An Integrated Transformative Process Model for Social Innovation in Cities

Wagner-Luptacik, Petra; Wilhelmer, Doris

doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.139

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nowadays, cities are facing complex and interrelated societal issues leading to economic, environmental and social crises, also referred to as "wicked problems" [1]. These challenges emphasize the need for innovative solutions that take into account new sources of knowledge [2,3]. In this context, recent technological evolutions such as social media and sensing applications have been used in innovative ways to co-create knowledge and solutions at a pace that was not conceivable before [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban Living Labs and Citizen Science: From Innovation and Science towards Policy Impacts

Veeckman

Temmerman

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

City governments are currently exploring different participatory mechanisms in order to meet the growing demand in society for deliberate decision-making. Through developments in sensing technology, data processing and visualization, citizen science is emerging as a powerful tool for the general public to participate in scientific research that informs policy. Citizen science can be used as an approach in Urban Living Labs, whereby public and private stakeholders are involved in innovation and data collection processes together with citizens. However, there is currently little synergy between citizen science and Urban Living Labs, and how science, innovation and policy can be interoperable. Therefore, this article conducts a comparative case study analysis on the participatory processes and related outputs, outcomes and impacts of the FloodCitiSense Urban Living Labs (Brussels, Birmingham, Rotterdam). These initiatives developed an early warning system for urban flooding through the collection and analysis of crowdsourced information. Data on the participatory processes were collected through 11 in-depth interviews and evaluated on its effectiveness in achieving policy outcomes. The discussion reflects on best practices in incorporating citizen science in Urban Living Labs based on the experienced opportunities and challenges in FloodCitiSense.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban Living Labs and Citizen Science: From Innovation and Science towards Policy Impacts

Veeckman

Temmerman

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other authors look at transformation in ecosystem management using SI as a framework [80,[87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94]. This line of research is consistent with SES and resilience thinking approaches [95], the main argument being the need for fundamental transformation of largely sectoral and expert centred ecosystem management institutions [87]. Biggs et al (2010) [87] in particular emphasize that SI provides a useful alternative framework for studying and understanding factors that may promote transformation in ecosystem management.…”

Section: Towards a More Transformative And Dynamic Concept Of Social mentioning

confidence: 56%

Mind the Gap: The Potential Transformative Capacity of Social Innovation

Dias

Partidário

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of the potential of Social Innovation (SI) for social transformation. Being a popular concept, SI has been discussed for decades, increasingly recognized for its complexity. A systematic review of the literature on SI was undertaken to understand the state-of-the-art, the evolution of the concept and its core underpinnings in order to meet the research aim of this paper. The literature is relatively broad in relation to general characteristics of SI and contexts where it is happening, but the use of the ‘social innovation’ term often reveals semantic problems, generating multiple, interchangeable and mixed understandings. In this paper, we identify and discuss two ways of using SI in the literature: (i) one that favours the materialization of SI, as something tangible that can be observed, measured and systematically analysed; we called this a cartesian approach; and (ii) another that uses systemic thinking focussing on successful factors of SI to enhance its transformative capacity in existing system(s) through change in routines, resources, and beliefs; we called this a disruptive approach. While still emerging in SI literature the academic discussion about SI dynamics and its transformative capacity is increasingly addressed by scholars. We conclude the paper by arguing that more transformative-driven and systemic SI may enhance its potential to lead change, while it only creates transformation when it scales-up or out, and when it has durability and transformative impact.

show abstract

“…While SI can take several forms, from specific ideas, rules and regulations (Nicholls et al , 2015) to concepts, strategies and tools (Dawson and Daniel, 2010), the concept is currently defined as an open process of collaboration between diverse stakeholders (e.g. policymakers, businesses, non-governmental organisations and citizens) that changes the relationship between them by crossing organisational borders and authority, with the main goal of fostering the creation, selection and implementation of solutions that aim to address societal needs, therefore contributing to the improvement of the quality of life more effectively and fairly than existing options (Dawson and Daniel, 2010; De Filippi et al , 2017; González and Healey, 2005; Voorberg et al , 2015; Wagner and Wilhelmer, 2017). From this definition, it can be observed that the conceptualisation of SI is twofold: first as a process and second as an outcome .…”

Section: Social Innovation: a Two-fold Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such “wicked problems” (Head and Alford, 2008) make it increasingly difficult for a single societal actor to come up with the adequate solutions (Baccarne et al , 2016) as solving them often implies negotiations between different actors (Mulgan et al , 2007). While the traditional representative democratic system has originally based its decision-making process on public institutions, experts and representatives of people’s socio-economic interests (Cossetta and Palumbo, 2014), the rise of these societal issues has emphasised the need for innovative solutions in the governance domain (Chen, 2017; Wagner and Wilhelmer, 2017). Adequately addressing these challenges requires new governance models and tools that recognise and include external sources of knowledge (Baccarne et al , 2016), calling for a shift from the current top-down paradigm – where professionals and experts are seen as superiors in taking the decision regarding public policy – to a more decentralised model where citizens are engaged in the decisions that directly affect their everyday life (Anttiroiko, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative governance platform for social innovation in Brussels

Temmerman¹,

Veeckman²,

Ballon³

2021

SEJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to share the experience of a collaborative platform for social innovation (SI) in urban governance in Brussels (Belgium) and to formulate recommendations for future initiatives. Design/methodology/approach The publicly funded collaborative platform “Brussels by us”, which aimed to improve the quality of life in specific neighbourhoods in Brussels (Belgium), is presented as a case study for SI in urban governance. The case study is detailed according to four dimensions based on the SI and living lab literature. Findings While the initiative appeared to be a successful exploration platform for collaborative urban governance, it did not evolve into concrete experimentation nor implementation of the solutions. Possible explanations and recommendations are formulated. Research limitations/implications The findings of this paper are based on the experience of a one-year initiative. The results should be completed by similar case studies of longitudinal initiatives, and with other levels of implementation such as experimentation and concrete implementation of solutions. Originality/value This paper presents a concrete case study of a collaborative platform implemented in a specific neighbourhood in Brussels (Belgium). Its digital and offline approach can help other practitioners, scholars and public institutions to experiment with the living lab methodology for the co-ideation of solution in urban governance. The four-dimensional framework presented in the study can provide future initiatives with a structured reporting and analysis framework, unifying and strengthening know-how in the domain of SI.

show abstract

An Integrated Transformative Process Model for Social Innovation in Cities

Cited by 7 publications

References 12 publications

Urban Living Labs and Citizen Science: From Innovation and Science towards Policy Impacts

Urban Living Labs and Citizen Science: From Innovation and Science towards Policy Impacts

Mind the Gap: The Potential Transformative Capacity of Social Innovation

Collaborative governance platform for social innovation in Brussels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About