Strategic Socio-Technical Innovation in Urban Living Labs: A Framework for Smart City Evolution

Highlights

Main Findings:

• Our research identifies key misalignments in current smart city practices and proposes a strategic framework for improving the efficacy of Urban Living Labs (ULLs).
• Specific strategies for the Fenicia ULL in Bogotá are detailed, focusing on stakeholder orches-tration and innovative experiment design.

Implications of the Main Findings:

• The proposed framework enhances the sustainability and inclusivity of smart city initiatives by effectively integrating socio-technical innovations.
• Practical strategies for stakeholder engagement and governance in ULLs are provided, which can be adapted and applied in diverse urban contexts to foster collaborative innovation.

Abstract

Urban Living Labs (ULLs) are pivotal for promoting socio-technical innovation in smart cities, yet their role in achieving sustainable urban development remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by proposing a systematic literature review (SLR) to develop effective implementation strategies. Unlike previous studies focusing on individual aspects of these labs, our holistic approach emphasizes the orchestration of actors and innovative experiment design to co-create value with citizens. By addressing specific issues in current smart city practices—such as the misalignment between technology and community needs and among stakeholders, limited citizen engagement, and the lack of iterative testing environments—the study explores practical strategies for improvement. The proposed strategies illustrate how Urban Living Labs can serve as essential platforms for achieving sustainable and inclusive urban growth through effective socio-technical innovation integration.

1. Introduction

Urbanization, prevalent in many developing countries, is expected to keep rising, leading to various societal problems [1]. While it enhances the quality of life for residents through continual investment in urban infrastructure like highways, waste management systems, recreational areas, and cultural centers, it also creates significant challenges such as informal settlements, environmental degradation, criminal activities, and social divides [2,3]. These urban issues are intricate and remain enduring problems for governments, as their causes and solutions differ based on the socio-cultural context of each region. The concept of a smart city has developed as an innovative approach to addressing diverse social challenges in urban environments. Although these initiatives vary in their aims, innovative approaches, fundamental technologies, priorities, and characteristics of the urban contexts in which they are implemented, they are united by the underlying conviction that digital technologies are pivotal in driving beneficial, forward-thinking, and enduring improvements in cities [4].

Particularly from socio-technical innovation standpoint, the rate of innovation appears to lag behind that of other sectors where fundamental characteristics of innovation, like technological convergence, have catalyzed swift and profound change [5].

Despite the promise of smart cities, their implementation faces significant challenges. One major issue is the misalignment between technology and community needs. Often, smart city initiatives prioritize technological advancements without adequately considering the specific needs and preferences of local communities. This misalignment can lead to the adoption of technologies that are underutilized or even resisted by the residents they are meant to benefit. Furthermore, there is frequent misalignment among stakeholders involved in smart city projects, including government entities, private companies, and citizens [6]. This lack of coordination can result in fragmented efforts and inefficiencies. Additionally, many smart city initiatives lack iterative testing environments, which are essential for refining and improving technologies based on real-world feedback and conditions. The absence of such environments hinders the ability to adapt solutions to the dynamic and complex nature of urban challenges.

This study addresses the gap in understanding how Urban Living Labs (ULLs) can facilitate socio-technical innovation within the context of smart cities. Despite the recognition of ULLs’ potential to catalyze sustainable urban development, there is a lack of clear and effective strategies aligning emerging technologies with real community needs and promoting active citizen participation. Through a systematic literature review, this work aims to identify and synthesize effective strategies previously highlighted in academic studies, thereby filling the gap in the practical and strategic implementation of ULLs in the evolution of smart cities. This approach will allow for a deeper understanding of the interactions between technological innovation and community integration, proposing a reference framework that can be applied globally to enhance the effectiveness of ULLs.

For instance, while [6] emphasized the importance of human-centered design in technologically enhanced urban scenarios, this study extends the discussion by integrating stakeholder perspectives and iterative testing environments. Additionally, refs. [7,8] discuss the role of ULLs in fostering open innovation yet often overlook the critical aspect of continuous community engagement, which this paper addresses through practical strategies. Furthermore, ref. [9] highlights the need for dynamic capabilities in smart city innovation, which aligns with this study’s emphasis on adaptive and responsive urban solutions. Situating this research within the broader discourse on smart cities and ULLs provides a comprehensive framework for overcoming the challenges of misalignment among stakeholders, inadequate testing infrastructures, and conflict between technology and community needs.

1.1. Collaborative Innovation with (Urban) Living Labs

Urban Living Labs (ULLs) have emerged as significant platforms within the field of innovation management, particularly due to their focus on real-world urban environments [9]. These labs represent a form of open innovation, integrating external contributors into the innovation process to address complex urban challenges [10]. ULLs are physical spaces within cities that provide a setting for collaborative innovation, where diverse stakeholders, including residents, researchers, and businesses, actively participate in the co-creation of solutions [7,8]. This approach harnesses the collective knowledge and experiences of users, enhancing the overall capacity for innovation [11]. By embedding experimentation within the urban context, ULLs enable the testing and development of new technologies and methodologies in real-life settings [12]. This iterative process, characterized by continuous feedback loops, fosters the refinement and effectiveness of solutions, ultimately contributing to more inclusive and sustainable urban development [13].

Since the establishment of the European Network of Living Labs—ENoLL in 2006, living labs have garnered significant global recognition, drawing the attention of scholars and policymakers alike [8]. Living labs are interpreted in various ways: as a user-centered methodology [11], a tool for empowering users, and a facilitator of collaborative innovation [7]. They encompass both the methods and the organizational framework for user engagement in co-creation [7] and are also viewed as an innovation system and the embodiment of the European living lab movement [14].

Recently, scholarly work on living labs has increasingly focused on applied research, delving into their design and management complexities, stakeholder collaboration, and contextual applications [15,16,17,18].

However, the implementation of ULLs and their integration into smart city initiatives also face significant challenges. There is often a gap between the technological solutions proposed and the actual needs of the community. This gap can lead to the development of solutions that do not fully address or even exacerbate existing urban problems. Additionally, there is a frequent misalignment among the various stakeholders involved in ULLs, including local governments, academic institutions, private sector companies, and community groups. This misalignment can create barriers to effective collaboration and resource sharing. Furthermore, many ULLs lack the necessary infrastructure for iterative testing and continuous improvement of solutions. Without such environments, it is difficult to adapt technologies and strategies to the evolving needs of urban populations. Addressing these challenges is crucial for the successful implementation of ULLs and the broader goal of achieving sustainable and inclusive smart city development.

Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of ULLs in managing both technological and social innovations, there are significant challenges related to aligning objectives among diverse stakeholders and sustaining initiatives over the long term. Studies, such as those conducted by [19], underscore the importance of adaptive governance structures that facilitate effective and ongoing collaboration. Additionally, the literature suggests that active community participation not only benefits the creation of solutions but also enhances the acceptance and integration of innovative technologies into the urban fabric.

1.2. Objectives

In this research, we applied a socio-technical innovation perspective to broaden the comprehension of the obstacles encountered by smart city initiatives. Drawing upon the essential characteristics of Urban Living Labs (ULLs), where smart city initiatives are effectively fostering an adaptable and open setting conducive to the convergence and generation of technological innovation. The primary aim is to determine whether the principal challenges facing smart city initiatives might stem from a singular urban problem: a discordance between the established practices of smart city innovation and the foundational principles that have rapidly propelled socio-technical innovation in other sectors. This objective is articulated through this specific research question:

How can the strategic management of technological innovation in smart cities improve the effectiveness of urban living laboratories in fostering sustainable and technologically integrated solutions to urban challenges?

This research analyzed existing scholarly work on smart city innovation through the prism of socio-technical innovation. By exploring this, this study aims to enhance the efficiency of smart city initiatives in harnessing socio-technical innovation, boost the benefits of investments in smart cities, and amplify their collaborative value creation with citizens.

2. Materials and Methods

This research, through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) [20], examines socio-technical innovation in smart cities, focusing on urban living labs and stakeholder collaboration. Analyzing the literature on the successes and challenges of innovation strategies across smart city initiatives aims to highlight the prevalent obstacles and propose new strategies. These strategies are intended to better leverage socio-technical innovation, emphasizing enhanced collaboration among stakeholders in urban living labs.

The methodology for the review adheres to the standards outlined by [21], alongside the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) [22]. During the initial phase, a detailed review protocol was established, outlining the objectives of the study, research queries, sources for the bibliography, keywords for the search, criteria for including and excluding studies, and comprehensive methods. The development of this protocol was driven by the central research question, guiding the choice of primary studies for the review and determining the analytical methods to extract insights from these articles.

The selection criteria for this study encompass peer-reviewed scholarly articles written in English, published within the past six years (2019–2024), and fully accessible online, which discuss the establishment, functioning, obstacles, and results of urban innovation based on urban living labs within the framework of smart city projects. While this review prioritized articles that were fully accessible online to ensure timely access to the most current research, it is acknowledged that this criterion may limit the inclusion of valuable studies not available in digital format. Future reviews should consider incorporating a broader range of sources, including those not available online, to mitigate any bias introduced by this limitation. Additionally, other forms of literature, including books authored by experts, editorial pieces in journals, and reports from the industry, were also excluded from the review.

To account for the varied terminology in smart city research, we formulated two distinct search queries. The initial search focused on the term “urban technological innovation” while the second term was “urban living lab”. Both queries spanned a six-year period (2019–2024) and incorporated “smart city” as an extra keyword for selection. These keywords targeted the titles of the articles exclusively. The queries derived from this approach are detailed in

Table 1. Search for Scopus queries.

Query 1 “Urban technological innovation”: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (urban AND technological AND innovation) AND LANGUAGE (english)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2024) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2023) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2022) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2021) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019)) AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Smart City”))

Query 2 “Urban living lab”: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (urban AND living AND lab) AND LANGUAGE (english)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2024) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2023) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2022) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2021) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019)) AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTKEYWORD, “Smart City”))

.

The search strategy was carefully designed to include comprehensive keywords and was conducted across multiple databases, including Scopus, the Web of Science, and Elsevier’s Science Direct. The search queries, detailed in Table 1, specifically targeted articles discussing urban living labs and smart city innovations. The initial search yielded over 130 sources, which were meticulously screened for relevance to the research questions, ensuring a focused and relevant dataset for analysis and. The entire process of source selection is depicted in Figure 1.

The search queries initially produced 133 sources, which were narrowed down to 121 after removing duplicates. Titles and abstracts were screened to preliminarily assess eligibility, resulting in 82 articles meeting the specified criteria. The majority of articles were excluded due to their focus on specific smart city technologies that did not directly address the innovation strategy issues posed in the research questions. The full texts of these articles were then accessed, leading to a refined list of 50 articles aligned with the research objectives. After excluding 2 short papers, a final selection of 48 articles was made. Additionally, references cited in related works on socio-technical innovation in smart city initiatives from bibliographic databases were included, bringing the total to 61 articles for review.

Data from the selected articles were systematically analyzed using NVivo 14, a qualitative data analysis software tool, employing thematic analysis to identify patterns and themes relevant to urban innovation and socio-technical strategies. NVivo 14 was used exclusively for coding and categorization of the reviewed literature. This process involved a meticulous coding of the data to categorize the findings, supporting the identification of patterns and central themes in the selected articles, which allowed for a nuanced understanding of the effectiveness of various urban living lab initiatives.

3. Results

This section explores the research question concerning the main strategies for ULL that promote advances in socio-technical solutions in smart cities, compared to other areas of urban transformation. The literature review revealed extensive evidence detailing the variety and scope of these proposed strategies. Specifically, we conducted a qualitative examination of 61 chosen sources that identified various challenges in implementing smart city projects. These excerpts were systematically organized into several emergent themes, which were then consolidated into five overarching categories, as illustrated in

Table 2. Overarching categories for ULL strategies.

ULL Strategy	Documents	Codes *	Sub-Codes
Enhancing civic engagement	11	5	62
Providing facilities for testing and co-creation	8	18	68
Focusing on governance	22	33	99
Linking technologies with urban dynamics	16	32	96
Integrating smart solutions	19	57	171
Total		145	496

* A code is a collection of references about a specific theme, topic, concept, or idea.

.

The titles of these five categories of strategies are not direct labels of specific solutions to manage ULL but were selected to encapsulate significant thematic groupings arising from the review. They also somewhat reflect the stages of the socio-technical innovation journey within the context of smart cities. Although these categories are not strictly linear, they align with various phases of smart city projects, aiding in contextualizing the strategies encountered. Figure 2 provides a concise overview of the principal strategies, highlighting their main connections and the analyzed sub-codes. Additionally, this figure illustrates the interaction of ULL with government, academia, the productive sector, and the community.

The main strategies for ULL aiming to advance socio-technical solutions in smart cities can be correlated with each other to form a comprehensive approach: the Enhancing Civic Engagement strategy is foundational and interacts with all other strategies by ensuring that the solutions developed are demand-driven and have a strong user base. Engaged citizens are more likely to contribute meaningful insights that can influence the design and implementation of innovative solutions, making them more likely to succeed and be adopted. Furthermore, the Providing Facilities for Testing and Co-Creation strategy supports and is supported by civic engagement. It gives citizens the space to actualize their ideas and participate in tangible ways, while also providing valuable feedback for continuous improvement of the technologies being tested.

The Focusing on Governance strategy is the backbone that ensures the orderly progression of innovation, channeling civic engagement and the use of co-creation facilities into structured and strategic innovation pathways. It also provides a framework within which technology is linked to urban dynamics, ensuring that technological advances are properly integrated into the urban fabric. Additionally, the Linking Technologies with Urban Dynamics strategy benefits from and contributes to governance and civic engagement, ensuring that the integration of technology reflects the real dynamics of city life. It also relies on testing and co-creation facilities to trial and refine technologies in situ.

Integrating Smart Solutions is a capstone strategy that draws upon all other strategies, aiming to combine the co-created and tested technologies into cohesive smart systems. Governance ensures that these integrated solutions are scalable and sustainable, while civic engagement guarantees that these solutions are well-received and effectively utilized by the community.

It is worth noting that while Linking Technologies with Urban Dynamics focuses on integrating technology into daily urban life, with an emphasis on contextual adaptability, Integrating Smart Solutions is geared toward consolidating smart solutions within cohesive and sustainable urban systems, optimizing the interaction between technologies and the urban structure as a whole.

In summary, these strategies form a mutually reinforcing system: civic engagement informs what solutions are needed, co-creation facilities are where solutions are developed and tested, governance ensures the process is systematic and meets local needs, the linking of technology with urban dynamics ensures practical relevance, and the integration of smart solutions aims to weave these new technologies within the urban environment effectively.

3.1. Strategy 1: Enhancing Civic Engagement

The strategy of Enhancing Civic Engagement represents a comprehensive approach to smart and sustainable urban development. Positioned not only as a strategic goal, this initiative serves as an effective method to actively engage communities in urban innovation. By intensifying civic participation, it aims to leverage collective potential and local perspectives to develop solutions that meet the needs and aspirations of citizens. ULLs play a pivotal role in this process by facilitating democratic participation and continuous learning, enabling citizens to significantly influence smart city policies and projects. This shift from technologically centered initiatives to those prioritizing citizen well-being and inclusion marks a significant paradigm shift.

Building on this foundation, the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) conducted for this strategy is presented in

Table 3. Number of instances explored on enhancing civic engagement.

Category	Themes
Variables	Civic Engagement	Technology Integration	Barriers to Implementation and Engagement	Civic Engagement Effort	Strategies to Enhance Civic Engagement
No. of instances (%)	95 (36%)	103 (39%)	17 (6%)	24 (9%)	27 (10%)

Total: 266 instances/62 sub-codes/11 reviewed papers.

. It is associated with five thematic areas, analyzing a total of 266 occurrences of 62 sub-codes across 11 reviewed papers. Table 3 details these occurrences: 95 matches (36%) focus on the theme of Civic Engagement, highlighting the prevalent discourse within the community and public sectors. The theme of Technology accounts for 103 occurrences (39%), indicating a significant emphasis on the integration and impact of technological advancements in urban settings. Barriers to implementation and engagement, as identified in 17 matches (6%), provide insights into the challenges hindering effective deployment and adoption. Outcomes related to civic engagement efforts are documented in 24 occurrences (9%), reflecting the tangible and measurable impacts of these initiatives. Finally, 27 occurrences (10%) pertain to Strategies, outlining various approaches and methodologies employed to enhance civic engagement and technology integration within urban development. This comprehensive review, as shown in Table 3, underscores the multifaceted nature of enhancing civic engagement, blending technology, challenges, and strategic approaches to foster inclusive and sustainable urban environments.

Further research by Park and Fujii [23] highlights the significant role of ULLs in fostering democratic participation and enhancing civic pride, directly contributing to smart city solutions [2].

Their findings suggest that ULLs can heighten citizens’ self-esteem and improve their attitudes toward smart city initiatives, highlighting the positive correlation between active engagement and enhanced civic pride [24]. Such a participatory approach leads to the development of solutions that are reflective of, and responsive to, the community’s needs [19,25,26].

The research also points out the significant impact of socioeconomic factors on participation levels. For instance, the mode of transportation to the ULL and the duration of participation significantly affect civic engagement levels [27]. This insight emphasizes the need to consider accessibility and long-term involvement when planning and managing [28].

This research underscores the importance of advancing smart city objectives through community engagement and highlights the potential for ULLs to evolve from technology-oriented to citizen-centric hubs for urban innovation [29,30].

In conclusion, refs. [23,31] indicate that enhancing civic engagement leads to greater community development and smart city solutions that are inclusive and beneficial to all citizens.

3.2. Strategy 2: Providing Facilities for Testing and Co-Creation

The strategy of providing facilities for testing and co-creation represents an innovative approach to sustainable urban development. This facilitates the integration of advanced technology and social needs within a collaborative and experimental framework. ULLs play a crucial role in this strategy, functioning as dynamic spaces where sustainable solutions can be explored and validated in real urban contexts. These facilities not only allow for the assessment of complex interactions between social, environmental, and economic factors but also promote an environment conducive to technological innovation through co-creation with multiple urban stakeholders.

The SLR conducted for this strategic initiative explores five key themes, revealing a total of 234 instances of 68 sub-codes across eight reviewed papers, as detailed in

Table 4. Number of instances explored on providing facilities for testing and co-creation.

Category	Themes
Variables	Co-creation	Social Sustainability	Facilities for Testing	Case Studies	Technological Innovation
No. of instances (%)	42 (18%)	75 (32%)	94 (40%)	19 (8%)	4 (2%)

Total: 234 instances/68 sub-codes/8 reviewed papers.

. The findings highlight a diverse focus on crucial urban development themes: Co-creation, with 42 instances (18%), underscores the importance of collaborative processes in innovation. Social Sustainability, addressed in 75 instances (32%), illustrates its significant emphasis in the literature, reflecting ongoing concerns about integrating social factors into urban planning. Facilities for Testing is the most prevalent theme, represented with 94 instances (40%), indicating a strong focus on providing practical, real-world environments for technological trials. The theme of Case Studies includes 19 instances (8%), showcasing specific examples of urban innovation. Finally, Technological Innovation, although less prevalent with only four instances (2%), points to the exploration of new technologies within these frameworks. This SLR demonstrates the varied dimensions of urban development strategies, highlighting both the practical implementations and the emerging trends in technological advancements within urban contexts.

Further emphasizing the significance of ULLs, Soutullo [32] highlights the essential role of these labs in progressing toward sustainable, energy-positive districts. A multi-criteria approach is proposed to consider the complex interplay of societal, environmental, and economic factors within urban environments [32]. The availability of real-life testing platforms as delineated by [9,32] can significantly bolster the innovation potential within cities, offering a tangible space for the convergence of technology and societal needs.

This research expands on the technical considerations and challenges involved in ULLs, emphasizing the importance of fostering environments conducive to testing a variety of technologies [13,31,32,33].

Providing facilities for testing and co-creation is a strategic approach that integrates technological, socioeconomic, and environmental factors, supporting comprehensive and resilient urban sustainability.

3.3. Strategy 3: Focusing on Governance

Governance is the central framework that facilitates innovative development in ULLs. Rhems and Repette [34,35] provide a multi-dimensional perspective on governance, highlighting its role in supporting co-creation, urban ecosystem governance, and local innovation as essential strategies for sustainable urban development in ULLs.

3.3.1. Qualifying Local Innovation

In ULLs, qualifying local innovation through digital transformation becomes a pivotal strategy. This approach leverages urban data to enhance city management and services and actively involves the public, fostering a culture of engagement essential for sustainable urban growth. By integrating digital tools that analyze complex urban data, cities can create more responsive and adaptable systems. Emphasizing public engagement ensures that the digital transformation of urban spaces aligns with the real needs and aspirations of its citizens, making technological progress both inclusive and beneficial.

The SLR conducted to assess the intersection of digital transformation, urban data, and public engagement in urban innovation provided comprehensive insights. Analyzing 127 instances from seven pivotal papers, the review quantitatively details these insights in

Table 5. Number of instances explored on focusing on governance.

Category	Themes
	Sub-Strategy: Qualifying Local Innovation
Variables	Digital Transformation		Urban Data		Public Engagement
No. of instances (%)	55 (43%)		46 (36%)		26 (20%)
Total: 127 instances/Sub-codes */7 reviewed papers
	Sub-Strategy: Balancing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies
Variables	Smart City Developments			Fostering Innovative Practices
No. of instances (%)	64 (30%)			149 (70%)
Total: 213 instances/Sub-codes */4 reviewed papers
	Sub-Strategy: Public and Private Actor Involvement
Variables	Urban Development	Smart City Technology		Governance and Innovation		Stakeholder Involvement
No. of instances (%)	242 (13%)	431 (23%)		694 (37%)		516 (27%)

Total: 1883 instances/Sub-codes */9 reviewed papers. * 99 Sub-codes employed on total Focusing on Governance Strategy.

. Digital transformation, as the primary driver of change, was most prevalent with 55 instances (43%), highlighting its transformative impact on urban management and services. Urban data, reflecting its critical role in supporting evidence-based policymaking and operational advancements, accounted for 46 instances (36%). Public engagement, crucial for aligning urban innovations with community needs, was represented in 26 instances (20%), underscoring its significance in ensuring that interventions are both relevant and effective.

Expanding on these themes, the Making Sense project [34] illustrates the effective use of digital toolkits in engaging citizens and addressing local challenges. This project aligns with the SLR findings by demonstrating how urban data can drive smart city innovations when citizens are empowered to collect and analyze data. Such engagement facilitates an environment conducive to nurturing and scaling local innovations, as noted by [36] and supported by subsequent studies [37,38,39,40,41,42], which emphasize the crucial role of participatory data practices in enhancing urban governance and innovation.

3.3.2. Balancing Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies

Balancing top-down and bottom-up strategies is essential in smart city development, ensuring that urban innovation is responsive to local dynamics. Top-down approaches provide the structured planning and resources necessary for implementing large-scale technology deployments and infrastructural changes. Concurrently, bottom-up strategies harness local insights and foster innovation through community engagement, allowing for more granular, tailored responses to urban challenges. Together, these approaches ensure that innovation strategies not only align with overarching urban development goals but also reflect the real-world experiences and needs of the community. This dual approach ensures that smart city initiatives are both strategically guided and practically grounded, promoting sustainable and inclusive urban development.

The SLR on smart city development and innovation strategies analyzed 4 papers, revealing 213 instances, detailed in Table 5. Of these instances, 64 (30%) focus on smart city infrastructure developments, while 149 (70%) address various innovation strategies, highlighting a significant lean towards fostering innovative practices within urban planning.

The successful implementation of ULLs hinges on a delicate balance between top-down and bottom-up strategies. Top-down strategies involve structured policy implementation by municipal authorities, ensuring that there is a clear framework and support for activities. ULLs function most effectively when they balance top-down strategic oversight with community-driven innovation, blending structured policy frameworks with grassroots initiatives to tailor solutions to local needs [2,19,31,43].

3.3.3. Public and Private Actor Involvement

Effective ULLs in the context of smart cities require a collaborative effort between public and private actors to leverage technologies effectively. This multifaceted approach not only fosters innovation but also ensures robust governance and comprehensive stakeholder involvement. Integrating advanced technologies within urban infrastructure demands a governance framework that supports collaboration across various sectors and levels of authority. By engaging a diverse array of stakeholders, from government bodies to private enterprises and local communities, cities can create more inclusive and innovative urban environments. Such involvement is crucial for aligning technological advancements with urban needs, driving sustainable development, and ensuring that smart city initiatives are well-supported and effectively implemented.

The SLR examining public and private actor involvement across 9 papers identified 1883 instances across 4 key themes, detailed in Table 5: Urban Development (242 instances, 13%), Smart City Technology (431 instances, 23%), Governance and Innovation (694 instances, 37%), and Stakeholder Involvement (516 instances, 27%). This distribution underscores the extensive collaboration required to foster smart city ecosystems.

The engagement of both public and private stakeholders is vital for the success of ULLs [23,44,45,46,47]. Collaboration between businesses, local governments, and other relevant stakeholders underscores the critical role of diverse stakeholder involvement in ensuring effective governance. This interaction among multiple actors helps ULLs to align with the interests of various urban participants, thereby enhancing value creation within the urban ecosystem [48]. By integrating a broad spectrum of stakeholders, it can leverage a wide range of perspectives and resources, fostering innovative solutions that address complex urban challenges effectively [1,49,50].

In conclusion, the governance of ULLs as described is a complex and dynamic process that requires a multifaceted approach. It encompasses empowering citizens through co-creation, steering urban ecosystems with innovative governance models, and ensuring that local innovations are relevant and scalable. By integrating these diverse governance strategies, ULLs can effectively contribute to urban sustainability and the transformation of cities into smart and resilient habitats.

3.4. Strategy 4: Linking Technologies with Urban Dynamics

This vision is built on a design-driven, human-centric approach that privileges the co-evolution of technology and urban dynamics over technocentric solutions. Below, we synthesize their approach, supported by key references and authors. This strategy emphasizes the importance of integrating technologies within existing urban dynamics through a human-centered approach, aligning technological developments with citizen engagement, co-creation, and sustainable and inclusive urban practices. It prioritizes the design and adaptation of technologies according to specific citizen needs and urban realities, ensuring that solutions are not only implemented but also organically adapt to local behaviors and contexts. This approach promotes the co-evolution of technology and the city, leveraging themes such as Human-Centric Design, Citizen Engagement and Co-Creation, Technological Integration, Sustainability and Inclusion, and the Transformational Impact of Urban Technologies, to ensure that these advancements positively impact all city residents.

The SLR for this strategy analyzed 16 papers and 96 sub-codes, uncovering a total of 2384 instances that detail how technologies are interwoven with urban dynamics, as illustrated in

Table 6. Number of instances explored on linking technologies with urban dynamics.

Category	Themes
Variables	Human- Centric Design	Citizen Engagement and Co-creation	Technological Integration	Sustainability and Inclusion	Transformational Impact of Urban Technologies
No. of instances (%)	597 (25%)	443 (19%)	605 (25%)	326 (14%)	413 (17%)

Total: 2384 instances/96 sub-codes/16 reviewed papers.

. The findings reveal a balanced emphasis across the themes: Human-Centric Design accounts for 597 instances (25%), highlighting the focus on designing technology around human needs. Citizen Engagement and Co-Creation, with 443 instances (19%), underscores the role of citizens in shaping their urban environments. Technological Integration is represented by 605 instances (25%), demonstrating how seamlessly technologies are being integrated into urban settings. Sustainability and Inclusion, with 326 instances (14%), reflects efforts to make urban development sustainable and inclusive. Finally, the Transformational Impact of Urban Technologies appears in 413 instances (17%), indicating the profound changes these technologies bring to urban life.

To facilitate the co-evolution of technology and urban dynamics through design-driven, human-centric approaches in smart city development, Andreani [6] and Jacques [51] emphasize the importance of integrating urban technologies that enhance the inherent intelligence of urban environments. Design research, coupled with interpretive research, plays a critical role in understanding user needs and behaviors, helping to frame problems and devise solutions that resonate with the community [52,53]. This citizen-centered approach can be further supported by the implementation of urban living labs, where innovations are co-created, tested, and refined in collaboration with citizens, universities, municipalities, and industries [54,55,56]. Such a framework ensures that technological advancements not only address immediate urban challenges but also foster sustainable and inclusive urban growth by promoting active participation and the co-creation of solutions that reflect the specific socio-cultural contexts of the community [6,57,58,59].

In their research, Sanchez-Sepulveda [39] discussed the transformative potential of integrating urban technologies to enhance the intelligence of places, transforming citizens from passive users to active participants. By employing virtual and augmented reality systems, they demonstrate how digital tools can facilitate participatory design, enabling citizens to engage directly with urban planning processes [60,61,62,63,64,65]. This approach not only improves public motivation and satisfaction but also ensures that urban developments are more responsive to the needs and desires of the community. Through these interactive innovations, urban technologies can foster a more inclusive and dynamic urban environment, bridging the gap between technological advancements and citizen empowerment [36,37].

In conclusion, the authors offer a compelling framework for smart city initiatives, which can be applied to any city looking to harness technology in a way that enhances, rather than dictates, the lives of its citizens. This human-centered approach ensures that technology serves the city’s inhabitants, fostering an environment of innovation that is both inclusive and sustainable.

3.5. Strategy 5: Integrating Smart Solutions

By employing open innovation, cities can share visions, knowledge, skills, experience, and strategies, essential for fostering urban co-evolution [20,23,49,55]. This integrative strategy, supported by various authors, emphasizes the importance of combining co-created and tested technologies into cohesive smart systems [1,6,46,66].

Integrating Smart Solutions aims to create synergies between innovative technologies and urban governance, fostering a holistic approach to sustainability. This strategy focuses on the holistic integration of smart solutions, aiming to cohesively embed them within sustainable and resilient urban systems. It seeks to create synergies across diverse technologies and urban sectors through an open and collaborative approach, fostering participatory governance and human-centered design. By incorporating a broad spectrum of perspectives, data, and collaborative efforts, this strategy leverages themes from the SLR such as a Holistic Approach to Urban Sustainability, Human-Centric Design, Integration of Smart Technologies, Open Innovation and Co-Creation, and Participatory Governance and Inclusive Data. The goal is to build a comprehensive framework that interweaves socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural dimensions, enhancing the overall interaction within the urban ecosystem and transforming urban areas into inclusive, resilient, and sustainable environments.

The SLR for this strategy examined 19 papers and 171 sub-codes, revealing a total of 3699 instances that articulate the interplay between smart solutions and urban dynamics, as detailed in

Table 7. Number of instances explored on integrating smart solutions.

Category	Themes
Variables	Holistic Approach to Urban Sustainability	Human- Centric Design	Integration of Smart Technologies	Open Innovation and Co-creation	Participatory Governance and Inclusive Data
No. of instances (%)	963 (26%)	498 (13%)	900 (24%)	748 (20%)	590 (16%)

Total: 3699 instances/171 sub-codes/19 reviewed papers.

. The analysis shows a substantial emphasis on a Holistic Approach to Urban Sustainability with 963 instances (26%), underlining the importance of integrating sustainability in all facets of urban development. Human-Centric Design follows with 498 instances (13%), highlighting the need for technologies that are accessible and beneficial to all urban dwellers. Integration of Smart Technologies comprises 900 instances (24%), illustrating the seamless incorporation of these technologies into urban infrastructures. Open Innovation and Co-Creation are represented by 748 instances (20%), emphasizing collaborative efforts that drive urban innovation. Lastly, Participatory Governance and Inclusive Data count for 590 instances (16%), showcasing the critical role of engaging citizens in governance processes to utilize diverse data for better decision-making.

The integration of urban technologies can significantly enhance the intelligence of places by transforming citizens from passive users into active participants. Refs. [47,55] highlight that the effective co-evolution of technology and urban dynamics is best facilitated through design-driven, human-centric approaches that prioritize the involvement of citizens in the development process [58,59,60]. By integrating developed and validated technologies within frameworks such as Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0, urban environments can evolve into smart cities and villages where technological advancements are used not only for operational efficiency but also for fostering active civic engagement and participation [61,62,67]. This approach ensures that technological innovation aligns with the needs and aspirations of the community, thereby creating smart cities that are responsive to and reflective of the citizens’ input and involvement [63,64].

Additionally, integrating smart solutions in urban districts necessitates a holistic approach encompassing socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural progress for sustainable and resilient urban futures. Refs. [36,37,66,68] emphasize that urban technologies should focus not only on advancements but also on human-centric design to enhance citizen engagement and inclusivity. Leveraging open-data platforms and participatory governance models ensures that technological implementations respond to diverse urban populations’ needs. By integrating collaboratively developed and validated technologies, smart city initiatives transform citizens from passive users to active participants, creating more intelligent and adaptive urban environments.

Furthermore, ref. [45] acknowledges the operational challenges in managing fragmented elements of smart cities, suggesting the need for cohesive communication across different urban system components.

By integrating developed and validated technologies, urban environments can evolve into responsive and inclusive smart cities, fostering active civic engagement. Additionally, a holistic approach encompassing socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural progress is essential for sustainable and resilient urban futures. This ensures that smart city initiatives effectively respond to the diverse needs of urban populations, creating more intelligent and adaptive environments.

4. Discussion

The emergent themes from the literature on Urban Living Labs (ULLs) reveal strategic pathways for implementing socio-technical solutions within smart cities, underscoring the value of a cohesive framework that integrates civic engagement, governance, technology, and innovation management. This finding aligns with Almirall et al. [7], who emphasize the necessity of stakeholder collaboration in ULLs to overcome urban challenges through co-created solutions. Our analysis suggests that the effectiveness of ULLs is closely tied to their capacity to align urban innovation with socio-cultural dynamics, resonating with Andreani et al. [6], who highlight the necessity of local adaptability for fostering community engagement and sustainable outcomes.

A significant insight from our study is the adaptability of global ULL models to local socioeconomic contexts, which parallels the findings of Esposito et al. [36]. Their research shows that locally tailored ULL approaches lead to higher acceptance and engagement among residents, reinforcing the importance of scalability that respects local nuances. Our findings suggest that integrating collaboratively developed technologies not only enhances urban intelligence but also promotes inclusivity, corroborating the conclusions of Park and Fuji [2] that citizen participation is a foundational component of effective smart city initiatives. This citizen engagement transforms residents from passive recipients into active stakeholders, strengthening the social fabric and bolstering the impact of smart city projects.

Moreover, the study’s emphasis on human-centric design and open data platforms aligns with previous work by Cardullo and Kitchin [25], who argue that such frameworks are essential for promoting inclusivity and responsiveness in urban environments. Our findings extend this perspective, illustrating how open data and participatory governance models provide cities with the flexibility to adapt to shifting community needs, ensuring that technological implementations remain relevant and aligned with citizens’ interests. This alignment is crucial in achieving a truly responsive urban environment, as previously noted by Rhems and Repette [34,35] in their analysis of governance in smart city contexts.

The literature consistently identifies fragmentation within urban systems as a critical barrier to the seamless integration of technology. Our results support this view, aligning with Zhang and Wu [45], who emphasize the need for cohesive communication across urban system components to harmonize technology with community aspirations effectively. The study reinforces the integrative approach advocated in prior research, showing that co-created and rigorously tested technologies are vital for constructing cohesive smart systems that reflect and respect community values.

In sum, the strategic implementation of ULL-driven approaches demonstrates a clear pathway for urban areas to foster socio-technical innovation and promote inclusive urban development. These findings underscore the transformative potential of ULLs when their strategies are tailored to align with local needs, contributing to a robust academic discourse on the critical roles of local adaptability, community engagement, and integrated governance in urban innovation ecosystems. By positioning this study within the existing literature on ULLs and smart cities, it enriches our understanding of how customized strategies can catalyze sustainable and inclusive urban growth.

Limitations and Methodological Challenges

Despite these insights, this study has several limitations. One limitation is the exclusive reliance on fully accessible online articles, which may exclude some high-quality sources not available through open access, potentially narrowing the literature scope. Future research should aim to incorporate a wider range of sources, including restricted-access studies, to build a more comprehensive foundation.

Additionally, the thematic analysis conducted through NVivo 14, while useful for identifying patterns, involves a degree of subjectivity that could introduce researcher bias. Though careful coding procedures were applied, the interpretative nature of thematic analysis inherently affects the conclusions drawn. Future studies could apply mixed-methods approaches or quantitative validation to enhance the robustness of the findings.

Furthermore, the generalizability of the findings may be limited given the diverse socioeconomic and cultural contexts of ULLs across different urban areas. While the study emphasizes the importance of local adaptability, the specific strategies identified may not be applicable to all urban settings. Researchers should exercise caution in applying these findings universally and consider tailoring strategies to fit unique local circumstances.

Lastly, managing fragmented urban systems remains a critical operational challenge for implementing ULLs effectively. Ensuring cohesive communication among stakeholders across urban systems requires ongoing coordination, which may vary in feasibility depending on local governance structures and resources. This study provides a conceptual framework to address such challenges, but practical applications will depend on specific administrative and infrastructural conditions.

These limitations underscore areas for further investigation and provide a foundation for future research to validate and extend the applicability of ULL strategies in diverse urban contexts.

5. Conclusions

This study underscores the transformative role of Urban Living Labs (ULLs) as pivotal structures for driving innovation in smart cities. Through a systematic literature review, we have identified and synthesized a variety of strategies that collectively hold the potential to redefine urban experiences in a manner that is inclusive, sustainable, and responsive to community needs. The analysis highlights the necessity of establishing robust governance frameworks that prioritize participatory civic engagement, designated spaces for experimentation, and an inclusive approach to integrating technology, aligning with prior studies that emphasize adaptability to local socio-cultural contexts.

The strategies presented in this research offer a multifaceted pathway toward achieving sustainable urban futures. By integrating collaboratively developed and validated technologies into cohesive smart systems, ULLs can ensure that technological advancements are both practical and reflective of community needs. This alignment promotes a more tailored approach to urban innovation, enabling smart cities to address urban challenges with a depth and responsiveness that would otherwise be difficult to achieve. With effective strategic management and proactive stakeholder collaboration, ULLs can serve as robust platforms for socio-technical innovation, capable of addressing urban issues comprehensively, sustainably, and inclusively.

Furthermore, this study emphasizes the importance of aligning urban technologies with human-centric design principles to enhance citizen engagement and foster inclusivity. Leveraging open-data platforms and participatory governance models is critical in transforming citizens from passive users into active participants, creating urban environments that are not only intelligent but also adaptive to the changing needs of the community. This approach to citizen engagement ensures that smart city initiatives remain relevant, empowering residents to take an active role in shaping the technological landscape of their cities.

The findings also hold practical policy implications. Policymakers are encouraged to adopt frameworks that prioritize stakeholder collaboration, support spaces for continuous innovation, and promote transparency through open data. Such policies will enable cities to remain agile and responsive, leveraging ULLs to facilitate continuous learning and adaptation within urban environments. Additionally, the challenges identified, such as the fragmentation within urban systems, underscore the need for cohesive communication strategies across various urban components to align technological solutions with the broader social fabric.

This study, while offering valuable insights, acknowledges its limitations, particularly the exclusive focus on accessible online literature and the inherent subjectivity of thematic analysis. Future research should consider expanding the range of sources and validating these strategies across diverse urban contexts to enhance the applicability of ULL frameworks. By situating ULL strategies within the broader discourse on smart cities, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of how tailored, inclusive strategies can drive sustainable urban growth and foster an environment where socio-technical innovation thrives.