Journal of Wellbeing Management and Applied Psychology (웰빙융합연구)

Korea Wellbeing Convergence Association (한국웰빙융합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Citizens' Perceptions of Living Labs for a Better Living Environment: Perspectives of Millennials and Generation Z

  • Received : 2024.03.12
  • Accepted : 2024.03.22
  • Published : 2024.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to explore the citizens' perceptions of living labs in the context of enhancing the living environment. Specifically, it employs quantitative research to investigate the perspectives of Millennials and Generation Z. This study proposed research questions to examine how the impacts of citizen-driven management, social factors, locally-driven management, open innovation operation, economic value, and environmental value influence the overall attitude toward living labs. Additionally, this study investigated the effects of overall attitudes on intention to participate in living labs and expected satisfaction towards living labs. Research design, data and methodology: This study employed an online survey conducted by a well-known research organization. Factor and regression analysis were utilized for data analysis. Results: The results revealed significant effects of citizen-driven management, social factors, economic value, and environmental value on overall attitude, with social factors exhibiting the highest effect size on overall attitude. Additionally, significant effects of overall attitude on intention and expected satisfaction were observed. Conclusions: The findings suggest which aspects of living labs should be fostered for the development of residents, the local economy, and citizens' quality of life, particularly with consideration of the perspectives of Millennials and Generation Z, who play a crucial role in utilizing a diverse array of ICT tools.

Keywords

References

  1. Agarwal, H., & Vaghela, P. S. (2018). Work Values of Gen Z: Bridging the Gap to the Next Generation. National Conference on Innovative Business Management Practice in 21st Century, December, Gujarat, India. 1-26.
  2. Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude Structure and Behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude Structure and Function (pp.241-274), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  3. Alexandrakis, J. (2021). Cycling towards Sustainability: The Transformative Potential of Urban Design thinking in a Sustainable Living Lab. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 9, 1-9.
  4. Arnould, M., Morel, L., & Fournier, M. (2022). Embedding Non-industrial Private Forest Owners in Forest Policy and Bioeconomy Issues using a Living Lab Concept. Forest Policy and Economics, 139, 1-19.
  5. Awwal, S., Soliman-Junior, J., Ayo-Adejuyigbe, M., Tzortzopoulos, P., & Kagioglou, M. (2022). Social Housing Retrofit Living Lab: Methodological Approach. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1101, 1-11.
  6. Baccarne, B., Schuurman, D., Mechant, P., & De Marez, L. (2014). The Role of Urban Living Labs in a Smart City. Proceedings of the 25th ISPIM Conference - Innovation for Sustainability Economy & Society (pp.1-16). June 8 - 11, Dublin, Ireland.
  7. Battisti, S. (2014) Social Innovation in Living Labs : The Micro-level Process Model of Public-private Partnerships. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 5(4/5), 328-348.
  8. Berberi, A., Beaudoin, C., McPhee, C., Guay, J., Bronson, K., & Nguyen, V. M. (2023). Enablers, Barriers, and Future Consideraions for Living Lab Effectiveness in Environmental and Agricultural Sustainability Transitions: A Review of Studies evaluating Living Labs. Local Environment, 1-20, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  9. Bergvall-Kareborn, B., & Stahlbrost, A. (2009). Living Lab - An Open and Citizen-Centric Approach for Innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, January, 1-16.
  10. Buhr, K., Federley, M., & Karlsson, A. (2016). Urban Living Labs for Sustainability in Suburbs in Need of Modernization and Social Uplift. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(1), 27-34.
  11. Compagnucci, L., Spigarelli, F., Coelho, J., & Duarte, C. (2021). Living Labs and User Engagement for Innovation and Sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 1-18.
  12. Dell'Era, C., & Landoni, P. (2014). Living Lab: A Methodology between User-Centered Design and Participatory Design. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(2), 137-154.
  13. Dolot, A. (2018). The Characteristics of Generation Z. E-Mentor, 2(74), 44-50, Warsaw: School of Economics.
  14. Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding Understanding of Service Exchange and Value Vo-creation: A Social Construction Approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327-339.
  15. Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K. A., Thoben, K., & Schumacher, J. (2008). Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. In Schumacher, J. & Niitamo, V. P. (Eds.), European Living Labs - A New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation (pp.1-14), Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
  16. Folstad, A. (2008a). Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10, 99-131.
  17. Folstad, A. (2008b). Towards a Living Lab for the Development of Online Community Services. The Electronic Journal of Virtual Organizations and. Networks, 10, 47-58.
  18. Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018). 'True Gen': Generation Z and Its Implications for Companies. November, McKinsey&Company.
  19. Gasco, M. (2017). Living Labs: Implementing Open Innovation in the Public Sector. Government Information Quarterly, 34, 90-98.
  20. Hakkarainen L., & Hyysalo S. (2013). How do We Keep the Living Laboratory Alive? Learning and Conflicts in Living Lab Collaboration. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3, 16-22.
  21. Hill, R. (2022). Generational Harmony Saves the World: How the Power of Generation Theory, Gen Z Youth, and Activism can mitigate the Climate Crisis. Undergraduate Scholarship and Creative Works, 1. University of Central Florida.
  22. Hossain, M., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2019). A Systematic Review of Living Lab Literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 976-988.
  23. Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration Employees: Strategies for Effective Management. Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65-76.
  24. Motta, P. C., Schewe, C. D., & Rossi, M. (2000). Generational Marketing: Exploring Cohort-Programmed Values and Their Implications on Cross-Cultural Variations in Consumer Behavior between Brazil and United States. Proceedings of the Innovations in Business Practices: The Roles of Globalization, Regional Integration and Technology of Global Business and Technology Association (pp.1-19), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  25. Mukherjee, A. S., Sahay, S., Kumar, R., Banta, R., & Joshi, N. (2023). A Living Lab within a Lab: Approaches and Challenges for Scaling Digital Public Health in Resource-Constrained Settings. Frontiers in Public Health, August, 1-14.
  26. Mulgan, G. (2012). The Theoretical Foundations of Social Innovation. In A. Nicholls, & A. Murdock (Eds.), Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets (pp.33-65), Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
  27. Nicolas, T. (2015). Understanding the Millennials Generation. Journal of Business Diversity, 15(1), 39-47.
  28. Park, J., & Fujii, S. (2023). Civic Engagement in a Citizen-led Living Lab for Smart Cities: Evidence from South Korea. Urban Planning, 8(2), 93-107.
  29. Shin, D. (2019). A Living Lab as Socio-technical Ecosystem: Evaluating the Korean Living Lab of Internet of Things. Government Information Quarterly, 36, 264-275.
  30. Sjoman, M., Ringenson, T., & Kramers, A. (2020). Exploring Everyday Mobility in a Living Lab based on Economic Interventions. European Transport Research Review, 12(5), 1-17.
  31. Tabata, N., Tsukada, M., Kubo, K., Inoue, Y., Miroku, R., Odashima, F., Shiratori, K., Sekiya, T., Sengoku, S., Shiroyama, H., & Kimura, H. (2022). Living Lab for Citizens' Wellness: A Case of Maintaining and Improving a Healthy Diet under the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(1254), 1-17.
  32. Toma, S., Gradinaru, C., Hudea, O., & Modreanu, A. (2023). Perceptions and Attitudes of Generation Z Students towards the Responsible Management of Smart Cities. Sustainability, 15, 1-40.
  33. Waes, A., Nikolaeva, A., & Raven, R. (2021). Challenges and Dilemmas in Strategic Urban Experimentation: An Analysis of Four Cycling Innovation Living Labs. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 172, 1-12.
  34. Wehrmann, C., Pentzold, C., Rothe, I., & Bischof, A. (2023). Introduction: Living Labs under Construction. Journal of Science Communication, 22(3), 1-8.
  35. Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., & Habib, C. (2018). Key Constructs and a Definition of Living Labs as Innovation Platforms. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(12), 51-62.