000			02713nab|a22003257a|4500
001			67399
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20240424225116.0
008			20244s2024||||mx |||p|op||||00||0|eng|d
022			_a0959-6526
022			_a1879-1786 (Online)
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
100	1		_aHossain, M. _933628
245	1	2	_aA systematic review of living lab literature
260			_bElsevier Ltd., _c2019. _aUnited Kingdom :
500			_aPeer review
520			_aA living lab is a physical or virtual space in which to solve societal challenges, especially for urban areas, by bringing together various stakeholders for collaboration and collective ideation. Although the notion has received increasing attention from scholars, practitioners and policy makers, its essence remains unclear to many. We therefore performed a systematic literature review of a sample of 114 scholarly articles about living labs to understand the central facets discussed in the nascent literature. In particular, we explored the origin of the living lab concept and its key paradigms and characteristics, including stakeholder roles, contexts, challenges, main outcomes, and sustainability. While doing this, we discovered that the number of publications about living labs has increased significantly since 2015, and several journals are very active in publishing articles on the topic. The living lab is considered a multidisciplinary phenomenon and it encompasses various research domains despite typically being discussed under open and user innovation paradigms. What is more, the existing literature views living labs simultaneously as landscapes, real-life environments, and methodologies, and it suggests that they include heterogeneous stakeholders and apply various business models, methods, tools and approaches. Finally, living labs face some challenges, such as temporality, governance, efficiency, user recruitment, sustainability, scalability and unpredictable outcomes. In contrast, the benefits include tangible and intangible innovation and a broader diversity of innovation. Based on our analysis, we provide some implications and suggestions for future research.
546			_aText in English
650		7	_2AGROVOC _933606 _aLiving labs
650		7	_2AGROVOC _94423 _aInnovation
650		7	_2AGROVOC _91283 _aSustainability
650		7	_2AGROVOC _930988 _aLiterature reviews
650		7	_2AGROVOC _94362 _aStakeholders
700	1		_aLeminen, S. _933629
700	1		_aWesterlund, M. _933630
773	0		_tJournal of Cleaner Production _dUnited Kingdom : Elsevier Ltd., 2019. _gv. 213, p. 976-988 _x0959-6526
942			_cJA _n0 _2ddc
999			_c67399 _d67391