Marina Van Geenhuizen (p)

Marcus Dejardin

Living labs coming of age: reaching urban sustainability goals through extended knowledge advancing

Participative approaches in policy-making by citizens have reached high popularity over the past decade. Though different in aims and structure, living labs and citizen science are good examples of the new par-ticipative models. Living labs can be seen as R&D methodology focusing on co-creative experimentation and design of solutions by citizens, while citizen science originally merely focused on data collection serving academic needs, but has now also turned to identifying solutions. Since first applications about 20 years ago, living labs have been used in solving a variety of urban sustainability matter in mul-ti-stakeholder situations, like in sustainable energy and water management. This article reflects on four recently forwarded challenges in urban living labs’ practice, namely, 1) anticipative learning, 2) participa-tion by representative citizens in learning and design of solutions, 3) using real-life experimentation places, and 4) evaluation of living labs’ results, particularly outcomes that can be generalized.
Next, the paper explores knowledge advancing to respond to these challenges. Part of the challenge is to perform a deeper ex-ante problem-analysis, including using system frameworks and dynamic stakeholder study, eventually applied in simulation and gaming in anticipative learning. With regard to contribution to literature, this article fits the general reflection on living labs today, and is novel in two respects. First, it presents and structures recently forwarded tension and challenges in application of the methodology. Sec-ondly, it explores learning matter and approaches that deserve more attention in living labs’ practice. The findings support beliefs that many-sided learning activity, including citizen science, will strengthen living labs and increase its policy relevance in urban sustainability and transition.

Urban Living labs; anticipative learning; evaluation; collaborative learning and design; site-specificity, socio-technical transition; citizen science.

Mateus Amâncio (p)

Marina Van Geenhuizen

While energy tariff subsidies exist in various countries around the world, their real impacts are not yet fully understood. This study assesses the effects and efficiency of the brazilian Social Electricity Tariff Program (TSEE), which provides discounts on electricity bills to low-income costumers. Using a difference-in-differences methodology, we estimate the program's effect on energy consumption of the directly benefited population, using a regulatory change as an instrument of exogenous variation in electricity prices. We also discuss how this policy affects social wellrafe, considering the tariff pass-through of the subsidy to other consumers.
Our results indicate that inclusion in the TSEE and the subsequent discount on the electricity tariff had no significant effect on the consumption of the treatment population at any analysis horizon, which extended up to eight months post-treatment. In our analysis of the subsidy pass-through to other consumers, we found that 0.65% of the electricity tariff in the states of Maranhão and Pará was allocated to funding the social tariff in 2021, while this number increased to 1.01% in the post-treatment period. For the population of the states of Maranhão and Pará, this translated to an increase of US$20.36 million in the total subsidies paid for TSEE funding.
With this work, we aim to contribute to the literature on energy subsidies, providing evidence from a developing country, and enrich the discussion on the intersection between efficiency and equity in energy policies.

Korneliusz Pylak (p), Bartosz Przysucha

Mateus Amâncio

This research delves into the complex relationship between innovation ecosystems and sustainable development within the context of Polish entrepreneurship from 2005 to 2023. Departing from conventional methodologies, our study employs a sophisticated linguistic classification model to assess patents and utility models, going beyond the constraints of traditional metrics. This approach enables a comprehensive understanding of how innovative solutions contribute to sustainable development, focusing on factors such as resource efficiency, emissions reduction, and societal accessibility.

Geospatial analysis adds a unique dimension to our investigation, providing a detailed examination of the geographic concentrations of sustainable innovations. By assigning precise locations to entities involved in innovation ecosystems, we uncover the localized nature of sustainable entrepreneurship. Using dynamic spatial panel models, we analyse the temporal and spatial dimensions of patents and utility models, revealing how innovation affects the overall performance of ecosystems.

In our multidimensional approach, we extend our analysis beyond patents and utility models, incorporating industrial designs and trademarks. This comprehensive evaluation allows us to explore the systemic impact of sustainable innovations on the emergence of start-ups, industrial designs, and trademarks within ecosystems.

Our study further investigates the size of ecosystems and conducts spatial weight analysis to unpack the spatial dynamics and indirect effects within these innovation ecosystems. By examining various area sizes and spatial weights, we aim to identify the scale at which sustainable development efforts are most impactful.

To strengthen the credibility of our findings, we compare the results with existing methodologies, serving as a robustness check. This comparative analysis enhances the credibility of our research and contributes to the discourse on sustainable entrepreneurship.

The implications of this research extend to policymakers, researchers, and practitioners interested in fostering sustainable development through innovation ecosystems. Our findings offer valuable insights into the diverse dynamics of sustainable entrepreneurship, providing a roadmap for shaping policies that promote eco-friendly innovations and fostering a more sustainable future.

Marcus Dejardin (p), André van Stel

Korneliusz Pylak

The broad concept of “enterprise policy” may be presented as a policy program combining entrepreneurship policy and SME policy. The former is designed to support entrepreneurship in the initial phases of the entrepreneurial process, including acting on the most upstream factors and contexts. The latter is concerned with the backing of the existing enterprise population. These policies aim to boost the rates of business creation and growth (Arshed et al., 2014).
While necessary to distinguish between the two, given that they both aim to influence reality, it is hard to separate them completely. This is also true for policies targeting large corporations, given the potential significant interactions. Nowadays, enterprise policy is also expected to contribute to sustainable economic development. Its primary targets would remain start-ups and SMEs, and contemporary enterprise policy would aim to enhance their role in development while promoting environmental sustainability.
The idea that different types of entrepreneurship coexist, among which a “right” type, is tied to the awareness that entrepreneurship is a varied concept (Gartner, 1985), and as such, there are many kinds of entrepreneurs (Wennekers and Van Stel, 2017). Baumol (1990) divides entrepreneurs into productive, unproductive, and destructive types. When considering the “right” type of entrepreneurship, it is evident that it should at least fall under productive entrepreneurship. Our communication focuses on an even more specific group of entrepreneurs – those who contribute significantly to macroeconomic performance. This includes innovators (Schumpeterian entrepreneurs), job creators, and strategic entrepreneurship (Estrin et al., 2022). These types are often referred to as “high-quality” entrepreneurs (Giotopoulos et al., 2017).
Hence the question then becomes if and how enterprise policy can contribute to increasing the number of innovating and job-creating entrepreneurs while ensuring greater environmental sustainability.
In this communication, we briefly elaborate on the concepts of “enterprise policy” and the “right” type of entrepreneurship. We pay attention to the question if and how the “right” type of entrepreneurship can be identified, and we extend this debate to the regional and country-level context. If, for argument’s sake, we equate the “right” type with successful entrepreneurs (leaving aside what is “success” – Siepel and Dejardin, 2020), and we assume it is possible to identify successful entrepreneurs, another question is whether it is possible to identify successful entrepreneurs ex-ante, i.e. before the entrepreneurs involved start their business. Finally, we cautiously discuss what could be the outlines of a “contextualised and sustainable enterprise policy”.