Living Labs Past Achievements, Current Developments, and Future Trajectories

What factors influence sustainable and healthy diet consumption? A review and synthesis of literature within the university setting and beyond

Globally, typical dietary patterns are neither healthy nor sustainable. Recognizing the key role of dietary change in reducing noncommunicable disease risk and addressing environmental degradation, it is crucial to understand how to shift individuals toward a sustainable and healthy diet (SHD). In this literature review, we introduced the concept of a SHD and outlined the dietary behaviors necessary to transition toward SHD consumption; we reviewed the literature on factors that may influence sustainable (and unsustainable) dietary behaviors in adults; and we developed a novel scoring system to rank factors by priority for targeting in future research. Given the significant potential to promote a sustainable and healthy dietary transition on the university campus-where factors that may impact dietary behaviors can be targeted at all levels of influence (i.e., individual, interpersonal, environmental, policy)-we narrowed our focus to this setting throughout. Aided by our novel scoring system, we identified conscious habitual eating, product price, food availability/accessibility, product convenience, self-regulation skills, knowledge of animal ethics/welfare, food promotion, and eating norms as important modifiable factors that may influence university students' dietary behaviors. When scored without consideration for the university population, these factors were also ranked as highest priority, as was modified portion sizes. Our findings offer insight into factors that may warrant attention in future research aimed at promoting SHDs. In particular, the high-priority factors identified from our synthesis of the literature could help guide the development of more personalized dietary behavioral interventions within the university setting and beyond.

Innovation through the Quintuple Helix in living labs: lessons learned for a transformation from lab to ecosystem

Introduction

In the process of growing societies, and especially in the digital era we live in, there is a need for a strong push for innovation that puts citizens at the center of the process from the beginning to build more resilient, cooperative and flexible communities. Different collaborative design approaches have emerged in recent decades, one of the most interesting being Living Labs, which involves user-centered design and co-creative innovation that bring together different actors and roles. However, although these new methodologies are harnessing creativity, some aspects of this new, more ecosystemic and complex vision are not clearly understood: possible barriers, how to facilitate local and operational solutions, overcoming institutional blockage, integrating new roles, etc.

Methods

The incorporation of the Quintuple Helix as a driver to ensure greater coordinated participation of local actors has proven its usefulness and impact during the re-adaptation of LifeSpace (previously named Smart House Living Lab), managed by the Polytechnic University of Madrid (Spain), a transformation based on the experiences and lessons learned during the large-scale ACTIVAGE pilot funded by the European Commission, more specifically at the Madrid Deployment Site. It involved more than 350 older adult people and other stakeholders from different areas, including family members, formal and informal caregivers, hospital service managers, third-age associations, and public service providers, forming a sense of community, which was called MAHA.

Results

The living lab infrastructure evolved from a single multi-purpose environment to incorporate three harmoniously competing environments: (1) THE LAB: Headquarters for planning, demonstration, initial design phases and entry point for newcomers to the process, (2) THE CLUB: Controlled interaction environment where returning users validate solutions, focusing mainly on AHA services (MAHA CLUB), such as exergames, social interaction applications, brain training activities, etc. (3) THE NEIGHBOURHOOD: Real-life environments for free and open interaction between actors and implementation of previously validated and tested solutions.

Conclusion

The Quintuple Helix model applied in LifeSpace's new vision allows a coordinated involvement of a more diverse set of actors, beyond the end-users and especially those who are not traditionally part of research and innovation processes.

Reckoning with Reality: Reflections on a Place-Based Social Innovation Lab

This is a reflection upon a social innovation lab process used to establish and build an ongoing culture of sustainability (COS) within a new multi-tenant commercial office building. It seeks to answer two key questions: (1) what are the design tensions that emerge when constructing co-design processes meant to encourage social innovation in a complex system while working from inside that complex system; (2) in building commons governance structures in a complex system, what are realistic expectations for the voluntary participation when multiple organizations with different core mandates are involved? This paper’s primary results come from reflecting upon the COS development coming from the social innovation lab process and adaptations process needed for it to work within a place-based context. The COS intervention itself is still in process and was disrupted by COVID-19, so these findings are still preliminary. Participatory co-design research often involves a great deal of complexity and tacit knowledge, so the key finding here is the surfacing of four core sources of tension that arise when developing a co-design process for the management of a commons: the allocation of costs for co-ordinating collective action, balancing a homogeneous platform for action with heterogeneous participants, physical building infrastructure and social co-design approaches, and between-tenant organization leadership and co-design approaches. This paper’s key contribution is in clarifying core challenges that participatory process designers face when developing and implementing co-design processes.