Living Lab Participants’ Knowledge Change about Inclusive Smart Cities: An Urban Living Lab in Seongdaegol, Seoul, South Korea

Abstract

The emergence of smart cities has illuminated positive expectations, such as the solving of urban problems through information and communications technology (ICT). Behind the spotlight of the smart city, not everybody is enjoying the smart infrastructure owing to knowledge gaps such as the digital divide. Living labs provide a new platform for smart cities that can prevent the failure of urban development. They give citizens a better understanding of how to adapt to life in a smart city, enabling the development of smart cities that are more likely to succeed through a participatory approach. In this way, the competencies of participants may affect the success of a living lab. Nevertheless, there is a lack of research on improving participants’ knowledge through living labs. This study aims to examine how participation in an urban living lab influences the knowledge level of photovoltaic power generation and to identify the influencing factors. Our empirical study shows that the knowledge level of solar power technology improved through participation in a living lab. Additionally, the results indicate that the types of activity programs in the living lab were not associated with knowledge acquisition.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Study Objectives

Urbanization is characteristic of many industrialized countries. This is expected to continue to increase, resulting in societal problems [1,2]. Urbanization has a positive effect on the living standards of residents through continuous investment in urban infrastructure, such as roads, sewage systems, parks, and cultural facilities. However, urbanization causes problems, such as urban slums, environmental pollution, crime, and social polarization [3]. Urban difficulties are complex and exist as chronic problems for governments to solve because there are various approaches for causes and solutions depending on the socio-cultural background of each region. Smart cities have recently been proposed as an innovative way to cope with these wide-ranging social issues. The smart city became widely known to the public when an IBM chairman mentioned it in his presentation in “A Smarter Planet: The Next Leadership Agenda” in 2008 [4]. Since then, discussions have suggested that smart cities can present a rosy future that can solve current urban problems by introducing information and communication technology (ICT) [5]. The Government expects to solve urban problems through new administrative services, and companies have positive expectations of discovering new businesses [3]. Smart cities have also been highlighted in various fields, but the ambiguity of the term “smart” has made it difficult to reach a consensus on its definition [3]. Smart city-related keywords are being studied in various fields related to quality of life, infrastructure, ICT, citizenship, environment and sustainability, governance, and urban planning [6]. Additionally, studies are being conducted on humanities and philosophical topics related to the experience of living in smart cities, as well as the socio-economic inequality that will occur due to smart urbanization [7]. Due to their multidisciplinary nature, research areas related to smart cities have been extensively conducted [8].

In the meeting on sustainable smart cities held in 2014 in Genova, an agreed-upon definition was provided: “A smart sustainable city is an innovative city that uses Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and other means to improve quality of life, the efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social, and environmental aspects” [6]. Smart cities are based on innovations that have changed the paradigm of existing cities. For example, smart cities are making a difference from past forms of urban development by focusing on the cooperation of diverse stakeholders regarding government policies, private companies’ technologies, and the needs of citizens. However, one major issue in the failures of early research on smart cities was that it focused too heavily on technology and neglected the opinions of citizens [9]. Accordingly, approximately one-third (32%) of the papers with a critical stance on smart cities indicated an excessively technology-oriented approach to smart city development [4]. There is also criticism from a socio-economic point of view due to the neoliberal nature of smart cities. For example, as a new business model for corporations, a smart city may lack civic participation or social consideration, which may be inefficient in pursuing corporate profits [10,11]. Criticism of this perspective warns of the deepening of inequality between smart cities and non-smart cities, as well as the gaps between individuals due to the digital divide that may arise from smart city development [12]. Optimists overlook this criticism, believing that technology will solve existing problems. In terms of hardware, infrastructure, and services, new technologies have achieved remarkable growth, but there are people in the shadows who have fallen behind amid the growth of new technologies. Thus, the possibility of marginalization among those who are digitally illiterate is increasing in smart cities, where digitalization is necessary in daily life.

The living lab has emerged to provide a better understanding of how users will adapt to new life in a smart city, which should enable the development of smart cities that are more likely to succeed by promoting civic participation. In addition, living labs have been proposed as a new platform for smart cities that can prevent past failures from reoccurring in urban development. This study points out the lack of citizen participation in the development process as the background of smart cities separated from citizens in the past [13]. The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) defines living labs as “user-centered, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach in public–private–people partnerships, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings” [14]. The European Commission (EC) also suggested that living labs should be prioritized for innovations in the smart city development process [15].

Current smart city projects emphasize the need for a participatory approach with people who have been neglected in existing technology-oriented smart city development [16]. Although ICT could change the city as an economic, social, and physical space [3], the interests of the people who live in the city should be a priority for urban development. In addition, recent studies suggest that citizen participation can prevent the failure of smart cities and increase sustainability [13]. Other studies indicate the importance of smart people in terms of software and the infrastructure of new technologies as hardware for smart cities to realize inclusivity [3]. The living lab approach is highlighted as a new engagement model that incorporates a participatory approach to smart city development. Figure 1 illustrates a living lab that supplements the shortcomings of a smart city.

The objective of this study was to examine the effects of participation in a living lab on participants’ knowledge acquisition regarding solar power technology through a survey. Specifically, we aimed to answer three questions. First, does participation in the living lab affect participants’ knowledge acquisition? Second, is knowledge acquisition associated with the level of participation in programs? Third, given the complexities involved in providing training on solar power technology, which types of training are most effectively delivered through these activities? To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess these three aspects of knowledge acquisition related to participation in a living lab.

1.2. Literature Review

In the early smart city-related agenda, there was a discussion on the form of an inclusive city to achieve social well-being [17]. While the promotion of smart city projects is growing worldwide, alienation caused by the wealth gap and the digital divide remains a critical issue. Since the 1990s, several experiments have been conducted in living laboratories to solve societal problems. These experiments have shown that a living lab effectively reflects the needs of people and reduces the market failure of products with new technologies in a smart city [15]. Another study found that the democratic and iterative interaction process of living labs helps improve the adaptability of citizens who will use new technology-based services in the smart city [18]. Because digital knowledge is known to play a key role in combining cities and smart technologies [17], it is important to address the knowledge gap among citizens to realize an inclusive smart city where no citizens are left behind. Living labs display a desirable vision for urban development through co-creation and a continuous feedback process based on citizen participation. It seems possible to achieve sustainable city policies and products by participating in the process of co-creation with various stakeholders such as the Government, corporations, research institutes, and people. Although the introduction of living labs has attracted attention, detailed research is still lagging behind interest [19].

Learning and participation in living labs is known to create an inclusive environment [20]. In existing studies, the knowledge (technology, structure, and definition) gap of living lab participants in the process of stakeholder engagement is the biggest challenge, emphasizing the importance of the learning process [21]. It is also known that digital literacy has improved and the digital divide has been reduced through participation in living labs [22], which adopt collective intelligence to solve real-world problems in real-life settings where diverse people gather [23]. The competencies of various individuals appear to be influential factors in determining the success or failure of a living lab [19,24,25,26]. The main purpose of this study is to reveal the learning effect for improving the adaptive capability of people in a smart city and its factors using the living lab approach. The novelty of this study is that it explores the knowledge effect of living lab participants and their determinants through empirical research.

1.3. Seongdaegol Living Lab (SLL)

SLL was the first citizen-led living lab in Korea. SLL originated in a children’s library established by local mothers in 2010. The Fukushima nuclear power plant accident that occurred in 2011 led to interest in renewable energy and solar power generation for the future of children. After the commencement of the energy-saving movement in the village, SLL was selected as an energy self-sufficient village project by the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) for three years starting in 2012 (Figure 2). Since 2015, the village movement has been transformed into a living lab (Figure 3). Accordingly, stakeholders have been expanded to include universities, research institutes, companies, and the Government in addition to residents. SLL succeeded in the commercialization of a DIY mini-solar power device and developed a financial product (called “Solar Loan”) in cooperation with the local credit union. As a result, it has won awards domestically and internationally, including the Seoul Environment Grand Award (2012), Best Education Award for Energy Self-sufficient Village (2013), and Taipei Municipal Government Award (2015). These achievements have led to continuous government-funded project selection, and the living lab for supplying mini-solar power projects in urban areas has been extended to urban regeneration projects with local governments, such as the aged building retrofit program for energy efficiency in villages [27].

SLL prioritizes the rights of participants in the selection of living lab projects, learning programs, and all decisions within the organization. According to an interview with the founder of SLL, “The top priority in SLL’s activities is to get citizens to take the initiative and realize that they have full control.” The founder also emphasized the empowerment of participants, which is the most important value in the process of co-creation, exploration, experimentation, and evaluation. In other words, when the transfer of authority to citizens is secured, people recognize the acceptability of change based on their ideas.

Table 1. Categories of Activities of SLL.

Category	Contents
Energy Saving	- Established energy-saving center - Conducted an energy-saving campaign
Energy Efficiency	- Built a retrofit project - Insulation improvement renovation of old buildings
Energy Production	- Established energy production cooperative
Education and Learning	- Education courses, instructor training courses - Workshops - Lectures at nearby schools
Cultural Events and Publicity Campaign	- Village flea market and festivals - Book discussion and film festival - Various cultural experience events (drama, mime, chorus, puppet show)
Governance and Networking	- Formation of energy independence movement council - Participation in urban regeneration projects of central/local governments - Benchmarking domestic and foreign energy independence movement

shows the six major categories of activities, and Figure 4 illustrates that education and learning occupy the highest proportion (35%) of these activities. As the literature review points out, the level of knowledge and competencies of the participants in the living lab determine the success of the project [21]. In addition, the founder of SLL mentioned that they invested most of their time in improving the competency of the participants. The founder’s philosophy is that the goal of SLL can be achieved when the knowledge level of the participants reaches a certain level.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

A questionnaire was created to assess knowledge acquisition and to cover demographic and socioeconomic factors. Due to the pandemic, the survey was conducted online from December 30th, 2021, to March 5th, 2022. A questionnaire was distributed to approximately 100 participants who participated in an online community. We excluded answers with insufficient responses, and 30 completed replies were collected and used for the analysis.

2.2. Data Analysis

A paired t-test was used to test for statistical differences between the means of each participant’s knowledge score independently before and after participation in the SLL. We conducted a two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) to detect whether the participants’ knowledge acquisition was associated with their participation rates. Each participant acted as his or her own control, reducing variability and increasing statistical power. Stratified analyses were conducted according to participation rates (low and high participation). We performed a two-way ANOVA test to examine the differences in knowledge acquisition by activity type. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using R, version 4.1.2.

3. Results

Thirty surveys were conducted. The age, gender, education, period of residence, income, and professional characteristics of the respondents are presented in

Table 2. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the participants.

	N	%
Gender
Male	12	40
Female	18	60
Age
10–19	1	3
20–29	4	13
30–39	3	10
40–49	12	40
50–59	7	23
60 or up	3	10
Occupation
Housewife	6	20
Inoccupation	1	3
Salaried worker	9	30
Self-employed	10	33
Student	4	13
Highest level of education
Middle school diploma	2	7
High school diploma	10	33
Bachelor’s degree	17	57
Master’s degree	1	3
Period of residence
Less than 10 year	14	47
10–20 years	9	30
20–30 years	4	13
30–40 years	2	7
40 years or up	1	3
Annual income
Less than USD15,800	14	47
USD15,800–USD31,600	3	10
USD31,600–USD47,400	5	17
USD47,400–USD63,200	6	20
USD63,200 or up	2	7

and Figure 5. SLL participants had a higher percentage of women (60%) as it was started as a movement by mothers to establish a children’s library. In addition, the proportion of in their 40s (40%), self-employed (33%), bachelor’s degree graduates (57%) and residents less than 10 years (47%) was high. Since SLL is located near a local traditional market, it seems that the self-employed also participate at a high rate.

Figure 5 displays the participation frequency, transportation modal of participation, travel time, and the method of interaction among participants. As for the participation characteristics of SLL, 43% of participants attended less than once per month, 67% usually visited on foot. Approximately 86% of participants lived within a 30-min distance, and 43% communicated through the formal events of SLL.

We examined the influence of participants’ demographic and socio-economic factors on the knowledge change prior to investigating the association between the participation level and their knowledge change through the SLL. We found that the participants’ gender (p = 0.398), age (p = 0.589), residence period (p = 0.0926), occupation (p = 0.752), educational level (p = 0.704), and income (p = 0.719) in SLL were not significantly associated with the knowledge acquisition (Figure 6).

By comparing the knowledge scores before (mean = 2.33, SD = 1.12) and after (mean = 4.10, SD = 0.76) participation in SLL, we found a significant increase in scores (1.77) from respondents through SLL participation (p < 0.05) (Figure 7). We have statistically significant evidence to show that knowledge has been gained through the living lab participation.

Figure 8 shows knowledge change differences by the degree of participation in the low and the high group. The mean differences in knowledge change before and after participation was found 1.6 and 1.85 in the low and the high group, respectively (

Table 3. Mean and standard deviation (SD) of knowledge scores in each group.

Participation	Knowledge	n	Mean	SD
Low	before	10	2.20	0.63
	after	10	3.80	0.63
High	before	20	2.40	1.31
	after	20	4.25	0.786

). However, there is no statistically significant association between the degree of participation and knowledge gain (p = 0.649).

Furthermore, we tested the effective types of knowledge acquisition activities among the respondents (

Table 4. Questions about the activities for effective knowledge acquisition.

Question	Answer
(A) Q1. Among the living lab activities, which one did you most actively participate in?	1. Cultural events 2. Solar power generator experiment 3. Participation in lectures and village meetings 4. Urban regeneration
(B) Q2. Please select the activity that most enhanced your understanding of solar power technology.	1. Formal learning and education programs 2. Informal mutual learning among residents 3. Lectures by external experts 4. Cultural events 5. Self-study
(C) Q3. Please select the living lab activity that greatly influenced your understanding of a new technology/topic.	1. Formal learning and education programs 2. Informal exchange or mutual learning 3. Lectures by external experts 4. Cultural events

). We found no difference in knowledge acquisition between “Q1” (p = 0.332), “Q2” (p = 0.784), and “Q3” (p = 0.07) (Figure 9).

4. Conclusions

This study investigated knowledge acquisition through participation in a living lab. It was confirmed that respondents acquired knowledge by participating in the living lab regardless of their level of participation. The results also indicated that the type of activity program was not associated with the respondents’ knowledge acquisition. These results suggest that encouraging citizens to participate in the living lab is essential, as knowledge acquisition was achieved through participation in the living lab regardless of the level of participation and type of activity program. This is consistent with previous studies showing that a living lab has value as a place for citizens to learn new technologies [28] and contributes to the improvement of knowledge levels [22]. Moreover, previous research has argued that learning and engagement create an inclusive environment [29]. Finally, the living lab as a place for citizen learning and methodology for civic participation may contribute to creating an inclusive environment in smart cities.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to find a living lab methodology that can be applied universally, because each city has different socio-cultural backgrounds and needs [30]. In addition, the high diversity of living lab cases results in a lack of definition and frame through academic research [22]. However, the diversity and heterogeneity of living labs also provides opportunities for research [31]. This study is significant in observing the knowledge change regarding the photovoltaic technology of living lab participants who engage in citizen-led energy self-sufficiency movements among urban living labs. It is difficult to apply the Korean case study results to other countries and regions using the same methodology. However, it is meaningful to propose implications that can be considered in resolving the knowledge gap at the design stage when smart cities or living labs are introduced.

This study suggests that a living lab can alleviate the digital divide and nurture smart citizens. We approached a living lab as a tool for an inclusive smart city. However, another perspective is that a smart city is a testbed for realizing the living lab’s objectives [32]. Interestingly, there may be an equivalent relationship between a smart city composed of tangible infrastructure and a living lab as an intangible methodology of citizen participation. In fact, through keyword analysis from 2004 to 2017 with terminology related to smart cities (digital city, smart city, living lab, ubiquitous city, information city), interest in the smart city and living lab search showed a similar increasing pattern between 2013 and 2017 [28]. Ahead of this trend, the EC has encouraged the application of living labs in smart city development since 2006 [32]. Living laboratories have the advantage of a bottom-up, democratic, and participatory approach, so the Government has incentives to introduce the development of smart cities. The Government has wanted to prevent the failure of smart cities in the past, but in addition, they are also a way to ensure democratic legitimacy in the urban development process. This study suggests the possibility of improving the capacity of citizens through living labs. However, it is also important that the results of the living lab be reflected in public policy. In future studies, there is a need for research on whether the outcomes of citizens in living labs can be adopted properly in policies beyond the tokenism of the past.

A previous study pointed out the pro-innovation bias of living lab participants regarding data collection and difficulties collecting data in a living lab study [33]. It is also possible that respondents with pro-innovation tendencies participated in this study.