How attractive is the participation in a Living Lab study? Experimental evidence and recommendations

Abstract

Living Labs, which are urban sites that include households and workplaces and are used to study the real-time use of technological innovations and devices, have become increasingly popular among environmental scientists to gain insights into energy consumption in peoples’ everyday life. However, recruiting a viable number of participants for such studies can pose a challenge to researchers: Factors like month-long study durations and the requirements to handle smart technology proficiently or frequently exchange information with researchers and other users do not necessarily make participation attractive for everyone. To identify relevant factors for participation, we conducted three large preregistered surveys (total N = 1479) in Austria: two conjoint studies and one experimental study. We found that advertising a Living Lab with a shorter duration (less than a month), providing the option to participate from home, and—a crucial point—offering financial incentives should be considered when considering promotion strategies and conducting thorough study planning. However, we discuss the fact that there might be a risk of selection bias for technic-savvy and future-oriented people.

Designing Mobility Policies for Vulnerable Users Employing the Living Lab Approach: Cases of a Demand-Responsive Transit Service in Ljubljana and Maribor

“…With the aim of gaining greater acceptance from the population, one strategy is to make participation in Living Labs more attractive by making it short-lived, offering the option to participate remotely, or even proposing a financial return. Using these solutions, as Brohmer et al pointed out [36], there is a risk that Living Lab participants belong to specific categories and do not represent the entirety of classes of potential users.…”