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!
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.

!
! 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.

!
! 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.

! 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.
!

!
! 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

! 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.

!
! 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.

!
! 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).

! 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)

The Role of Urban Living Labs for Gothenburg¹s Sustainable Development Final_DAcomm160830(1)

The Role of Urban Living Labs for Gothenburg¹s Sustainable Development Final_DAcomm160830(1)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Role of Urban Living Labs for Gothenburg¹s Sustainable Development Final_DAcomm160830(1)

Similar to The Role of Urban Living Labs for Gothenburg¹s Sustainable Development Final_DAcomm160830(1) (20)

The Role of Urban Living Labs for Gothenburg¹s Sustainable Development Final_DAcomm160830(1)