Anne Albert-Cromarias (p), Alexandre Asselineau

Marina Van Geenhuizen

The literature on coopetition has grown considerably over the past ten years and has progressively moved towards a theory. It is now a good time to question its relevance in the field of small or even very small enterprises. Coopetition seems more crucial for SMEs as they often face a distinct scarcity of resources.
Despite various and numerous researches, the literature has never questioned the role played in coopetition by the territory even if it seems to be essential to several SMEs, which are characterized, amongst other features, by territorial proximity. Their local or regional market is often relatively limited and they have developed neighbourhood networks as a source of labour and suppliers.
Several small businesses are imbedded in a clearly defined geographical area, such as those manufacturing so-called ‘terroir’ products, the main feature of which is precisely the geographical location of their production. Although space is not just something supporting economic activities, neither is it, at the other end, a necessary nor sufficient condition for collaboration or innovation – the various proximities, geographical and socioeconomic actually need to be activated. It therefore seems useful to analyse coopetition through the lens of proximities based on the study of a recently established group of small winegrowers.
Our exploratory study aims to understand how winegrowers in a territory little known for its wine, manage to exist, and make the territory exist too, thanks to coopetitive relationships based on proximity. Our study of the case of the ‘Ici commence la Loire’ vineyards shows the prominent role played by proximities in establishing coopetitive relationships amongst winegrowers – first proximity in its geographical meaning, but also socioeconomic proximity, both in its coordination dimension (interpersonal relationships, mutual trust, joint projects) and in its resource dimension (history, small-sized vineyards, historical characteristics, soil and climate). By activating socioeconomic proximities, the winegrowers create value collectively, and then capture this value collectively and individually by selling their wine. What matters is less the existing natural resources than the will to work together and define governance rules that will make it possible to coordinate the necessary compromises and decision making, hence to develop coopetitive relationships, in this case spontaneous, which are all the more crucial as these are small structures.

Jacopo Sforzi (p)

Bastien Bourlier

see extended abstract

Damien Serre, Bastien Bourlier (p), Marie-Laure lambert, Charlotte Heinzlef, Nathalie Long

Anne Albert-Cromarias

The Inegalitto project, funded by the Fondation de France focuses on coastal areas management and development of French West coast, more precisely between La Rochelle (Charente Maritime) and Saint Brieuc (Côtes d’Armor). The main goal of the project consists in integrating environmental inequalities into the operating of such spaces. For example, how different groups of inhabitants and actors are more or less vulnerable to identified and/or already experienced major hazards coming from the sea, like “Xynthia” storm in 2010.
A first set of investigations demonstrates that different groups of actors experiencing this storm adopted different conclusions dealing with retrofitting and planning these vulnerable areas. Some of them would design project to better protect inhabitants and assets, others prefer to restore ecological issues and pathways, finally many organized groups would prefer to rethink the land planning strategies in deciding to continue to propose urban and economic development of their areas, sometime without clearly taking into account past (but recent) risky situations.
Taking into account that initial results and contradictory issues on a same place, we decide to design a process and tool to help actors, group of interests and inhabitants to compare and simulate different land planning strategies. To achieve this goal, a Participative Geographic Information System (PGIS) is under development as well as a Participative Process to take into account as much as possible most of planning options. We aim at using that approach in analyzing every proposition and answering at this question during meetings: does the project increase or decrease coastal resilience?

Marina Van Geenhuizen (p), Anna Berti Suman

Jacopo Sforzi

Over the past twenty years many so-called bottom-up or participatory initiatives have emerged in solving urban problems in Europe and North America. Particularly after the recognition of important challenges in urban sustainability, including energy, transport and healthcare, the number of such initiatives has increased. In policy terms, we talk about co-production of urban services and solutions with active involvement of citizens in creating them. Co-production generally aims to increase effectiveness and quality of services (solutions) and addresses in a broader sense, democracy and accountability (Pestoff et al., 2012). In practice, it can be seen as a procedural policy tool, namely, as an instrument helping to accomplish a policy goal by altering actor behaviours, often in dynamic multi-actor situations. Seen from the standpoint of citizens, co-production may range from measurement in determining the magnitude of a problem to the identification and design of problem solutions in responding to their needs (Howlett, 2011).
Challenging the planning and delivery of urban services has attracted attention ever since the work of Ostrom (1990), while today attention is increasingly given to the role of information and communication technology (ICT) and ‘smart solutions’ (e.g. Pestoff et al., 2012; Gabrys, 2016; Nesti et al., 2018). However, what has stayed behind are systematic studies of the performance (productivity) of co-production initiatives and factors that influence the actual contribution to improving problematic urban situations. This lack of studies is partly connected to the ‘popular’ character of the initiatives today, causing the use of ‘buzzwords’ and blurring definitions. In addition, there are methodological problems to be solved, like on process results versus performance results, and multi-level character of performance (Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015). Against this background, the question addressed in the study is: what are the key factors in citizen initiatives, like citizen sensing (science) and living lab methodology, with regard to co-production results, and what is the main differentiation involved?
After clarification of the various concepts, the paper investigates three contrasting citizen initiatives with the aim to increase understanding of the actual contribution of co-production: citizen-sensing, citizen science and living labs. Drawn on analysis of the literature and three case studies, the final step in the paper is the design a preliminary performance framework. Citizen-sensing is conceived as an initiative of citizens that are triggered by exposure to a health risk and intending to challenge the accountable actors (authorities) to recognize and solve the problem. Accordingly, they utilize networked sensor technology in measuring the exposure (Berti Suman, 2018ab; Berti Suman and Van Geenhuizen, 2019). By contrast, in living labs methodology the problem is already recognized and citizens (or users) are already assigned a priority role in participation in the design of solutions. Urban living labs can be seen as a methodology of experimentation in real-life in cities aimed at achieving innovative solutions to societal problems, in particular through co-creation with citizens, including design, prototyping, validation, refinement and eventually, upscaling (Van Geenhuizen, 2018) Accordingly, while citizen-sensing is more on the identification and recognition (legitimacy) side of a problem, living labs are more on the side of designing solutions to a problem. Further, the third type of initiative included in this paper, citizen science, can be seen as the active participation of lay people in scientific research, often to provide more detail in measurement (granularity, time-dimension). However, a more active and informal version of citizen science is increasing in popularity today. A main issue in all initiatives is the democratic content, given the role of self-selection in participation and representativeness of the citizens that participate (Michiels and de Graaff, 2017).
The paper makes use of case studies in literature on citizen-sensing, citizen science and living labs that address urban health conditions (Kehaya et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2016; Carton and Ache, 2017; Berti Suman, 2018ab; Berti Suman and Van Geenhuizen, 2019; Van Brussel and Huysse, 2018; Van Geenhuizen, 2018). The case studies include: Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (citizen-sensing), CuriousNoses in cities in Flanders (Belgium) (citizen science) and Alexis Nihon Shopping Mall in Montreal (Canada) (living lab methodology). Drawing on analysis of the literature and case study understandings, the paper presents and discusses a performance framework including key performance factors and evidence in realizing contribution to actual improvement of urban health conditions. In the framework, emphasis is put on factors on public organization, citizens and actions/processes. With regard to action/processes, a set of 10 sub-factors is distinguished for living lab methodology. Largest differences can be observed between living labs and citizen-sensing. But differences are also increasing within initiatives, like citizen science. With its level of detail, the performance framework constitutes unique contribution to the literature.

References
Babisch, W. (2014) Updated exposure-response relationship between road traffic noise and coronary heart diseases: A meta-analysis. Noise & Health 16 (68) 1-9.
Becker M, Caminiti S, Fiorella D, et al. (2013) Awareness and Learning in Participatory Noise Sensing. PLoS ONE 8(12): e81638. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081638.
Berti Suman, A. (2018a). Challenging risk governance patterns through citizen sensing: the Schiphol Airport case. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 32: 155–173.
Berti Suman, A. (2018b)The smart transition: an opportunity for a sensor based public-health risk governance?. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 32: 257-274.
Berti Suman, A. and Van Geenhuizen, M. (2019) Not just noise monitoring: rethinking citizen sensing for risk-related problem-solving. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1598852
Bryson , J.M. and K.S. Quick et al. (2013). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review 73 (1):23-34.
Carton, L.J. and P.M. Ache (2017) Citizen-sensor-networks to confront government decision-makers: Two lessons from the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Management 196: 234-251.
Emerson, K. and T. Nabatchi (2015) Evaluating the Productivity of Collaborative Governance Regimes: A Performance Matrix. Public Performance & Management Review, 38: 717-747.
Gabrys, J. (2016) Practicing, materialising and contesting environmental data. Big Data & Society: 1-7.
Hai-Ying, L., M. Kobernus, D.M. Broday, and A. Bartonova (2014) A conceptual approach to a citizens' observatory: supporting community-based environmental governance. Environmental Health (13): 107.
Howlett, M. (2011) Designing public policy, principles and instruments. London: Routledge.
Jiang, Q., F. Kresin, A.K. Bregt, L. et al. (2016) Citizen Sensing for Improved Urban Environmental Monitoring. Journal of Sensors, Art. ID 5656245: 1-9.
Kehayia E, Swaine B et al. (2014) Creating a rehabilitation living lab to optimize participation and inclusion for persons with physical disabilities, ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research, 8, 151-157.
Michels, A. and L. De Graaf (2017) Examining citizen participation: local participatory policy-making and democracy revisited. Local Government Studies 43(6): 875-881.
Nesti, G. (2018) Co-production for innovation: the urban living lab experience. Policy and Society 37 (3): 310-325.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Peckens, C., Porter, C. and T. Rink(2018) Wireless Sensor Networks for Long-Term Monitoring of Urban Noise. Sensors, 18: 3161.
Pestoff, V., T. Brandsen and B. Verschuere (2012) New public governance, the third sector and coproduction. London: Routledge.
Van Brussel, S. and H. Huyse (2018) Citizen science on speed? Realising the triple objective of scientific rigour, policy influence and deep citizen engagement in a large-scale citizen science project on ambient air quality in Antwerp. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2018, 1-18.
Van Geenhuizen, M. (2018) A framework for evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation. Environment & Planning C, 36 (7): 1280-1298.
Van Geenhuizen, M. (2019) Applying an RRI Filter in Key Learning on Urban Living Labs’ Performance. Sustainability, 11: 3833.

See extended abstract