Sen (2000), Simmie and Martin (2010), Post!15 Goals, Criteria by C!Lab (2015). � Societal Criteria The societal system is an instrument for individuals to live together within the other criteria with respect to the following conditions:

•! It enables the well!being, empowerment and productiveness of every individual while adhering to the ecological principles by:

o! equitable accessibility to education and healthcare; o! gender and social equity;� o! equal human rights;

•! Its governing mechanisms (and societal institutions) are built on transparency, accountability, mutual trust, adaptability and recognition of diversity.

Adopted and inspired by Raworth (2012), Pisano (2012), Post!15 Goals, Criteria by C!Lab (2015).

Backcasting Step 2:

To understand the current situation, the Challenge Lab team explored trends as well as

inner aims that motivate change. The group began to discuss global unsustainability

trends and then narrowed down the conversation to regional issues. The current trends

identified where grouped into four topic areas; mobility and urban development,

Sustainability-driven innovation for urban development, Integration and social

innovation, and urban agriculture. Local sustainability projects in the Gothenburg

region were explored and mapped out, and stakeholders involved were invited to the

Challenge lab to describe their projects and the challenges they face. During one

week the students organized four dialogue sessions with the stakeholders to understand

the main challenges for sustainability within the system, and identify where synergies

between the actors has the potential to emerge. The table below illustrate the

stakeholders involved and the related challenges the students wanted to address

during the sessions.


! 13!

DIALOG TOPICS STAKEHOLDERS CHALLENGES

Mobility and Urban development

· Trafikkontoret · DenCity · ElectriCity · Chalmers University · Boplats

- Behavior patterns of transportation - Accessibility and availability - Demand for new infrastructure - Zero emission and electro mobility

Sustainability driven innovation for urban

development

· Frihamnen Development · Innovation Roof · Chalmers Fastigheter · Climate KIC · Chalmers University · HSB & HSB Living Lab · Fastighetskontoret

- Implementation of new innovations in society

- Supply chain and product accountability - Community building in Gothenburg

Integration and Social Innovation

· SOCAP · CSS

- Social entrepreneurship - Social integration - Exchange knowledge - Resource mapping

Urban farming · Stadslandet

- Development of urban farming - Consumer demand - Preventing policies - Availability of land - Farming knowledge

The dialogs were set in a fishbowl setting, which is a form of dialog conversation useful

when discussing critical topics within a large group. It is called fishbowl because a

center circle of people have a conversation and those sitting around them observe

and take notes of what is being discussed. The aim of the dialog sessions was to create

an environment of trust between the different stakeholders that face similar

unsustainability issues. The purposes was also to help the actors understand different

perspectives of the problem as well as to encourage collaboration.

Backcasting Step 3:

To deeper explore the research topics in the third step of backcasting, the Challenge

Lab organized a workshop on design thinking. The idea of the workshop was to first

broaden up the main topics discussed in the dialogs, and then narrow down the

themes to each student’s interest area. The aim was to gain a multilevel perspective of

the topics and make sure to constantly stay within the questions and not try to identify

solutions. In order to not jump to conclusion and miss vital steps and insights through the

process.


! 14!

Firstly the students questioned; what are we interested in? And where is the energy for

transformative and integrative change? Eventually the team could identify four hot

topics;

•! Dense city

•! Transport strategy

•! Value chain of materials

•! City vision

Thereafter, to narrow down the topics, in teams the students explored each topic,

according to the following seven aspects;

1.! What are the stakeholder interests?

2.! Can all dimension of sustainability be factored in?

3.! Is there potential for transformative change?

4.! Is there potential for integrative change?

5.! What is the socio-technical aspects?

6.! Where on the scale (multilevel perspective) is there potential to intervene?

7.! Where on the value chain is there potential to intervene?

After each topic had been discussed, the student had to write down ideas and

thoughts they absorbed during the dialogs on post-its under each identified hot topic. It

then became clear which students had similar interests and could team up for the

research projects. When the teams had formed, each group then started to explore

where they could find enough leverage to intervene in the system.

For this thesis the identified hot topics we found most energy and interest in was

Sustainable innovation for urban development. The aim was to combine our own

interests together with a current local project in Gothenburg. Therefore, to connect the

ideas, contact was taken with actors in academia, public authorities, private and

public companies to explore the market needs. Eventually the research was narrowed

down to the urban development in Frihamnen. And after a meeting with the project

leader for the Jubileumsparken in Frihamnen it was found that the city is applying a new

and innovative approach designing the park, by using prototypes co-creation methods


! 15!

to develop the area. The city aims to create a living laboratory and a testbed with a

sustainability focus. Therefore, a research question was formulated to understand how

the new concept of developing Jubileumsparken can contribute to sustainability

transitions in Gothenburg.

Backcasting Step 4: Step 4 represents the process of answering the identified research question;

How can the concept of urban living lab contribute to sustainability transitions in

Gothenburg?

the role of urban living labs for gothenburg¹s sustainable development final_dacomm160830(1)

Documents