m - y{t{7 yt m- t { ± -s t) y -

Doctoral Thesis in Machine Design

Sharing the design authorship of sustainabilityTowards co-creation of sustainable transport systems and practices

LIRIDONA SOPJANI

Stockholm, Sweden 2021

kth royal institute of technology

Sharing the design authorship of sustainabilityTowards co-creation of sustainable transport systems and practices

LIRIDONA SOPJANI

Academic Dissertation which, with due permission of the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, is submitted for public defence for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy on Tuesday 7th December 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in U1, Brinellvägen 26, Stockholm

Doctoral Thesis in Machine Design with specialization in Integrated Product DevelopmentKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholm, Sweden 2021

“We are human only in contact and conviviality with what is not human” David Abram

Abstract Any separation between technology and society can be claimed to be artificial. Technological material systems are intertwined with human everyday life practices and ways of living, values, and belief systems. When we design and develop new technological systems, we are also designing opportunities for new daily living practices to emerge. The involvement of people for whom new sustainable systems are intended, and who will be using and consuming the novel systems, is therefore crucial for industry and societies aspiring to reduce carbon emissions, energy use, and overconsumption of material resources. People are not just a resource for design, nor are they merely users or consumers of technology. Rather, they are knowing and changing subjects with complex everyday lives, who can (re)format the existing unsustainable systems towards sustainable ones in multiple ways and through multiple identities and roles. People are co-creators in the modes of living and the technological systems supporting them. This dissertation is about co-creation, a design and development approach that seeks to share the design authorship of sustainability and drive collective transition. The purpose of this inquiry is to study how multiple actors can co-creatively design and develop sustainable systems, and the potential of the outcomes to support transition. The context of the study is primarily transportation systems as socially-critical systems supporting everyday living. Socially-critical systems imply those products, services, and technologies upon which human everyday life activities depend. The study takes an interdisciplinary perspective by bridging participatory, democratic, and inclusive design approaches and innovation studies to develop theory towards co-creation of new sustainable systems. Six individual papers are appended presenting empirical results from three research cases set up as living laboratories in real living and working environments, involving multiple private and public actors. A mixed-method research approach using both qualitative and quantitative methods has been employed to gather and analyse empirical data. Six main findings are discussed: 1) The form of involvement defines who co-creates new sustainable systems; 2) Both users and non-users contribute to co-creating new sustainable systems at various intensities; 3) Users are driven by similar concerns as developers to co-create new sustainable systems; 4) Common design language aligns co-creation process and actors; 5) Co-creation generates learning and strategic direction; and 6) Co-creation immerses people in behavioural changes by exposing them to the possibilities for change. Based on the findings, three main conclusions are drawn: first, that people can be involved in new systems in various ways whether or not they are users of the system. Through their use or non-use practices, people can give direction to new sustainable systems, and through every involved or uninvolved person, a new system is affected both positively and negatively; thus, both users and non-users co-create sustainable systems. This thesis finds that involvement in co-creation is neither binary nor a one-time occurrence. Rather, it is a spectrum characterized by different intensities regarding how individuals immerse themselves into and throughout a process. Rather, it is a spectrum of varying intensities regarding how individuals immerse themselves in and throughout a process. The second conclusion is that co-creation generates multi-dimensional learning and strategic direction for all involved parties. In addition, it immerses people in behavioural changes by exposing them to possibilities for change, thus building trust in new energy-efficient and carbon-reducing alternatives, validating the logistical workability of new sustainable systems and its true impacts, and stimulating further engagement in new sustainable system development. Thirdly, the co-creation approach is still new in practice and proves challenging from a managerial standpoint when common visions and objectives are not sufficient to align stakeholders. The results suggest that common design language, which uses both cognitive and physical tools to facilitate co-creation among users and stakeholders, supports co-creation by aligning both actors and the

process. Finally, this thesis provides empirical support that people can be meaningfully involved in creating opportunities and possibilities for change, which challenge the present mechanisms used to influence societal behavioural changes, e.g. incentives and nudging. It suggests that design can foster the presence of people for whom the designed systems are intended, and do so in places where they are contextualised, e.g., installation of proto-designs in real living/working environments. Through involvement of diverse users and non-users, co-creation shows to be quite necessary not only to develop new transport systems, but also to increase the accessibility of sustainable transport innovations. Increased involvement in design and development of new systems could serve to delegitimise participation in the old systems.

Sammanfattning All separation av teknik och samhälle kan hävdas vara konstlad. Tekniska materialsystem är sammanflätade med mänskligt vardagsliv och sätt att leva, värderingar och trossystem bland annat. När vi designar och utvecklar nya tekniska system, utformar vi också möjligheter för nya sätt för människor att leva i sin vardag. Engagemanget från de människor för vilka nya hållbara system är avsedda och som kommer att använda och konsumera de nya systemen är därför avgörande för både de industrier och samhällen som strävar efter att minska koldioxidutsläpp, energianvändning och överkonsumtion av materialresurser. Människor är inte bara en resurs i design, och de är inte bara användare eller konsumenter av teknik. Snarare är de kunniga och föränderliga subjekt med komplexa vardagliga liv, som kan (om)formatera de befintliga ohållbara systemen mot hållbara på flera sätt såväl genom flera identiteter som roller. Människor är medskapare av levnadssätt och av de tekniska systemen som stöder dem. Den här avhandlingen handlar om samskapande (co-creation), ett design- och utvecklingssätt för att försöka dela författarskapet i att designa och utveckla för hållbarhet och driva kollektiv omställning. Syftet med denna undersökning är att studera hur flera aktörer tillsammans kan designa och utveckla hållbara system och att studera de potentiella resultaten av ett sådant tillvägagångssätt i att stödja omställningen. Kontexten för studien är främst transportsystem i sin betydelse av socialt kritiska system som stödjer vardagen. Socialt kritiska system innebär de produkter, tjänster och teknologier som mänskliga aktiviteter i vardagen är beroende av. Studien tar ett tvärvetenskapligt perspektiv genom att överbrygga deltagande, demokratiska och inkluderande designmetoder och innovationsstudier för att utveckla teori mot samskapande av nya hållbara system. Sex individuella artiklar bifogas som presenterar empiriska resultat från tre forskningsfall som upprättats som levande laboratorier (Living Labs) i verkliga boende- och arbetsmiljöer och som involverar flera olika privata och offentliga aktörer. En forskningsdesign med både kvalitativa och kvantitativa metoder har använts för att samla in och analysera empiriska data. Sex huvudsakliga resultat lyfts fram och diskuteras: 1) Formen för att engagera användare definierar vem som samskapar nya hållbara system; 2) Både användare och icke-användare bidrar till att samskapa nya hållbara system med olika intensitet; 3) Användare drivs av liknande intressen som utvecklare för att samskapa nya hållbara system; 4) Gemensamt formspråk förenar samskapandeprocessen och aktörer; 5) Samskapande genererar lärande och strategisk riktning; och 6) Samskapande fördjupar människor i beteendeförändringar genom att utsätta dem för möjligheterna till förändring. Baserat på resultaten dras tre huvudsakliga slutsatser: För det första är att människor kan vara involverade på många sätt oavsett om de använder eller inte använder ett nytt system. Genom sin användning eller icke-användning kan människor ge riktning åt nya hållbara system, och genom att varje inblandad eller oengagerad person gynnar ett nytt system både positivt och negativt skapar både användare och icke-användare hållbara system. Denna avhandling finner att involvering i samskapande varken är binärt eller en engångsföreteelse. Det är snarare ett spektrum som kännetecknas av olika intensitet när det gäller hur individer fördjupar sig i och under en process. För det andra är genererar samskapande flerdimensionellt lärande och strategisk riktning för alla inblandade parter. Dessutom fördjupar det människor i beteendeförändringar genom att exponera dem för möjligheter till förändring, vilket skapar förtroende för nya energieffektiva och koldioxidreducerande alternativ, validerar den logistiska användbarheten av nya hållbara system och dess verkliga effekter, och stimulerar ytterligare engagemang i ny hållbar systemutveckling. För det tredje är tillvägagångssättet för samskapande fortfarande nytt i praktiken och visar sig vara utmanande ur en ledningssynpunkt när gemensamma visioner och mål inte är tillräckliga för att samordna intressenter. Resultaten tyder

på att gemensamt formspråk, som använder både kognitiva och fysiska verktyg för att underlätta samskapande för användare och andra intressenter, anpassar och stödjer samskapande. Slutligen ger denna avhandling empiriskt stöd för att människor på ett meningsfullt sätt kan vara delaktiga i att skapa möjligheter och möjligheter till förändring, vilket utmanar de nuvarande mekanismer som används för att påverka samhälleliga beteendeförändringar, t.ex. incitament och nudging. Det antyder att design kan främja närvaron av människor för vilka de designade systemen är avsedda, och göra det på platser där de är kontextualiserade, t.ex. installation av protodesign i verkliga boende- och arbetsmiljöer. Genom involvering av olika användare och icke-användare visar samskapande sig vara helt nödvändigt, inte bara för att utveckla nya transportsystem, utan också för att öka tillgängligheten för hållbara transportinnovationer. Ett ökat engagemang i design och utveckling av nya system skulle kunna bidra till att av-legitimera deltagande i de gamla systemen.

Acknowledgements In the next several years, I hope to work on multi-scalar avatars of biologically-informed design of complex systems. I would like to trace the parameters that will enable us the emergence of a welcoming sustainable and extraterrestrial aspiring human society and for that I need a fertile ground to experiment. I would like to describe the fading monopoly of creativity which has served and favored sharply the development of ‘exclusive objects’ in the 20th century and its deteriorating effects on our modes of existence. We must strictly and urgently stop ‘monolithic ways of design and designing.’ If the major ideological conflicts that we inherited were predominantly based around this question of who should control the means of production, we need to begin responding that maybe and actually ‘no one’ –it is all of us, ‘the design team is everywhere’ as designer Alastair Parvin said in a public talk. So is the responsibility. From creative commons, to open-source, to community commons, we are slowly building the exemplars of future life-supporting systems under climate change conditions. Although, we are not yet there. The anatomy of socio-ecologically balanced living is missing – if we are serious about climate change and the consequences of socio-ecological inequities, the existing development models will not help us, especially if we continue to treat few people as designers and the rest as consumers. To prepare for this, I submit this dissertation for critical comment as a skeleton by which multiple research directions can begin to emerge. It is a fragment of a deeper inquiry, hence a progress report. Though, in as far as I have come, I could not possibly arrive without all those who shared what they know and don’t know, openly, recognizing with humility that pathways to truth are not yet clear for those without intellectual disciplines. I am so grateful to Sofia Ritzén and Jenny Janhager Stier for their precious contribution and patience as teachers and advisors. Their guidance has been fundamental for me to develop the necessary attitude, skills, and tools to address research issues and my curiosity. Special thanks to Peter Georén, who was the first one to support my research visions, offering me the experimental space of ITRL – Integrated Transport Research Lab. I’d like to also express immense gratitude to my colleagues at the Integrated Product Development and Design group at the department of Machine Design at KTH, for the support and moments shared together during those years. I acknowledge the Swedish Energy Agency, Vinnova, and Mistra for supporting my research through funding. I also thank very much the researchers, public, and, private organisations involved in the research projects I carried and been part of: LEVpool project team, Mistra SAMS project team, World in a Cell project team, ABC Mechanisms project team, Open Waters project team, KTH Live-In Lab team, REBUS project team, and currently ongoing Mobilitetsprojekt team. Thank you Per Jonas Gyllenpetz, Martin Prieto Beaulieu, Gunilla Isgren, Helena Bertilsson, Jesper Nasstrom, Cecile Jourdain, and Olof Cerne for all the support to push the boundary of technological possibilities. I am especially grateful to Anna Kramers and the Mistra SAMS board for supporting my research stay in Los Angeles. In addition, I share a deep gratitude to professor Alex McDowell at the Worldbuilding Media Lab at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, for hosting me at the lab, and mostly for the invaluable depth of thinking and visionary approaches he inspired me toward. Kyle McLary, Colleen McGregor, Alexandra Thomopoulos, Brian Cantrell, and professor Helen Berman deserve a mention for making my research stay enjoyable and productive. I am very grateful to the participants who took time to participate in my research experiments. I’d also like to recognize all the co-authors contributing to my research publications and for inviting me to co-write with them: Sofia Ritzen, Jenny Janhager Stier, Mia Hesselgren, Anna Kramers, Elena Malakhatka, Didem Gurdur, Tina Ringenson, Hanna Hasselqvist, Rafael Laurenti, Johan Arekrans, Maurizio Catulli, Lei He, Peter Georen, Peter Arnfalk, Per Lundqvist, Nick Reed, John Tzilivakis, and, Andrew Green. Thank you for the wisdom, dedication, hard work, and fun times you shared during our work together. I shall not forget the rigorous anonymous reviewers of my research and editors of journals, for their critical reviews, comments, and appraising the work as worthy of publication. A special thanks to Signe Pedersen for accepting to be the opponent in the final seminar of this thesis, whose feedback was invaluable. Thanks also to the reviewers at CBG Konsult for editing language. A huge thank you goes to my best partner in creativity, Elena Malakhatka with whom, despite all odds, we put together four annual editions of VR Sci-Fest at KTH during our doctoral studies.

Finally, but foremost, I thank my parents and siblings Hero, Leo, and Neta for lighting my way to not give up. It has been a true emotional challenge to be far away from loved ones yet persist in my commitment to this journey. Finally, I am grateful to the many of my dear friends in Sweden, Kosovo, and abroad, for supporting and enduring with me throughout this journey. This work, as flawed and as young as it is in its conception, is dedicated to the memory of my bravest-woman example, my grandmother Qamile Sopjani, victim of 1999 genocide in Kosovo. All praise belongs to Allah, SWT.

List of appended papers Paper I Sopjani L., Stier J. J., Ritzén S., Hesselgren M., 2019. Involving users and user roles in the transition to sustainable mobility systems: The case of light electric vehicle sharing in Sweden. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 71, pp.207–221. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.12.011. Paper II Sopjani L., Stier J.J., Hesselgren M., Ritzén S., 2020. Shared mobility services versus private car: Implications of changes in everyday life. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, p.120845. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120845. Paper III Sopjani L., Hesselgren M., Stier, J. J., Ritzén, S., 2016. Aligning private and public domains for sustainable disruptive innovation. In: 17th International CINet Conference, Turin, Italy, 2016 Paper IV Sopjani L., Hesselgren M., Ritzén, S., Stier, J. J., 2017. Co-creation with diverse actors for sustainability innovation. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), 8: Human Behaviour in Design, pp.459-468.Vancouver, Canada, Paper V Catulli M., Sopjani L., Reed N., Tzilivakis J., Green A., 2021. A socio-technical experiment with a resource efficient product service system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 166, p.105364. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105364. Paper VI Malakhatka, E., Sopjani L., Lundqvist, P., 2021. Co-creating service concepts for the built environment based on the end-user’s daily activities analysis: KTH Live-in-Lab explorative case study. Sustainability, 13(4), p.1942. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13041942.

List of additional publications during doctoral studies Sopjani L., Kramers A., Stier J.J., 2021. The consequences of shared access: A multi actor perspective on electric scooter sharing services. Submitted for publication in the Journal of Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. Lei H., Sopjani L., Laurenti R., 2021. User participation dilemmas in the circular economy: An empirical study of Scandinavia's largest peer-to-peer product sharing platform. Journal of Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, pp.975-985. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.027 Sopjani, L., Arekrans J., Laurenti R., Ritzén S., 2020. Unlocking the linear lock-in: Mapping research on barriers to transition. Sustainability, 12, p.1034. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031034 Laurenti R., Sopjani L., Arekrans J., Ritzén S., 2020. Barriers to access-based consumption in the circular transition: A systematic review. Submitted for publication in the Journal of Industrial Ecology Sopjani L., Laurenti R., Arekrans J., Ritzen S., 2019. A systematic map for classifying studies on barriers related to circular economy, sharing economy, collaborative consumption, and product-service systems. In: Proceedings of the 19th European Roundtable for Sustainable Consumption and Production (ERSCP). Institute for Sustainability Science and Technology, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, 15-18 October 2019 Arekrans J., Ritzen S., Laurenti R., Sopjani, L., 2019. Analysis of innovation management issues in barriers to circular economy. In: Proceedings of 20th International CINet Conference, Virtual Ringenson T., Arnfalk, P., Kramers A., Sopjani L., 2018. Indicators for promising Accessibility and Mobility Services. Sustainability. 10(8), pp.1-19. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082836 Kramers A., Ringenson T., Sopjani L., Arnfalk P., 2018. AaaS and MaaS for reduced environmental and climate impact of transport. In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Sustainability (ICT4S2018), Toronto, Canada Gürdür D., Sopjani L., 2018. Visual analytics to support the service design for sustainable mobility. In: Proceedings of 2018 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech), California Hesselgren M., Hasselqvist, H., Sopjani L., 2017. Design strategies for exploring and bridging: Intersections of everyday life and change-making decisions for sustainability. In: Proceedings of Design Management Academy, Hong Kong Sopjani L., Stier, J. J., Ritzén, S., 2016. User involvement in disruptive innovation – A study on users of a light electric vehicle sharing system. In: Proceedings of 23rd Innovation and Product Development Management Conference, Glasgow, UK.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Thesis structure .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Research context and background .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 The socio-technical system of transport and its transition ..................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Sustainable transport systems innovation and practices .......................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Involving users in new sustainable transport systems transition ............................................................................................ 8

3 Theoretical background .......................................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 User involvement in design and development ........................................................................................................................ 13

3.2 Forms of user involvement ........................................................................................................................................................ 15

3.3 Involving people in more than the user role ........................................................................................................................... 17

3.4 Co-creation ................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 3.4.1 Co-creation in design: an approach to share design authorship ..................................................................................... 21 3.4.2 Co-creation in innovation: a process to drive collective change .................................................................................... 23 3.4.3 Towards co-creation as an approach to sustainable systems transition ........................................................................ 25

3.5 Co-creation and the role of voluntary motivation .................................................................................................................. 26

3.6 Co-creation processes and outcomes ....................................................................................................................................... 27

3.7 Aim and research questions ....................................................................................................................................................... 28

4 Method ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

4.1 From laboratory to the living laboratory experiment ............................................................................................................. 30

4.2 The experimental approach ........................................................................................................................................................ 32

4.3 Data collection methods and analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 36 4.3.1 Papers I-IV data collection methods and analysis ............................................................................................................ 37 4.3.2 Paper V data collection methods and analysis .................................................................................................................. 39 4.3.3 Paper VI data collection methods and analysis ................................................................................................................. 41

4.4 Evaluation of the research quality ............................................................................................................................................. 42

5 Summaries of appended papers ............................................................................................................................................................. 45

5.1 Paper I – Involving users and user roles in the transition to sustainable mobility systems: The case of light electric vehicle sharing in Sweden ............................................................................................................................................................................. 47

5.2 Paper II – Shared mobility services versus private car: Implications of changes in everyday life .................................. 49

5.3 Paper III – Aligning private and public domains for sustainable disruptive innovation .................................................. 51

5.4 Paper IV – Co-creation with diverse actors for sustainability innovation .......................................................................... 53

5.5 Paper V – A socio-technical experiment with a resource efficient product-service system ............................................ 55

5.6 Paper VI – Co-creating service concepts for the built environment based on the end user’s daily activities analysis: KTH Live-in-Lab explorative case study ................................................................................................................................................... 57

6 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 59

6.1 The form of involvement defines who co-creates new sustainable systems ...................................................................... 59

6.2 Both users and non-users contribute to co-creating new sustainable systems at various intensities ............................. 61

6.3 Users are driven by similar concerns as developers to co-create new sustainable systems .............................................. 64

6.4 Common design language aligns co-creation .......................................................................................................................... 66

6.5 Co-creation generates learning and strategic direction .......................................................................................................... 70

6.6 Co-creation immerses people in behavioural changes by exposing them to the possibilities for change ..................... 74

7 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 77

8 Implications for transport ....................................................................................................................................................................... 81

9 Limitations and future research ............................................................................................................................................................. 83

10 References ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 87

1

1 Introduction Involving the people for whom new sustainable systems are intended into system development is crucial for industry and societies aspiring to reduce carbon emissions, energy use, and overconsumption of material resources. One reason for this is that product and service life cycles are linked to production and consumption patterns from which total ecological impacts are derived (Blok et al., 2015). Another reason is that many newly developed technological solutions promising energy efficiency and low carbon emissions can backfire when they are put into use, due to consumption behaviours, counteracting the technological improvement’s intended effects and expected benefits (Herring and Roy, 2007; Sorrell, 2015). Some of the solutions can thus have little to no impact on net energy savings and emissions when introduced into the context of everyday life (Liedtke et al., 2012). This is sometimes caused by incorrect applications of these technologies, resulting in less sustainable outcomes than expected (Liedtke et al., 2012). And—often due to increased consumption resulting from consumer perceptions of eco-consumption (Jackson, 2005) —shifting consumption patterns to new directions will not necessarily mitigate the negative impacts of said consumption (Hertwich, 2005; Herring and Roy, 2007). Furthermore, to reach the full sustainability potential of new systems, behavioural adjustments and changes in user practices are required (Geels et al., 2017), affecting the demand for, and societal acceptance of, novel innovations (Geels et al. 2018). This results in high levels of uncertainty regarding new systems in their early stages, possibly also influencing initiatives to develop and invest in low energy and low carbon innovations (ibid.). Sustainability-oriented technological systems are intertwined with human everyday life practices and ways of living, values, and belief systems, among others. More research supports the idea that the individual behavioural changes and system changes go hand in hand (Newell et al., 2019). Any separation between the making of technology and its use is artificial, as innovations include both technical and social elements (Pesch, Spekkink, and Quist, 2017, p. 302). Social and technological systems are intimately related, where technology is entangled with consumption (Pettersen, Boks and Tukker, 2013). It is therefore relevant to integrate product-service-systems and consumption behaviours into design and development processes, during which people’s everyday life practices are considered. This requires involving end-to-end users in these processes, and the best means of doing so is not well understood. Everyday people as end-users are thought to play an important role throughout innovation processes and have been part of technological change processes in various capacities since the early days of the industrial era (Oudshoorn and Pinch, 2003; Schot, Kanger, and Verbong 2016). Although the relevance of end-users is emphasized in technological innovation studies, there is poor understanding of how they can be involved and engaged in more meaningful ways as active stakeholders in the design and development of new sustainable systems (Heiskanen et al., 2010; Vines et al., 2013; Sengers et al., 2019). This focus on users in technology studies is not new as there have been more than a few decades of research on the user concept, user behaviour, user experience etc., from numerous areas of research, including socio-technological studies, user-centred design, participatory design, and interactive design, among others. This type of research has demonstrated a clear conclusion that users of any product, service, or system technology matter when it comes to the success of that product or service (e.g. Oudshoorn and Pinch, 2003; Bano and Zowghi 2015; Fischer et al., 2020). While some research has proposed democratizating innovation (e.g. von Hippel, 2005) and have been advocating for democratic design for several decades now (e.g. Ehn, 1989; Binder, Brandt and Gregory, 2008), the direct involvement of end-users into technological development processes is still considered to be fragmented, inefficient, and often neglected (Sanders and Stappers, 2012; Schaban-Maurer, 2013; Kujala, 2003).

2

Furthermore, despite empirical support, there are critiques that people are often distilled down to their utilitarian function (Gee, 1994), relegated to the backseat of development (Lamb and Kling, 2003), regarded as passive recipients of technology (Oudshoorn and Pinch, 2003), subjected to passive consumption (Piller, Ihl, and Vossen, 2011), or treated as ‘children’ whose needs need to be first identified and then met by designers (Olsson, 2009)—in other words, these critiques emphasize that individuals using novel technologies and services are reduced to just users using systems promoting a functional, instrumentalized, and dehumanizing narrative of the people for whom solutions are designed. The contrasting view to these is the risk of ‘romanticizing’ the user-stakeholder when assessing their role in system provision (Adams et al., 2018). In design studies and other fields of concern, many researchers want to move beyond conceptualizing people as archetypes, personas, and individuals with presumed characteristics, who passively consume what is produced and offered. There are participatory approaches, democratic design, and inclusive design approaches which attempt to decouple themselves from traditional design methods, in actively seeking and engaging multiple stakeholders in design and innovation (e.g. Scott, Quist, and Bakker 2009; Scott, Bakker, and Quist, 2012; Kuijer, 2014; Pettersen, Boks, Tukker, 2013; Pettersen, 2013; Botero and Hyysalo, 2013; Stappers and Sanders, 2014) These aim to open design and innovation development activities and transfer design authorship to multiple stakeholders (Davis and Andrew, 2017). There has been also a growing research interest in moving beyond behaviourist approaches in how we study people and their roles in the design of new technological systems toward the possibility of actively engaging people as stakeholders and experimenters in their own everyday life practices through design (Scott, Bakker, and Quist, 2012; Shove et al., 2012; Jalas et al., 2017). People as representatives of end-use phases of solutions can be treated as social participants in creating modes of living, doing, using, and consuming (Scott, Bakker, and Quist, 2012). Such approaches are referred to as co-creation, where people and relevant stakeholders are increasingly seen as active and critical to design processes (Sanders and Stappers, 2008; Scott, Bakker, and Quist, 2012) and design research (Kuijer, 2014). Instead of proceeding from a model of the designer as the rationale planner or reflective practitioner (Ehn, 1989; Binder, Brandt and Gregory, 2008; Schaban-Maurer, 2013), and the for- profit firm as the central entity of technological innovation (Godin, 2008), design authorship is shared among an ecosystem of actors, sharing power and the responsibility of working together in equal, reciprocal, and caring relationships (Sanders and Stappers, 2012; Itten et al., 2020). Co-creative approaches to new sustainable systems could help address the complexities of transitioning towards sustainability. However, these approaches have not yet provided an explicit narrative for how end-users can be involved. Particularly, approaches for active involvement at a level where multiple actors are co-creating solutions which might come to occupy people’s everyday lives and the contexts in which they live are still new, fragmented, not fully documented, and lacking empirical support. Additionally, the impacts of such approaches are not yet well understood, mainly due to a lack of systematic studies but also due to challenges in evaluating outcomes. The aim of this thesis is to study the involvement of multiple actors in the co-creation of the design and development of new sustainable systems, the process of doing so, as well as the potential outcomes of such an approach in supporting the transition to sustainable systems. To this end, this thesis examines both users and non-users; their involvement, patterns and roles; the motivations of diverse actors in participating in co-creation; the managerial and organizational aspects of co-creating with people and other stakeholders; and the result of their involvement in new sustainable systems and practices. This thesis aims to expand knowledge in improving the efficacy of complex systems development such as transportation, energy, housing, and food and their transition towards sustainability.

3

1.1 Thesis structure

The following parts of this thesis are organised as follows. Chapter 2 provides background to the research context. It uses the sociotechnological system of transportation as the primary research context against which new sustainable systems are discussed and explored. This system is of interest for several reasons. There are complex transportation system issues related to sustainability which challenge the design and development of alternative sustainable systems. While many new alternative approaches to the automobility system have been introduced (Ringenson et al., 2018), the conversion of current transportation systems appears to be one of the most difficult sectors (Zachariadis, 2012; Garcia-Olivares, Sole and Osychenko; 2018; IPCC 2018). Challenges in the transportation sector include the development of alternative solutions, the societal uptake of these solutions, and the use of alternative new systems contributing largely to many uncertainties about decarbonization as well as energy use reductions (Axsen and Sovacool, 2019). This chapter supports the theoretical underpinnings of this thesis. Chapter 3 develops the theoretical background justifying the arguments made in this thesis. Chapter 4 presents research methods. This thesis observes three experimental cases of new sustainable systems design and development, where diverse stakeholders have been involved in co-creation. The work emerges from three research projects conducted between 2015–2019, culminating in six individual publications, which have been appended to support this thesis. The core project contributes to the case of transportation, where a radical new system with shared light electric vehicles has been designed and implemented in two urban cities in Sweden. The other two cases further support this thesis, where one is in the case of a new product-service system for infant mobility designed and implemented in the United Kingdom; and the other is the case of service design for the built (home) environment in Sweden (an ongoing project). Chapter 5 provides summaries of appended papers to this thesis presenting the main objectives, findings, and contributions of each paper. Chapter 6 discusses the findings of this thesis. Based on empirical results, six main findings are discussed, illuminating the relevance of co-creation processes for new sustainable systems. Chapter 7 concludes the thesis, where three main conclusions are drawn, while Chapter 8 outlines implications for transport systems; and Chapter 9 reflects on the limitations of this research and suggests directions for future research.

5

2 Research context and background 2.1 The socio-technical system of transport and its transition Transportation is a critical and complex system essential for human activity. Over the course of the 20th century, global passenger transportation has risen steeply. Estimated comparisons between 1950 and 2000 showed a worldwide increase of vehicular travel from a total of 2.8 trillion passenger kilometres to about 32 trillion (WBCSD, 2004; Moriarty and Honnery, 2004). Motorized travel currently constitutes the majority of global passenger travel (in Moriarty and Honnery, 2008). These trends have led to a global transportation system that is characterized by the dominance of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) powered by fossil fuels (Sperling, 2009; Melton et al., 2016). Most countries worldwide are considered to be locked in an automobility-centric socio-technical system (Geels, 2004; Kanger and Schot, 2016)—a complex path-dependent nonlinear system centred on private cars supported by a range of institutions and infrastructures (Urry 2004; Kanger and Schot, 2016; Audouin and Finger, 2019). By 2050, early estimates suggest a total of 103 trillion kilometres of travel, with car travel and other high-speed modes accounting for close to 80% of this distance (Schafer and Victor, 2000). While this is a possible future, the impacts and consequences of automobility dependence and dominance in transportation stress the importance of disrupting and changing these trends. Such a transport system cannot be sustained and supported for long given its net negative socio-ecological impacts (IPCC, 2018). While it may be largely perceived as convenient, a means of freedom, and flexibility (Sheller, 2004), its negative social impacts include the average amount of time people spend in traffic or commuting (Moriarty and Honnery, 2008); the total cost of cars and car ownership (Hagman, 2020); excess driving caused by looking for parking and the need for parking spaces (Shoup, 2005); use inefficiencies of cars as a resource, i.e., standing parked 90% of the time (Shoup, 2005; Transport and Environment, 2017), and idling capacity caused by growing single occupancy driving, i.e., one passenger in a four-seat vehicle (Spurling et al., 2013; Clark, Chatterjee, and Melia, 2016); health-related injuries as well as road fatalities (EU, 2017), pollution, noise, and traffic congestion (Katzev, 2003) and the costs of these borne by society. Traffic congestion alone costs 1% of the European Union’s GDP, which is 130 billion euros annually (European Commission, 2018). Other burdens on the built environment and land, include the fact that cars require huge amounts of space, and vast portions of the urban environment are paved over for highways, parking lots, and service facilities (Shoup, 2005), and externalities displaced onto other non-car owners and road users lead to unfair access to transportation (Litman, 2020), as cars require far more road space per passenger-kilometre (Litman 2008, p. 352) which is unfair to pedestrians and cyclists who bear excessive risk and pollution exposure (ibid.), and involuntarily subsidies, i.e., through free parking at shopping centres, subsidized parking in apartment blocks, and free parking at work (Hart et al., 2017). This privileges certain types of users and is still gendered (Sheller and Urry, 2000), promoting mobility access inequity (Litman, 2020). Furthermore, 23–30% of global energy-related CO2 emissions come from the transportation sector (estimates from 2014) according to the IPCC report (2018, p. 142). Global greenhouse gas emissions from transportation have increased progressively over the past half century, growing faster than any other sector. For example, between 2010 and 2015, transportation-related emissions increased by 2.5% annually (ibid.) As a sector, transportation is the least diversified energy end-use sector, and consumes 65% of global oil final energy demand, with 92% of transportation final energy demand consisting of oil products (IEA, 2017a, in IPCC, 2018, p. 142). In the European Union in 2018, nearly 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions came from

6

transportation, of which 70% were from passenger cars (Enzmann and Ringel, 2020; EEA, 2020). In Sweden, which is the research context of this thesis, road traffic accounts for 93% of carbon dioxide emissions in terms of domestic transport (SCB, 2019). Of the carbon dioxide emissions from road traffic, two thirds (63%) originate from passenger cars (ibid). Consequently, transportation systems in general are said to be ill-functioning (Audouin and Finger, 2019). There have been several regulatory, policy, and behavioural change approaches with objectives to generate changes in transportation; e.g. implementation of stringent environmental regulations on improving vehicles and taxation mechanisms that favour low-CO2 vehicles, including high taxes on motor fuels (Zachariadis, 2012); increases in the cost of parking and congestion charges (Cass and Faulconbridge, 2016); travel time reductions (Naess, 2012) through diversification of transport trips, i.e. multimodalism (Heinen and Mattioli, 2017, 2019), which recognizes the important roles that walking, cycling and public transit can play in an efficient and equitable transportation system (Litman, 2020, p. 4); and non-technological interventions initiated across the EU, such as urban road charges, ‘eco-driving’ seminars, speed restrictions in urban areas, and environmental zones where access by high-emission vehicles is prohibited (Zachariadis, 2012).

Although necessary, many measures have shown modest success and have often been context-dependent (Guell et al., 2012). From a reductionist perspective, it can be noted that the major cause of increasing negative environmental impacts from cars is the growth in car kilometres and the increasing trend towards larger, heavier, and more powerful cars (Zachariadis, 2012; Egede, 2017) According to research, these cancel out any technical achievements the car industry has made in improving car fuel efficiency (Bleijenberg, 2012, in Zachariadis, 2012). There is skepticism in research regarding improving technology through cleaner fuels and exhaust treatment technologies, because CO2 is not just an unnecessary by-product of fuel combustion; it is the main product of fossil fuel combustion, and it forms the basis of our economic welfare (Zachariadis, 2012, p. 2). Adding to that, shifting fuel sources does not necessarily decrease transport volume, which is influenced mainly by human mobility behaviour. Therefore, new alternative solutions are needed to alleviate the net negative socio-ecological effects of current transportation systems.

2.2 Sustainable transport systems innovation and practices Sustainable transport systems, in contrast to the current (unsustainable) system, are predominantly defined by their objectives in reducing net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy use, and material resource consumption; increasing transportation affordability and accessibility; as well as including health benefits related to mixing modes of travel (see Banister, 2008; Litman, 2017, 2020; Garcia-Olivares, Sole and Osychenko; 2018; Ringenson et al., 2018). To achieve these objectives, several actions are prescribed, including 1) reducing the need to travel (fewer trips), 2) encouraging a modal shift, 3) reducing trip length and 4) encouraging greater efficiency in the transport system (Banister, 2008; IPCC, 2018), summed as reduction, alteration, and efficiency (Holden et al., 2020). Actions taken toward achieving these objectives, among others, include the expansion of electric vehicles, low-carbon alternatives, and better utilization of existing resources, e.g. shared use of vehicle fleets (Sheller and Urry, 2016; Sperling, 2018; IPCC, 2018). New sustainable mobility systems have emerged as potential pathways to more sustainable personal mobility, with the potential to reduce carbon emissions, use energy more efficiently, and improve traffic flow in cities by reducing the need for personal cars and optimizing mobility resource use (Cohen and Shaheen, 2016; Shaheen, Cohen, and Zohdy, 2016). These refer to systems which integrate mobility devices, services, and multiple users into one platform, mediated

7

by information technologies, which in the context of this thesis are referred to as “new sustainable systems.” In such systems, end-users access mobility by paying for utility, function, and access to services instead of buying their means of transportation (Kamargianni et al. 2016; Bocken et al., 2016). These represent a shift away from more traditional views of vehicles as a product, challenging notions of ownership, which is historically associated with wealth, status, identity, and personal image (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2012; Lawson et al., 2016). These are referred to “New Mobilities” (Sheller and Urry, 2016; Sperling, 2018) and are interchangeably categorized as product-service systems (Mont, 2002; Tukker, 2015), as the sharing economy (Frenken and Schor, 2017), or as collaborative consumption (Botsman and Rogers, 2010). A common denominator is aspect of ‘sharing’, where combinations of the above provide opportunities for more effective and efficient resource management by unlocking the otherwise stagnant capacity of vehicles standing parked most of the time (Stokes et al., 2014), while simultaneously enabling mobility access to the wider community. Recent developments include further integration or coupling of multiple transport services into one aggregate platform/marketplace, referred to as mobility-as-a-service (MaaS)1, which includes all of the aforementioned services into one single user interface including all transportation services offered by multiple operators, public or private (Kamargianni et al., 2016). Multiple new systems integrating various vehicles, technologies, and service models have been introduced (Audin and Finger, 2018); e.g. carsharing, carpooling, ride sharing, ride pooling/sourcing, and ride hailing/taxi services among others, including micromobility services (Brunner et al., 2018) that integrate two-or-three wheelers such as bicycles, electric bikes, and electric scooters, among others (Pangbourne et al., 2020). However, while these innovations have begun to create opportunities for moving the complex transportation system away from automobility, significant impacts in changing societal behaviours are not yet widely observable. Private cars continue to be the major travel mode. This is best illustrated by recent research showing persistent difficulties in motivating and engaging people in new mobility modalities and behaviours; e.g. changing from private car use to public transportation, cycling, walking, or other alternative modes, like shared mobility services (Maerivoet et al., 2012; Nettleton and Green, 2014; Ruhrort et al., 2014; Cass and Faulconbridge, 2016; Clark, Chatterjee, and Melia, 2016; Sochor, Karlsson, and Strömberg, 2016; Laakso, 2017; Berg, Henriksson, and Ihlström, 2019). Moreover, despite the growing availability of new mobility service systems in many cities worldwide, their application, accessibility and use are not widespread among society. Their social impacts appear to be pluralized, which leads to uncertainties as to their potential ecological impacts related to carbon and energy reduction, e.g., kilometres driven, trips replaced, and reduced travel. (Axsen and Sovacool, 2019). Some studies suggest that the benefits of different mobility choices are offset when there is a greater level of travel activity and longer trips (Heinen and Mattioli, 2017; 2019). While generalized conclusions cannot yet be made, as each type of shared mobility service has shown different impacts and implications in relation to car use (see Martin and Shaheen, 2016; Clewlow and Mishra, 2017; Pangbourne et al., 2020), these indicate that human behaviours and practices matter in relation to transitioning toward more sustainable transportation systems. These trends are not only relevant to the transportation industry. Research suggests that many innovations that promise sustainability, although technologically mature, face barriers in implementation and adoption, causing realistic achievement of sustainability targets to be prolonged (Schot and Geels, 2008; Ceschin, 2014; Vergragt et al., 2014; Geels et al. 2015; Vezzoli et al. 2015; Fichter and Clausen, 2016).

1 Examples of these are Google Maps, Transit (global), UbiGo project in Sweden, Whim in Finland, and Qixxit in Germany, among others.

8

Behavioural research provides some explanation of these issues. The automobility-dominant transportation system is largely embedded in socially habitual practices, norms, and cultures (Sheller and Urry, 2000). For most people, everyday life is presumably dependent on cars (see Urry, 2004). Therefore, its embeddedness in everyday human life extends beyond economic and technological considerations and is a socially normalized global practice (Urry, 2004; Urry, 2004; Shove et al., 2012). Some studies, for example, have found that changing travel modality and behaviour means modifying daily practices and social conditions or circumstances upon which human mobility patterns are affected. Commuting also involves other daily practices, e.g., shopping, exercise, recreation, leisure, and other extra-curricular activities, and these activities affect mobility choices (Spurling et al., 2013; Cass and Faulconbridge, 2016; Cass et al., 2016). Additionally, studies have pointed out that time affluence and organising different daily activities influence individuals as to the possibilities of engaging in more sustainable mobility (Clark, Chatterje, and Melia, 2016; Cass et al., 2016; Dumitru and García Mira, 2017;). Furthermore, changes in lifestyle like changing needs and conditions as well as mobility-related long-term decisions (like residential relocation, the purchase of a car, bicycle, or season ticket) impact choice of travel mode (Scheiner, 2007; Muggenburg et al 2015). These findings suggest that mobility is not usually an end in and of itself; rather, the ultimate goal of transportation is access to desired services and activities, i.e., to school, work, shopping, healthcare, recreation, etc. (Litman, 2020, p. 4). Mobility is thus bundled with everyday life activities, beliefs, and value. Hence, transportation systems are intertwined with human behaviour and everyday life. The technology involved in transportation systems is deeply connected to society and culture and cannot exist or be understood without recognizing this interconnectivity. Consequently, changing transportation systems is likely to involve changes in everyday life, and vice versa. 2.3 Involving users in new sustainable transport systems transition Recent research questions the conceptualization and understanding of ‘mobility’ as well as societal behavioural patterns and choices around mobility. Some argue that ecological modernization and neoliberal governmentality provide the general context of current transportation analysis, with a dominant focus on and belief in technological behaviour change, especially those rooted in market-based mitigation strategies (Schwanen, Banister, and Anable, 2011). Behaviourist approaches rooted in such analytical dispositions have been criticized for conceptualizing mobility very narrowly and inadequately, both in depth and complexity (e.g. Schwanen, Banister, and Anable, 2012). For example, commuting has been conceptualized within rational choice frameworks, in which travellers’ decisions are made based on minimizing travel time or cost (see Metz, 2008). Such frameworks also inform social psychology theories of planned behaviour (e.g. Ajzen, 1991), which aim to explain how certain behaviours are influenced by subjective norms, attitudes, and intentions; e.g. car driving as opposed to public transportation. As put by Barr and Prillwitz (2014), these are “fitting with neoliberal logics which encourage the shaping of individuals' choices, rather than direct policy interventions in the conduct of everyday life” (Barr and Prillwitz, 2014, cf. Cass and Faulconbridge, 2016). Berg, Henriksson, and Ihlström (2019) argue that such theoretical views believe modal shifts in transport can be achieved by “altering people’s perception about reality (e.g., attitudes towards different modes of transport), which then will encourage them to make other choices, rather than changing the reality itself (e.g., restrict car use, change the infrastructure)” (p. 3). This ideology typically believes that once people have been motivated to engage in a desired behaviour, they will alter their perception about the consequence of their behaviour. It is based on an implicit assumption that decision-making is made in a social vacuum (Levy, 2013, ibid.). Accordingly, such interventions have been interpreted as a form of ‘libertarian paternalism” (Thaler and Sunstein,

9

2003)—a specific expression of public governance heavily influenced by a libertarian worldview (Barr and Prillwitz, 2014, cf. Berg, Henriksson, and Ihlström, 2019, p. 3). However, studies which have looked at the role of habitual behaviour (routine, learned behaviour) contend that an individual’s decisions are much more complex (in Guell et al, 2012). Others have criticized the basic framing of behavioural change processes, suggesting that they are insufficient to address complexities of everyday life (Hargreaves, 2011); e.g. social conditions and circumstances that frame the transition towards more sustainable alternatives ( Spargaaren, 2003; Shove and Walker, 2010; Nettleton and Green, 2014; Cass and Faulconbridge, 2016). A qualitative study by Guell et al. (2012) asserts that existing theoretical frameworks which aim to understand the influence of a variety of psychological, social, physical, and structural factors, require that complexities and ambiguities be simplified into more static, measurable forms (ibid.). Hence, part of the problem is the tendency to describe commuting simplistically as ‘a behaviour’ rather than a bundle of activities, beliefs, values, etc. (ibid., p. 238). Commuting, however, needs to be understood as an embodied and emotional practice. Everyday decision-making involving commuting involves tactical negotiation between the constantly changing and fluid nature of commuters’ social worlds (ibid.) It appears to be critical to shift perspectives away from the economic marketplace of transportation by considering the social organization of systems of provision and their intersection with human everyday life practices (Spaargaren, 2003; Warde, 2005; Shove and Walker, 2010; Hargreaves, 2011). Practices are defined as routinized activities carried out in everyday life that have several connected elements including materials or ‘stuff’, and meanings and competencies that surround them (Kuijer, 2014). Such a perspective, for example, could provide a means of integrating innovation and consumption. This is achieved through conceptualizing dynamic processes inherent in provision systems; e.g. transportation services and everyday life practices, e.g., travelling (Shove and Walker, 2010, p. 19). This is particularly relevant because sustainability extends beyond technical advancement to ways of using and engaging with innovations (e.g., full lifecycle assessment of technical innovations). While engaging with theories of innovation, the point of departure in sustainable systems research needs to include human social practices (Reckwitz, 2002; Shove and Walker, 2010). Such a position does not see technology and behavior as two independent sets of phenomena, a dualism, but instead represents a duality (Spaargaren, 2003; Shove et al., 2012). Spaargaren (2003, p. 696) articulated that systems of provisions (e.g., energy utilities, transport services, food, appliances etc.) interact with behaviours (of people) by enabling, constraining, and contextualizing each other. He pointed out that the relationships of people, producers, and systems of provision are mediated and co-produced ‘through’ practices. It is under these terms that the integration of concepts from innovation studies with practice theory becomes relevant and perhaps necessary for transition. Shove et al. (2012) argue that innovation has often been “distinguished between conditions and relationships involved in first making something new and those that characterize subsequent stages of development and diffusion” (p. 11). This view also holds in design studies, among which critiques have arisen (e.g. Redström, 2006; Vines et al. 2013). However, this gap could be bridged by analysing innovation in terms that “acknowledge the active and dynamic relation between producers and consumers in making new arrangements and in developing and sustaining them over time” (ibid. p. 17). Thus, when exploring new sustainable systems in terms of their design and development processes, it is critical to simultaneously recognize both that both production and consumption act together in framing design (Blok et al., 2015). However, practices cannot be shaped just by introducing new products, instead there exist interactions which are dynamic and co-shaped both by those designing the products as well as by

10

those integrating them into performance (Kujier, 2014, p. 32). Although such thinking “provokes and engenders a transition in dominant paradigms and in equally dominant ways of conceptualizing social change” (Shove et al., 2012, p. 22), more research supports the idea that the individual and systems change go hand in hand (Newell et al., 2019). Any separation between the making of technology and its use is therefore artificial, as innovations include both technical and social elements (Pesch, Spekkink, and Quist, 2017, p. 302). Namely, social and technological systems are active and dynamically aligned, or, as Pettersen, Boks and Tukker argued, they are intimately related, and consumption is entangled with technology (2013). Transitioning transportation towards new sustainable systems is therefore not an outcome of external forces, technological innovation, or social structure, but instead of results of recursively changing systems and practices (Giddens, 1984; Shove et al., 2012). In other words, they are shaping and being shaped, enabling and being enabled by each other in a co-creative process.

Figure 1: Systems of provision and their intersection with everyday social practices (Adapted from Spaargaren, 2003)

Given these insights and interpretations, it is critical to enable people who will be using and engaging with new systems in everyday life to co-create the design and development of these systems. People are practitioners of practices (Bueger, 2014), therefore they are involved directly or indirectly in the creation and shaping of their present–future everyday lives. Just as voters and non-voters decide through voting or not voting under democratic political systems, people, through involvement or lack thereof, can decide which new technological futures will come to constitute their everyday living practices. Political participation, for example, is considered any behaviour designed “to affect the choice of governmental personnel and/policies” (in Conge, 1988, p. 242). While this definition gives a clear indication of the way public commons are to be given a voice through political participation, participation in the framing and design of non-public goods, services, and systems has not been examined closely. Even less discussed is when both public and non-public actors and systems are at stake. Through involvement in certain actions and activities, we can suppose that society selects and contemplates its future practices. Research suggests that people as end-users have historically played an active role in various capacities by influencing the automobility system toward the scale observed today (Kanger and Schot, 2016; Kanger, Schot, and Verboong, 2016Sovacool et al., 2018; Kanger et al., 2019). The role they played in the making of the automobility system was eminently productive, suggesting that this merits further attention in transitioning toward alternative sustainable transport systems (Kanger and Schot, 2016; Kanger et al., 2019). End-users are thought to play an important role throughout innovation processes from the ideation, development, implementation, and contextual embedding of innovations (Gales and Mansour-Cole, 1995; von Hippel, 2005; Geels, Schwanen, and Sorrell, 2015; Geels and Johnson, 2018). Research suggests that involving end-users has a positive influence on the process of innovation, its outcomes, and its success, as well as on users, whether it occurs in product, service, or system development (Baroudi, Olson, and Blake, 1986; Bano and Zowghi 2015; Davis and Andrew, 2017). The importance of involvement

11

is highlighted particularly in design subfields, e.g., human-centred design, participatory design, interactive design, product design, inclusive design, etc. This suggests that involvement can have dual effects. On one hand it ensures that products and services being designed meet the needs of those for whom they are designed, and on the other, it helps end-users to understand how a product or service works while also enabling people to develop an active interest in the product or service’s ongoing success (Vines et al., 2013; Davis and Andrew, 2017). Accordingly, many scholars and practitioners question how successful design can even be made today without ultimately involving the people for whom designs are intended (Liedtke et al., 2012; Shove et al., 2012; Scott, Bakker, and Quist, 2012; Kuijer, 2014). Involvement is also imperative for new sustainable systems given the aforementioned relationships between systems of provision and everyday practices. Heiskanen, Kasanen, and Timonen (2005) and Rohracher et al., (2003) for example, have argued that the involvement of potential users in the process enables the identification of conditions necessary for the acceptance of sustainable system innovations, while also providing education as to the factors inhibiting their deployment and embeddedness in daily life. It allows the designs of new sustainable solutions to be adjusted, increasing their chances of success (Rohracher et al., 2003), as well their acceptance by society (Heiskanen and Lovio, 2010). In addition, involvement can also affect how new sustainable systems are shaped and transformed, spread in society, and measured against existing systems (Fischer and Newig, 2016, p. 8), potentially also leading to commitment to the process and mutual learning about sustainability for all involved parties (Hoffman, 2007). Moreover, through involvement people can influence technology-development and implementation processes by demanding more sustainable alternatives, generating expectations and legitimacy, learning how to use new sustainable alternatives, and adopting these alternatives to alter their own behaviour (Hoogma and Schot, 2001; Rohracher et al., 2003; Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). Participants can engage in multiple roles and provide—as well as receive—the benefits of innovation. Subsequently, end-users of alternatives become prime stakeholders who need to be engaged in any meaningful attempt in transitioning to new sustainable systems. The potential roles of these stakeholders on driving sustainability thus increases the relevance of understanding how they can be actively involved in co-creating new sustainable systems.

13

3 Theoretical background 3.1 User involvement in design and development The term ‘involvement’ is widely used throughout this thesis. Hence, first, it is necessary to define the term and the supporting theory to understand how it is applied to this thesis. Involvement is often synonymous with engagement, but it is distinct from participation. Early studies suggested that involvement and participation should be seen as two distinct concepts indicating that people can be involved without necessarily participating (Barki and Hartwick, 1989). However, the ambiguous use of these terms persists in the literature (Fischer et al., 2020). In this thesis, ‘involvement’ is used as a central concept. It is defined as a psychologically motivated affective state that inspires voluntary extra-role behaviours, and is characterized by affective commitment, positive affectivity and empowerment (Kang, 2014). This subjective psychological state reflects the importance and personal relevance of a system to an individual (Barki and Hartwich, 1989), and also defines the amount of physical and psychological energy that an individual devotes to an experience (Astin, 1984). So, involvement is about passion and commitment—the willingness to invest oneself and expend one’s discretionary effort beyond what is required (Kang, 2014). In design and development, it is used to also imply ‘user’ presence in such processes and is defined in various terms such as, a form of interaction between users and the design processes (Kaulio, 1998), as a communication process between developers and potential users enabling information exchange (Gales and Mansour-Coles, 1995), and/or a form of direct contact with users covering many approaches (Kujala, 2003). The theoretical conceptualization of ‘user’ involvement in design and development assumes that the success of a system (or a product, service, or technology) is largely dependent on user involvement in all stages of the process (Gales and Mansour-Cole, 1995; Alam, 2002; Kujala, 2003). Some research suggests that user involvement has a positive influence on the process of innovation, its outcomes, and its success, as well as on the users themselves when they are involved in product, service, or system development (Baroudi, Olson, and Blake, 1986; Bano and Zowghi 2015; Davis and Andrew, 2017). In innovation and design studies, involving users is shown to support the generation of R&D ideas (e.g. von Hippel, 1998; Oudshoorn and Pinch, 2003), improve understanding of their requirements and needs (Bano and Zowghi, 2014), improve the quality of design decisions (Gulari et al., 2011) and enable the design of user-friendly products and services (von Hippel, 2005; Bjorgvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren, 2010). Numerous studies have shown that user involvement also enables the enhancement of system-use satisfaction and acceptance; facilitates change through improving attitudes towards the system; and increases the perceived relevance of the system and motivations to engage with it (Magnusson et al., 2003; Kujala, 2003; Lettl, 2007; Vines et al., 2013; Bano and Zowghi, 2014; Voorberg et al., 2015). However, a number of studies have raised concerns as to how involvement can make a difference in actual design practice (e.g. Wallisch and Sankowski, 2019; Kujala, 2003; Fischer et al., 2020). The concerns relate mainly to how involvement is incorporated into the process, and how much it actually matters in designing new systems and to successful outcomes. Although different studies focus on different contexts of involvement; e.g., different technologies, people, and methods, they provide useful insights. In a systematic review, Fischer et al. (2020) concluded that involvement matters in three main ways to design practice: learning as a desired outcome, adjusting design to improve design quality, and increasing a sense of participation and ownership, although this perception is often limited to individuals actively involved in the design process. An interesting finding from this study in particular is that involvement helps to counter stereotypes about ‘users’; in this case, perceptions about older adults (Fischer et al., 2020). The same study,

14

however, could not determine whether user involvement benefits or leads to market uptake, acceptability, or the adoption of new technology as has been assumed. Few studies have questioned this and empirical results are inconclusive and mixed. For example, while a review by Bano and Zowghi (2015) praises such a relationship, Fischer et al. (2020) suggest it is ambitious and lacks clear understanding, requiring further empirical inquiry. Both reviews suggested that its outcomes, although positive, appear to be contingent, depending on a range of factors; e.g. its motivators, power aspects, and user images (Fischer et al., 2020, p. 520). It appears that the benefits of user involvement are pertinent to the design process itself (ibid.). Further, empirical papers sometimes lack clarity about both the methods of involvement and how these are carried out (Wallisch and Sankowski, 2019). Few studies suggest that outcomes can be considerably affected by the methods used in involving users, since they influence the process and its quality (Redström 2006; Björgvinsson et al., 2010; Vines et al. 2014; Binder et al., 2015). Methods of involvement can be fragmented, inefficient, and users’ roles must be carefully considered (Kujala, 2003). Additionally, some strategies and approaches are neither effective nor relevant; they lack validity, credibility, value, trust, and meaning in dialogues between citizens and their representatives or professionals (Schaban-Maurer, 2013). For example, Schaban-Maurer’s (2013) review of involvement in urban design and planning suggested that methods, in general, demonstrate an absence of will in soliciting and utilizing direct local knowledge from citizens (p. 54-55). Accordingly, these attempts have contributed to apathetic processes, limiting inclusion to selected ‘target groups’ of businesses, private associations, and citizen groups, while excluding individual ordinary citizens’ input and engagement (ibid. p. 82). A recent study by Wallisch et al. (2018) found involvement methods themselves to be limited by vague definitions of analytical concepts and targets, where some use only one specific term to describe their approach; e.g., user-centred technique, without offering clear definitions. It is important, therefore, to consider how both the methods and outcomes are framed. Studies have often narrowed the concept of user involvement by interpreting it solely as market research in practice (Hoffman, 2007). Two classes of outcomes have been predominant in involving users: system quality and system acceptance (Blake and Olson, 1984; Baroudi, Olson, & Blake, 1986), which are operationalized in terms of usage, user attitudes, and user information satisfaction (Baroudi, Olson, & Blake, 1986). Involvement is often seen as a process used to discover users’ needs and how they adopt new things, rather than an opportunity to give people the role of decision-makers in selection processes (Kreuz and Förster, 2003; Hoffman, 2007; Bano and Zowghi, 2014). Sanders and Stappers (2008) also argued that these approaches lean more toward exploring and identifying presumably positive future opportunities for products and services, rather than allowing people to reflect and actively engage with design. Others have argued that economic incentives are large motivators for involving users in innovation and design, which neglects the value, experiences, and social impacts of such interactions (Bano and Zowghi, 2014), where there are gaps of knowledge (Fischer et al., 2020). To a large extent, involvement appears as a one-way, top-down, mostly passive information gathering or dissemination activity, usually under the control of those with authority and power (Schaban-Maurer, 2013, p. 8). This can be attributed to communication, which is said to be often unidirectional, where feedback on results is not shared (Kujala, 2003). A critical question is how involvement can be configured in terms of relations not just between designers and users, but also between the economic firms developing new designs and the social groups represented as users; i.e., achieving sufficient representation as well as presence. For example, who initiates, who participates, who is represented, and who benefits from involvement as well as how involvement is directed over time are all critical components (e.g. Redström, 2006; Vines et al., 2013).

15

Those who initiate participation are often designers, funders, companies, or researchers; they make decisions about who should and should not participate in projects and to what extent (Vines et al., 2013). According to Vines et al. (2013), these issues also raise ethical challenges. When such processes are configured, there are influencing factors which lead to certain individuals participating more than others, reducing the potential of integrating diverse voices in the design process while amplifying the voices that are most often heard. Even though new tools have implied innovation democratization, empowering secluded users, those tools have also a tendency to be used by those whose voices are heard most often (Vines et al., 2013) or by segments that are more frequently targeted in involvement (Hoyer et al., 2010), e.g., early adopters (Rogers, 2003), lead users (Herstatt and von Hippel, 1992; Lüthje and Herstatt, 2004) and less by other segments of the population (Hoffman, 2007). The agency, expertise, and agendas of those leading or facilitating design processes could be hidden (Vines et al., 2013). Therefore, how involvement is defined can have a strong influence on the quality of involvement and on representation (Vines et al., 2013). Representation is a particularly serious issue; e.g., whose perspective is represented in innovation (Heiskanen, Kasanen, and Timonen, 2004) and design (Binder et al., 2015), which can further affect outcomes. As Fischer et al. (2020) noted, there is a need for research in actual practices of user involvement. Hence why, when thinking about users and their involvement, discussions of who, how, when, and where users should be involved, as well as their processes and objectives or benefits need to be considered more specifically. 3.2 Forms of user involvement In general, three forms of user involvement are distinguished in design and development which lead to different outcomes (Kaulio, 1998; Kujala 2003; Piller, Ihl, and Vossen., 2010; Vines et al. 2013; Davis and Andrew, 2017). These can enable, or discourage, the presence of people as end-user stakeholders during design. These reflect the extent or degree to which people are partaking and become present in a process (Raabe, 1993; 1996). Some argue that these can also be considered as a continuum with user involvement varying from passive participation to intense, decision-making levels (Alam, 2002). First is the user domain, where the user is indirectly present in design. Users are marginally involved, and are mainly involved with the purpose of informing design (Mumford 1979; Kaulio, 1998). It generally considers or assumes the needs of the persons who will use the design without necessarily involving them. Hence, people are considered while involved through passive means, e.g. they act only as providers of information, commenters, or simply as subjects of observation (Kujala, 2003). These can be direct, indirect; ‘witting’ and ‘unwitting’; i.e. with users’ will and consent or without them, e.g., Google gathering user data input through service provision (Vines et al., 2013). The result is that products are designed on behalf of people (be those users or customers) (Piller, Ihl, and Vossen, 2010). It is relevant to note that with the increase of ICT, the passive involvement of individuals is taking on other forms, as well. It is likely that individuals are continuously involved in the configuration of products and services through digital or virtual presence, e.g., social media profiles, internet presence, and engagement with information technology devices; or digital footprints and personal data trails (Girardin et al., 2008). People leave digital traces just about everywhere they go, both voluntarily and involuntarily. Each phone call, text message, email, social media post, online search and credit card purchase is recorded and stored in the cloud (ibid.). Personal devices, for instance, accumulate data that reveals both individual and social behaviours with unprecedented detail; details that can be easily mined (Girardin et al., 2008). Information about human activity and their everyday lives can be inferred

16

through these data, which presents benefits but also considerable ethical concerns in the way such information is traced, obtained, managed, and used (Halavais, 2015). Second is asking users about their needs and preferences, where the user is present in design as a consultant, giving both input and informing the design process (Kaulio, 1998; Kujala 2003). These can be said to be motivated by user-centred design, focusing on improving products through asking people about their needs, expectations, and experiences, among others (Fischer et al., 2020). For example, people are asked to continuously evaluate products and services, give feedback, or offer complaints which serve as input and feedback to designers (Piller, Ihl, and Vossen, 2010). The difference can be noted between undeliberate (e.g., YouTube users create content and comments from which they perceive direct benefits while also supporting Youtube platform itself); and organised information elicitation (e.g., hackathons and innovation hubs gathering intelligence and innovation ideas on industrial problems from crowds). The result is that products are designed through people acting as a resource in the design process. Third is building, co-designing, and co-creating with users, where the user is actively present in design and considered a core stakeholder in design process, choices, and decisions. This is motivated by participatory design and co-design, which regard involvement as a moment of collaboration with people (Davis and Andrew, 2017) at different or multiple stages throughout a design process, and emphasizes building relationships between designers and people using design (Gulari et al., 2011). Users are represented in all levels of design and consensus is made by equally involving all stakeholders throughout design (Mumford, 1979). The expected results are that people are empowered, represented, and also benefit from the process (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). These have led to two opposing mindsets evident in the practice of design and development research today: a) designing for people and b) working with people in design. The first describes a culture characterized by an expert mindset, where design researchers consider themselves to be experts, and see and refer to people as ‘subjects’, ‘users’, and ‘consumers’ (Sanders and Stappers, 2012). The second describes a culture characterized by a participatory mindset, where people are seen as true experts in domains of experience such as living, learning, working, etc. (ibid.) This approach values people as co-creators in the design process (ibid.). These two mindsets also distinguish between expert-driven approaches, participatory approaches, and co-creative approaches, where in the last two, the objective is to involve people, though they also differ in how people’s presence within a process is articulated.

Figure 2: Illustration of two opposing mindsets in design, adopted from Sanders and Stappers (2012, p. 10)

However, users and their involvement are not just a firm competency, where firms identify potential users and uses of their products, services, and technologies (Lettl, 2007). Besides looking at how users’ involvement can contribute to design and development, it is important to also recognize how people are affected as humans participating in such processes beyond the role

17

of the ‘user’ and technology adoption is a successful factor of involvement. Sanders and Stappers (2008) emphasize this by calling on collaborative idea generation and lean toward designing for social purposes, which reshapes both our notion of design and how we regard users. Design practice, they argue, must begin to nurture collective creativity, and hence demand a more active form of involvement of people in design and development, in which all people are seen as active and competent participants in design practice and not just as ‘users’. As mentioned previously, many scholars and practitioners support more than contradict how successful design can be made today without ultimately involving the people for whom the designs are intended (Liedtke et al., 2012; Shove et al., 2012; Scott, Quist, and Bakker, 2009; Kuijer, 2014). Here is where involvement takes a distinctive path as an approach to design by becoming a co-creative process. While involvement in design can be manifested with or without necessarily having users present; in co-creation, involvement is a continuously emerging process, voluntarily or through invitation, that brings about value. Co-creation implies an intensity of engagement from passive to direct to active decision making at different stages of development (Piller, Ihl, and Vossen, 2010; Agrawal and Rahman, 2015; Cui and Wu, 2016; Davis and Andrew, 2017). For some scholars, it implies intense involvement in practical activities carried out together with others (Manzini, 2015). As such, it is necessary to discuss how such form of involvement can be cultivated by different conceptualizations of the users’ positions in the design process. 3.3 Involving people in more than the user role The presence—physical, social, and self (Min Lee, 2004, p. 44) —of people, in design and development, i.e., in different stages of the process, can be enabled and enacted through various forms of involvement which can activate several roles throughout the process. The term ‘presence’ is used here to intentionally distinguish the users’ position in design, and to distinguish this thesis’ approach. As discussed in the previous section, the three modes of involvement propose different levels of user presence in design, therefore also determining the position of people with regard to design, and, potentially, its outcomes. However, each mode positions people in the role of the users in relation to design. There are restrictions in thinking when referring to persons as users. This connotes a technical and technological way of thinking, which places designers and researchers inside a utilitarian worldview (Gee, 1994). This is a worldview that sees everything and ultimately everyone as simply a resource to be exploited, and sees humans as resources to be bent to the purpose of other humans (ibid.) Although language may have to do with the ways in which human beings are conceived when interfacing with the material world, it does not justify the harm that it generates when put into effect. For this, feminist scholarship has cautioned that the words we use influence how we perceive and understand the world, e.g., the supposedly universal term ‘man’. When we refer to people as users, we also confine their position within a restricted utilitarian meaning-system, where everything is turned into an object of use or a means to achieve the purpose of the user (Gee, 1994). As Gee (1994) argued, use is a particular kind of behaviour, which can be observed and measured, and the user is one who exhibits this kind of behaviour. Therefore, when one is called a user, we privilege this kind of “measurable, observable behaviour and all other things that make that person human are hidden” (p. 114). In this way the wholeness of persons interfacing with the designed world is subtracted and compartmentalized into technical models to be observed, measured, and served through design. Such a framing completely obscures individual differences, turning them into generic and universal archetypes, neutralizing their richness, fullness, and diversity. This position can turn people-as-concepts into resources to be used and that are in use (Gee, 1994).

18

Despite a series of studies (e.g., STS, CSW, and EU-tradition IS studies)2 that have strongly challenged this framing, none have yet provided an explicit alternative model (Lamb and Kling, 2003). Design researchers, for example, have examined ways in which the user as a concept has been inadequate, dehumanizing, or disruptive (particularly studies conducted in ICT); for example, in productive working contexts (Ehn, 1988; Mumford, 1995, 2000). However, users could be assumed to fill more than one role simultaneously, e.g. “users of computers do not see themselves as users but as professionals working with others and using computers in support of those interactions” (Ehn, 1998; Lamb and Kling, 2003, p. 200). The increased focus on users has evolved, an evolution perhaps best illustrated by the emergence of the ‘user-centric’ paradigm (Olsson, 2009) in the last few decades much of design and engineering research; e.g., in user experience research, user research, user-centred design, and user interface design, among others. Over the years, these paradigms have come to enlighten the term ‘user’ making it a catchword meant to include consumers, participants, customers, citizens, laypeople, etc. This has likely escaped criticism on the reductionist thinking inhabiting the term ‘user’ and how subtracted it is from the whole person. The continued use of the term ‘user’ is significant in these paradigms, and some suggest if perhaps it is time to ask whether user-centred paradigms have gone far enough (Olsson, 2009). These paradigms carry with them the implication of user as a silent ‘system’ (cf. Julien 1999, in Olsson, 2009, p. 25). For example, persons engaging with products and services are often conceived of as ‘children’, or ‘patients’ whose symptoms require ‘diagnosis’ while also positioning them within the inequities of the implicit power relationships embedded in this construction (Olsson, 2009). We set up an unequal power relationship, already, when we construct our positions as experts and our clients’ positions as novices who require help (ibid., p. 26). The narrow framing of people-as-users may consequently limit our understanding of sustainable systems design and development, and possibly expose issues explaining slow adoption of sustainable transitions. For example, the user position follows suit in technological innovations today. The ‘socio’ part is generally concerned with understanding patterns of demand in innovations (e.g., the user side, demand-side, market, or social-consumer), where users are given less attention as human individuals and discussed only as far as they assume a user’s role in technology narratives (Shove and Walker, 2010). This can be seen in technological diffusion models, which are mostly conceptualized as adoption processes (Geels and Johnson, 2018), and studied namely through the notions of diffusion, adoption, acceptance, translation, embedding, appropriation, replication, [and] upscaling (see Sovacool and Hess, 2017). These all “refer essentially to the same thing, namely, people adopting or using technology” (Sovacool and Hess, 2017, p. 708). It is not surprising given a predominant approach to the study of innovation primarily rooted in neoclassical tradition (e.g., environmental economics and innovation economics), evolutionary tradition, and ecological economics (Karakaya, Hidalgo, and Nuur 2014)3. Development, in these theoretical lenses and models, would precede on its own, separated from society, whereas upon introduction social interaction and change would occur (Godin, 2008; Geels et al., 2017, p. 13). These deter a relationship between people and technologies as a technical transfer from developers to users. Although such studies have brought a heightened awareness in technology making and technological innovation that users matter at all stages from design to production to the selling of technologies (e.g. Oudshoorn and Pinch, 2003), they have been interpreted as users being subjects, passive consumers, or simply as adopters of technologies, making conscious rational choices in clearly defined markets (Ostrom, 1996; Shove, 2010). So, even if people are involved, they are considered users and studied as subjects of use, outside the social contexts in which they live. It can be argued that such a position relegates people to the backseat of

2 STS – Socio-technical Studies, CSCW- Computer Supported Cooperative Work, IS - Information Systems in the EU tradition 3 in a review of 1024 publications published between 1990–2012

19

development while potentially inspiring consumption. On one hand, people are subjected to using and consuming more, and on the other, they are passively involved in finding optimal ways of achieving sustainable outcomes with new systems promising sustainability. Fostering the use of things all the time is not really beneficial in achieving net reductions in energy use and carbon emissions; neither is having people passively present in new sustainable systems development, due to their dependence on human behaviour to achieve full potential. Instead, continuous engagement with users is necessary. Additionally, if we reduce people to parts; e.g., reducing them only to how they use new systems, or segment them into certain models based on predefined parameters like socio-demographics, psycho-demographics, etc., we may exclude understanding how new systems play out on the street-level for ‘all’ humans in environments where those systems are introduced and contextualized. In design and other fields of concern, many researchers want to go beyond these limitations. The notion of the user ought to be seen not in terms of ‘neediness’ but as “an expert in her world (e.g., in her body, her work, her life)” (cf. Dervin, 1999, in Olsson, 2009, p. 29). Wilson (1996) argued that users might be defined rather as “knowing subjects, as cultural experts” (p. 77). When reviewing influential scholarship, we can observe from a multi-dimensional view that the user concept implies, (but not exhaustively):

a) multiple identities (e.g., Lindsay, 2003) b) many different shapes and sizes (e.g., Cowan, 1987) c) creative capacity to shape technological development in all phases of technological

innovation (e.g., Oudshoorn and Pinch, 2003) d) diversity in power relations among other actors involved in technology development e) making culture and cultural expertise (e.g., du Gay et al. 1997) f) social exclusion and division based on gender, background, values, cultural, and socio-

economic positions (e.g., Haraway, 1985)

These multiplicities and diversities of people cannot be contained inside the user term and thus need to be critically unpacked and scrutinized. Instead of imagining users as one-dimensional, we must approach a more accurate view of humanity, or at the very least understand that those who engage with designed systems are complex beings. There are attempts to engage with people as active and creative participants in design and development (Sanders and Stappers, 2012), and as co-creators in developing more sustainable solutions for their everyday lives (Scott, Bakker, and Quist, 2012). Such shift in design values is motivated by the context of democratic values and ethics as well as a need for equitable and prudent design approaches (Schaban-Maurer, 2013). Rather than seeking to dominate the process with a single voice, e.g., the designer, developer, or authority by expert-knowledge or professional role, we seek to include a polyphony of voices, where no one voice, including that of the researcher, claims final authority (cf. Flyvbjerg 2001, p. 139, in Schaban-Maurer, 2013, p. 203). This position considers people and their everyday lives not as subjects who use objects but as co-creating agents. People are capable of judging and acting on matters in their everyday lives and inhabit a type of expertise. Their expertise, according to Schaban-Maurer (2013), is legitimized by life experiences, or praxis, and local environmental knowledge of our respective locales (p. 9). He calls this a phronesis approach to position people’s involvement in the correct context for constructive change (p. 253). The user is thus not confined to one position, but rather inhabit a variety of them through roles, actions, agency, diverse behaviours, worldviews, ways of living, places, social relationships, contexts, and everyday life. For example, apart from being conscious beings in their everyday life, people are also collaborators and active participants in generating their everyday stories through the material products, services, and systems they engage with. In addition, they are knowing as

20

well as changing subjects, who can (re)format existing unsustainable systems towards sustainable ones in multiple ways. For example, research shows that people take responsibility when they are integrated as critical and important stakeholders in a process, given that they have clarity regarding their expectations (Hennig-Thurau and Walsh 2003, p. 4). Literature also describes the different roles people inhabit when involved in a process, e.g., as co-innovators, co-ideators, co-producers, co-designers, co-developers, and co-promoters (Hoffman, 2007). Similarly, Voorberg et al. (2015) supports the idea that people are involved through multiple roles, e.g. co-implementers, where implementation activities are transferred to citizens instead of fully carried out by service providers; as co-designers, where involvement happens at the content and process level of service delivery; and as initiators, where citizens take initiative in formulating specific services. People contribute to innovation processes as initiative takers relating to inventors and user developers, or lead users, who are characterized by an ability to 1) foresee big advantages by finding solutions for their needs and starting to innovate, and 2) are at the leading edge of a crucial trend and currently experience needs that in the future will be experienced by many other people (von Hippel, 2005; 1986; Franke et al., 2005). In contrast, people can also act to challenge expectations placed on innovations by resisting behaviour control or changing in response to new ideas, or by hacking the design for their own purposes (Oudshoorn and Pinch, 2003; Scott, Bakker, and Quist, 2012). What this aims to portray is that people are not just users of products and services that are designed, or ‘passive stimulus recipients’ informing design. Instead, people interactively co-create, both consciously and subconsciously, the design of their everyday life through system design, be it material or immaterial. Therefore, during design and development, people are prime stakeholders inhabiting multiple positions that can affect the direction of design and its outcomes. Subsequently, different ways of involving people and their presence in design become more considerate, carefully articulated, and explicitly open-ended. Particularly, when we are relating this subject to the development of sustainable systems, where socially, economically, geographically, historically, ethnically, and culturally diverse humans merit representation. Such an approach wants to achieve a more articulate relationship between individuals and the designers or developers and providers of products/services, or systems that these persons engage with, as a united whole. This is a connection in which each view themselves as contributing to and gaining from the relationship, instead of seeing each other as transactional actors who mainly give and use resources, i.e., through the exchange of material products exchange. When one wants to invoke deeper experiential personal and cultural connections between people, products, and systems, those providing them cannot approach people’s involvement via constructs that sees them as simply users, as one more subject accounted for and entitled to using something, e.g., one more user for one more electric vehicle. People’s participation and involvement becomes a way of instead actively hearing and embodying multiple identities within design, even if design is constrained by certain limitations, e.g., one system cannot encompass all the complexity of people’s everyday lives nor determine their direction. However, multiple lives can be integrated to inform design. Alternatively, not only may involvement then expand the plurality of roles people can inhabit as ‘experts of their everyday life’ in design and innovation processes; but this can also provide guidance (Schaban-Maurer, 2013) for all involved parties in achieving mutually informed design both in intention and consequence. Therefore, a continuous co-creative approach could strengthen a common direction for new sustainable systems, where diverse people are sharing design authorship. Co-creation has the potential to involve multiple actors in more than the user role, contributing, whether they are or are not using sustainable systems. It may thus offer opportunities to make involvement in design and development deliberatively democratic, representative, and inclusive. In doing so, it is relevant to discuss what it really means to co-create. This is important because many involvement

21

approaches are disguised under participatory, collaborative, and democratic as well as inclusive premises (Mosse, 2001), although they do not necessarily enable the presence of different people as critical stakeholders during design, e.g. allowing them to inhabit the role of co-creator. 3.4 Co-creation Literally, to co-create means to make something by working with one or others simultaneously (Mirriam-Webster, 2021). However, co-creation is a multi-disciplinary concept with origins in several different disciplines and is also applied in many different areas, e.g., in design (Sanders and Stappers, 2008), participatory design (Kaulio, 1998), innovation (Franke and Piller, 2004; Piller, Ihl and Vossen, 2011), social innovation (Voorberg et al., 2015), management and marketing (Grönroos, 2012; Grönroos and Voima, 2013), urban planning (Schaban Maurer, 2013), and public services (Itten et al., 2020) among others. It also connotes many ideas, approaches, tools, and methods (De Koning, Crul, and Wever, 2016). There is a lack of clarity and uniformity in definitions, and research on co-creation is rarely based on strong theory (see De Koning, Crul, and Wever, 2016; Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2015). There are three dominant perspectives on co-creation in literature. First is the view of co-creation, positioned in design studies, as a mindset and method to empower and include end-use stakeholders as partners and decision makers in design, emphasizing democratic participation in design (Ehn, 1989; Sanders and Stappers, 2008; Binder, Brandt and Gregory, 2008; Vines et al., 2013; Davis and Andrew, 2017) but also as a tool in design processes (Sanders and Stappers, 2012). The second is positioned in innovation and management studies, and views co-creation as an approach to pool resources and sources of innovation by involving an ecosystem of actors, whose behaviours and interactions lead to system innovation outcomes (von Hippel, 1988; 2005; Piller, Ihl, and Vossen, 2011; Hyysalo, Juntunen, and Freeman, 2013). The third is positioned in economic and marketing studies, where co-creation is considered a fundamental form of economic exchange proposing that both producers and consumers co-create value through joint integration of resources (Lusch and Vargo, 2006; Malglio and Spohrer, 2008; Humpreys and Grayson, 2008; Vargo, 2011). Each school of thought depicts distinct manifestations of the concept where they are best in practicality, although they are all interrelated. In this thesis, co-creation is discussed through an interdisciplinary perspective, by positioning it in design and innovation while bridging those two literatures. This is done with the purpose of highlighting co-creation in order to enable a radically different form of involvement in design and development processes that ultimately drives collective change. 3.4.1 Co-creation in design: an approach to share design authorship From a design point of view, co-creation would be critical to new sustainable systems because it actively involves the people for whom the new systems designs are intended. It considers ways in which greater benefits can be obtained from new emerging relationships within a network of participants (e.g., designers, practitioners, users, and other stakeholders) through co-design (Gulari et al., 2011). Design disciplines make explicit the need to destabilize the power and control of designers over designs which other people are using/will use. This is motivated by the moral proposition that “the people whose activity and experiences will ultimately be affected most directly by a design outcome ought to have a substantive say in what that outcome is” (Caroll and Rosson 2007, p. 244). The view stems from periodic cycles of resurging interest and decline in design participation in the

22

last three decades of the 20th century4 (Binder, Brandt and Gregory, 2008), which challenged design that in approach excluded the voices of most or all users and also ignored many other stakeholders (Ehn, 1989; Binder, Brandt and Gregory, 2008)5. Instead of a model of the designer as the rational planner, there came the designer as reflective practitioner, reorienting how relationships between designs and users are conceived (in Schaban-Maurer, 2013, p. 91). When co-creating in design, people, as end-users, share control beyond the designer, elicit and share human expertise, and are motivated to change (Vines et al., 2013). First, be this explicit or indirect involvement, co-creation connotes ambitions to destabilize power structures in technologies where various groups are not often represented (ibid. p. 2). Second, it has been concerned also with ways of eliciting knowledge, values, and opinions from various stakeholders (ibid., p3). And third, it hopes to inspire some form of change through the design process by exposing it to end-users (ibid. p. 4). This is achieved by enabling people to reflect on current practices while articulating possible futures (Ehn, 1989; Rohracher et al., 2003), promoting an emancipatory view of participation where end-users use their voices to influence decision making (Bødker, 2003) and bring their interests into construction in design processes (in Hoffman, 2007). To co-create in design means to transfer ‘power to the people’, hence challenging the hegemonic views of technological development processes and design (Binder, Brandt and Gregory, 2008). Co-creation from a design perspective is thus increasingly seen as a way of distributing the decision-making process between several actors, particularly end-users, and causing change or transformation. As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, the presence of those for whom design is intended is increasingly emphasized in design disciplines, acknowledging people as experts of their own experience (Sanders and Stappers, 2008; 2014). This position is continuously being strengthened by the notion that “all people are creative; all people have ideas and can contribute to design processes that aim to improve their lives as well as the lives of others” (ibid. p. 7). It reshapes both our notion of design and how we regard users. It acknowledges and recognizes that “people want to be useful and creative and not just spend their time shopping, buying, and consuming (technology)” (Sanders and Stappers, 2012, p. 10). Co-creation from a design lens nurtures collective creativity, in which all people are seen as active and competent participants in design practice. Individuals can thus become active experimenters in their own everyday life practices while simultaneously developing new technological systems. In other words, people can be designers of their own everyday life and the things they will use to live more sustainably (e.g. Scott, Quist, and Bakker, 2009; 2012; Kuijer, 2014; Pettersen, 2015). Creativity and design authorship are transferred from professional designers to individuals who are ‘practicing everyday life’ (Scott, Bakker, and Quist, 2012; Jalas et al., 2017), and shared between actors. This view of co-creation draws upon Ivan Illich’s (1973; 1975) concept of ‘conviviality’. Illich published “Tools for Conviviality”, in which he discusses the dominant role of technocratic elites in industrial society and the need for developing new tools for the reconquest of practical knowledge by the average citizen. Illich wrote that "[e]lite professional groups...have come to exert a 'radical monopoly' on such basic human activities as health, agriculture, home-building, and learning, leading to a 'war on subsistence' that robs peasant societies of their vital skills and know-how. The result of much economic development is very often not human flourishing but

4 This began in the 1970s with two transformational moves towards design participation: the early participatory movement that began in Scandinavia and northern Europe, and a call from within the design research community “to design for society and include non-designers in design collaborations” (in Schaban-Maurer, 2013, p89). 5 The turning point in this critique was the Design Research Society's 1971 conference that called for design participation (Binder and others (2008)), where the conference was both an attempt to put design in the service of societal needs…and…more openly transparent design methods.

23

'modernized poverty', dependency, and an out-of-control system in which the humans become worn-down mechanical parts" (p. 10). According to Illich (1975, p. 21) most tools were not used in a convivial fashion. He proposed that to “give people tools that guarantee their right to work with independent efficiency”, we should “invert the present deep structure of tools6” (ibid.). Illich defined convivial tools in contrast to industrial tools since the latter denies its users the ability to infer or determine meaning and expectations. Based on Illich, Sanders and Stappers (2012) conceptualized tools as “man-made consequences of design and development processes” (p7). In this regard, convivial tools can then be interpreted as those giving each person who uses them the greatest opportunity to enrich their environment with the fruits of his or her vision (ibid). As Illich states, “people need not only obtain things, they need above all the freedom to make things among which they can live, to give shape to them according to their own tastes, and put them to use in caring for and about others” (1975, p. 11). This vision of Illich had significant influence on the first developers of the personal computer (Sanders and Stappers, 2012). Co-creation, under such thinking, also indicates a dynamic involvement of people in new sustainable systems design and development processes. First, they are actual co-creators actively participating as partners or collaborators in all stages of decision-making in moving toward sustainable alternatives. They challenge practices about how product and service innovation is to meet or transform ‘ways of doing’ (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). They are thus social participants in the creation of modes of living, doing, using, and consuming (Scott, Bakker, and Quist, 2012). This challenges the hegemonic view that novelty stems from professional designers and inventors. Second, they are the prime experimenters in their everyday lives while being augmented through design experimentation (in Jalas et al., 2017; Botero and Hyysalo, 2013). By offering a vision of an alternative future that better meets contextual needs, allowing such a design approach can expose people and communities to the limits of the designed artefacts, systems, and infrastructures of provision (Herrera et al., 2017). As Shove and Walker (2010) argue, “…in so far as desires, competencies and materials change as practices evolve, there are no technical innovations without innovations in practice. In other words, if new strategies and solutions in product or service development are to take hold, they have to become embedded in the details of daily life and through that the ordering of society” (p. 473). The consumption or use of material artefacts, e.g., technology products is itself a creative and innovative process (Franke and Shah, 2003). Jegou et al., (2009) for example note their design process includes propositions of different ways of organizing one’s domestic environment, questioning domestic practices, and enabling users to progressively re-invent their daily ways of living (p. 28). Hayes (2011) frames such an approach as an interventionist practice used to stimulate individual change through exposing new ideas, processes, and lenses that provoke change in users, and thus, potentially, society at large. Therefore, co-creation in design is increasingly associated with ways of democratically shaping design and its practice in how new products, services, and systems emerge, develop, and embed themselves in everyday life, by sharing reciprocal power relations, responsibility, and accountability. 3.4.2 Co-creation in innovation: a process to drive collective change From an innovation point of view, co-creation can be seen as a way of organizing human and non-human resources to bring about systems innovation. It links the interdependencies associated with innovation, in which multiple user- and non-user actors with different

6 Illich (1975) refers to tools as “all rationally designed devices including hardware, machines, procedures, productive institutions such as factories that produce tangible commodities like corn flakes or electric currents, and productive systems for intangible commodities such as those which produce ‘education’, ‘health’, ‘knowledge’, or ‘decisions’” (p. 20).

24

backgrounds pool resources, competences, and knowledge to enable radical system innovation. This is argued in the seminal work of Chesbrough (2003) on open innovation (OI), which describes a paradigm shift in innovation from a closed to an open system, where innovation is not solely performed internally within a firm, but in co-creation with other external actors (Fredberg et al. 2008; Reichwald and Piller 2009). Two key aspects from open innovation are relevant to the co-creation concept. First is the notion that external partners become peers with complementary and enriched internal R&D activities (Enkel, Gassmann, Chesbrough, 2009). Second, is the centrality of an open business modelling process which emerge as a meaningful framework enabling companies to become more efficient at creating and capturing value from innovation activities (ibid.). In this context, co-creation implies joint and collaborative activity by parties involved in direct interactions and aims to contribute to the value that emerges from one or both parties (Grönroos 2012, p. 1523). It is about sharing knowledge and exchanging resources, following the assumption that being open to ideas from the outside expands not only a firm’s knowledge base (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004), but also potentially its action, e.g., generating systems transition. The approach can be classified in terms of type of interactions or engagement between actors; e.g., co-creation within communities, inside companies and organisations, between companies and their business partners or other companies, between companies and people they serve (variously referred to as customers, consumers, users or end-users) (Sanders and Stappers, 2012). Co-creation in innovation is thus concerned with collaboration through an ecosystem of actors, while involving end-users as core stakeholders in innovation (von Hippel, 2005; Bogers, Afuah and Bastian, 2010; Piller, Ihl, and Vossen, 2010), communities, or crowds (Kozinets, Hemetsberger and Schau, 2008; Cova and Dalli, 2009), as well as external partners such as suppliers, competitors, the scientific system of university labs and research institutions, public authorities like patent agents and public funding agencies, and mediating parties like technology consultants, media, and conference organisers (Knudsen 2007; Tether and Tajar 2008; Piller, Ihl, and Vossen, 2011). Co-creation from an innovation point of view thus can be understood as an approach for multi-actor involvement and presence (Ceccagnoli et al., 2012), which opens individual and organizational efforts to innovation (Chesbrough, 2003). This goes beyond conventional contractual arrangements of organizing joint value creation since it involves new forms of value creation based on informal, non-contractual, flexible, and often short-term relationships (Piller, Ihl, and Vossen, 2011). Co-creation is not bound to firm-centric activity but rather represents a holistic concept which considers the firm as part of an ecosystem of actors in a value creation network. Co-creation from an innovation perspective can be described as a more exogenous process occurring via mutual stakeholder participation with the point of departure by one of the parties; e.g., firms, organizations, or individual users, although in practice it is often initiated by those developing innovation. A co-creative approach in innovation thus indicates a new collective process approach, where several distinct individual or community, organisational, and institutional actors can partake in developing and implementing complex-systems innovation. This defines a rather networked nature of innovation, where the combination of ideas, knowledge, and technology are compounded in an ecosystem. Such presence can be enacted through various means and methods, covering both physical and digital presences (e.g. open source databases i.e. Wikipedia) i.e. offline/online/both, long-term/onetime, etc. (Redlich, Moritz, Wulfsberg, 2019). Therefore, it can be argued that a developers’ boundaries must be porous enough to facilitate the exchange of ideas, concepts, or prototypes, whether it is an outside-in or inside-out exchange. This is because distinct actors can also gain new opportunities in accessing and utilizing information, knowledge, competencies, and resources or other assets traditionally outside of their direct control (Chesbrough, 2006). Co-creation thus activates distinct actors simultaneously (Piller, Ihl,

25

and Vossen, 2010; Grönroos 2012), meaning actors are present (although this can occur at various stages) and actively contribute. Such mechanisms would support transition to new sustainable systems by challenging the lock-in of individual and organizational actors to existing practices, because it necessitates the creation of new relationships, thus maximizing learning and the potential for change. 3.4.3 Towards co-creation as an approach to sustainable systems transition Subsequently, co-creation implies more than ‘making something together’. At its most basic, co-creation implies sharing power and responsibility in the design and development of new sustainable systems and the transition thereof. Actors involved in co-creation share equal agency and a sense of ownership in the process of resolving issues, especially with regard to alternative systems that may affect them directly or indirectly (Saunders, 2018). This fundamentally changes the social framework underlying existing relationships; e.g., institutional, organizational, and individual actors, as well as the traditional unequal distribution of agency based on political and economic power. In addition, there are worldviews, perceptions, and knowledge contained by different stakeholders, which when brought together can influence the social legitimacy of decision making for sustainable systems development; create more holistic understandings of shared responsibilities in informing policy, technology development and implementation, and service delivery (public or private); and increase trust between actors, leading to potential changes at the system level (Itten et al., 2020). As such, the concept has both prescriptive and descriptive characteristics (ibid., p. 23). The first takes a normative perspective, where it suggests improvements on relationships between various actors. And the second defines how we use our knowledge of the world to enable us to design the world in a particular way. The approach thus seeks to reveal, explore, and understand worldviews and perceptions held by different actors (Itten et al., 2020). And it recognizes individuals as experts of their own reality (Ambole et al., 2019), because they participate in a practice on an everyday basis and they are expert performers of social practices (Bueger, 2014), hence their worldviews are inherent to new systems. At the core is the aspect of involving actors whose expertise can be calibrated within the group. In co-creation, everyday people are considered to have more control, access to information, and responsibility, and are given a more equal role in decision making, i.e., they are seen as partners (Itten et al., 2020). Co-creation thus, while it occurs, constitutes a flat ontology wherein its participants are mutually evolving toward transforming existing, if outdated, systems into more sustainable ones. Based on these theoretical insights, I conceptualize co-creation as an intertwining and immersive approach to transition. Co-creation immerses its participants, and therefore generates new input and outcomes with each iteration. Hence, it promotes new roles and new forms of agency at the societal level, challenging the hegemonic view of technological innovation practices and existing human practices, but also ensuring shared responsibility and accountability over technological solutions. When involved in co-creating design and development of sustainable systems, people (within and outside public and private organizations) share similar power and agency on activities, processes, and strategic direction of innovations. In the context of sustainable systems, this may be a more effective way to transition given the complexity, multiplicity, and multi-dimensionality of sustainable systems (Köhler et al., 2019). The core argument lies in that through co-creative approaches, both people and design influence and are influenced reciprocally, therefore bringing about a virtuous transformation toward sustainability objectives.

26

Figure 3: Co-creation as intertwinement and immersion 3.5 Co-creation and the role of voluntary motivation To enable co-creation, participants need to be involved. This indicates that motivations to do so may play a role in determining the mode and quality of involvement. There are various factors motivating involvement in co-creation processes. In general, factors motivating involvement can be classified by intention and purpose; either material, immaterial, or normative. Hoyer et al., 2010, (p. 288-289) found several material and immaterial factors which he categorised into a) monetary and nonmonetary costs of time, resources, physical and psychological effort to learn and participate in the co-creation process; b) financial rewards, either directly, in the form of monetary prizes or profit sharing (directly or indirectly); c) social benefits from titles or other forms of recognition that a firm might bestow on particularly valuable contributors; d) desire to gain technology (or product/service) knowledge; and finally e) psychological reasons, but these remain poorly understood. However, his study mainly involved co-creation initiated by a firm and between its product users. Agrawal and Rahman (2015) found more immaterial motivations like reputation, self-development, and altruism as key motivating factors for users in contributing to value co-creation processes (Agrawal and Rahman, 2015). Factors seem to differ depending on the type of design and development process. In new product development, end-users, for example, are motivated to participate when they see the opportunity to actually shape products according to their needs or desires (Hoffman, 2007). In the case of software development, studies found human capital, self-marketing, and personal factors to be more important (Hars and Ou, 2002). In social innovation processes, the education level of individual citizens, family structures, and personal characteristics act as factors that influence willingness to participate (Sundeen, 1988; Voorberg et al., 2015). A sense of ownership and the perceived ability of citizens to participate is also highlighted by these authors. Similarly, a sense of responsibility was also found to motivate people to apply effort into improving public services (Talsma and Molenbroek, 2012). However, these authors suggested that people need to feel it is their responsibility, and also need to be aware of how and where they can exert influence. In sustainability-oriented innovations, studies have shown that involvement is also motivated by user’s ethical concerns, such as environmental protection, energy saving, regional development, or health issues (Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2003; Ornetzeder et al., 2003). Additionally, intrinsic values, like loyalty, civic duty, and the wish to improve one’s community were shown to increase the willingness of citizens to participate in eco-tourism (Wise, Paton, and Gegenhuber, 2012). When looking at motivations for citizen involvement in policy, for example, Fischer (2000) notes that these occur at the same time that citizens witness disturbing declines in democratic practices at home; e.g. reduced voting, ordinary citizens’ distrust of all levels of government, the shrinking of the middle-class and increasing poverty, rampant political

27

corruption, and decreased transparency as well as accountability of political processes (in the U.S.) (in Schaban-Maurer, 2013). However, specific drivers motivating involvement in co-creation are still poorly understood (Hoyer et al., 2010; Doorn et al., 2010). Additionally, it is not very clear how motivations affect the quality of involvement, e.g. in terms of intensity level in contributing to a process. Hoffman (2007) argued that the greater the involvement with the product, the more people will be motivated to take part in its development and will subsequently have more knowledge about the product and its related problems. Nevertheless, to sustain citizen involvement, some research argues that citizens need to be motivated to achieve goals through collective action (Ostrom, 1996). This implies that citizens need to be able to engage and initiate several projects (Schafft and Brown, 2000). Examples of these are infrastructure projects in Brazil or the community of Hungarian Romas (ibid.). Another factor pointed out by Voorberg et al. (2015) is that having trust in the co-creation initiative is critical for citizens to develop robust commitment. For example, in the case of healthcare innovation, patients once showed risk-averse attitude toward co-creation processes (Lachmund, 1998). At the same time, the ability to contribute to feasible ideas can be affected by the users’ knowledge about the technology on which a product or service is based (Magnusson, 2009). Further, some literature suggests that relatively few individuals will be willing to be fully engaged, among which key segments have been identified as innovators (the earliest to adopt new products), lead users (those who face needs that will eventually be general in the marketplace) (von Hippel 1986), emergent consumers (those capable of improving product concepts through intuition and judgement) (Hoffman, Kopalle, and Novak 2010); and, market mavens (those with information about many kinds of products and other facets of the market able to initiate discussions about new products) (Feick and Price 1987) (cf. Hoyer et al., 2010). However, more research is needed on typologies that are specifically tailored to co-creation (ibid). Furthermore, research is lacking in revealing when people are motivated to engage in and appreciate co-creation, and, when they are not, as well as on impediments to the co-creation process (Hoyer et al., 2010; Barile et al., 2020). 3.6 Co-creation processes and outcomes Co-creation processes are not well founded regarding how they are enacted. There are challenges of going into co-creation and defining involvement strategy, particularly when complexity is added by perceived risk to budget and timelines due to uncertainty associated with feedback loops in co-creation processes (Davis and Andrew, 2017). Furthermore, co-creative processes can be perceived as infeasible due to perceived impracticalities, costs, and time limitations as noted both in policy making, design, innovation, and urban projects (Schaban-Maurer, 2013; Flinders et al., 2016; Itlen et al., 2020). Vines et al. (2013) further argue that the context in which participation is initiated affect both the quality of involvement as well as who it is that gets involved. In addition, challenges involve difficulties in managing expectations and agendas, aims and goals of the actors, and power dynamics, which lead to questions as to the validity and pragmatism of this approach (Itten et al., 2020). Managing co-creation is said to be difficult when faced with lack of cooperation or negative perception by users, conflicts and management problems, or costs of user training (Bano and Zowghi, 2014). Moreover, there are impediments for co-creation between developers, users, and other stakeholders. Literature identifies concerns about secrecy during product development and launch stages, and flags ownership of intellectual property as a critical point (Hoyer et al., 2010). Finally, knowledge management in co-creation processes can be a key challenge in harnessing opportunities that emerge from such ecosystems, e.g., information flow can be ambiguous, there can be large input volumes leading to information overload, and inadequate management of information (Hoyer et al., 2010). Adapting each industry context may be most suitable in determining methods of user involvement (Heiskanen

28

and Lovio, 2010). Thus, how co-creation processes are carried can also imply challenges in management. However, some argue that it is the inherent nature of co-creation that is difficult to structure, systematize, and organise. Co-creation processes are emergent by nature and a generic model does not yet exist. For example, De Koning, Crul, and Wever (2016) suggest that a comprehensive understanding of the co-creation concept and its related models is lacking. Given the lack of clarity in the co-creative process, the generated impacts of co-creation appear blurry in the literature. A few studies suggest that there is a lack of evidence on the impact of co-creation; e.g., changes in behaviour, policy, and technology development or integration (Hoyer et al., 2010; Gagliardi et al., 2016). Outcomes, although perceived to be positive, are not empirically supported. For example, according to a review by Itten et al., (2020), co-creation with multiple actors leads to changes at individual and organizational levels, broader focus shifts at the structural level, increased trust between people, and a more holistic understanding of the shared responsibilities in informing policy, technology development and implementation, and service delivery (public or private). However, a review by Voorberg et al., (2015) suggested that empirical research has not convincingly demonstrated the benefits of co-creation and outcomes of co-creation remain topics for further research. Fischer et al. (2020) suggested that involvement in co-creation leads to learning, improving design outcomes, and a sense of participation. However, they also suggested that it does not necessarily affect the social adoption of new technologies or lead to changes in behaviour. At the same time, it is critical to assess the actual potential of co-creation. For example, Perng (2019) suggests that the vision for an inclusive and collaborative future into practices of technology making, or ‘shared technology making’ and its possibilities emerge from disrupting technocratic visions and repurposing corporate innovation resources and techniques. In doing so it challenges “the political economy of innovation and transforms technology making into one that is open to all, informed by diverse knowledges and perspectives, and led by citizens” (ibid., p. 2). Despite its potential, according to Perng (2019), what is engineered tends to be neoliberal citizenship because people are actively engaged in generating data, providing feedback, and submitting problem proposals, while they are under the control of the privatization of urban infrastructures, services, places, and issues (ibid., p. 4). In addition, they engender entrepreneurial citizenship inhibiting possibilities of technology tinkering for societal purposes (ibid., p. 4). Hence, the theoretical and practical re-orientations aimed at examining possibilities for multiple ideals, actors, and institutions to be involved in the design and development of new sustainable systems, although necessary, remain unclear. 3.7 Aim and research questions These critical aspects indicate key gaps in co-creation research, which have led to the formulation of the aim and research questions raised in this thesis. The aim of this thesis therefore is to study involvement of multiple actors in the co-creation and process of new sustainable systems design and development, as well as invest them in the potential outcomes of such an approach to transition. This aim is motivated both by the challenges attached to the development of sustainable transport systems as presented in chapter 2 and gaps in research with regards to co-creation as described and critically analysed in chapter 3. To this end, the following research question has been formulated to guide the thesis, with three sub-questions designed to support empirical data collection: Main RQ: How does co-creation in design and development of sustainable systems support transition? SRQ1: How are people involved and in what ways do they contribute to the co-creation of sustainable systems? SRQ2: Which drivers motivate end-users’ and other stakeholders’ involvement in co-creation? SRQ3: What factors support or inhibit the process of co-creation and what outcomes can be expected?

29

4 Method This thesis is rooted in inter- and transdisciplinary studies (Robinson, 2008) and complex systems thinking (Hester and Adams, 2014). The motivation stems from the type of inquiry itself, which is sustainability-oriented issues that are considered contested, complex, and wicked social issues (Geels, 2011), mainly about the future (Robinson, 2008), involving complex problem solving (Funke, 1991), requiring investigation at multiple levels including descriptive, normative and operational, while also demanding transformative knowledge (Hadorn et al., 2003). This justifies the explicit need for the integration of facts and values or ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ factors and perspectives into systems of inquiry (Jonas, 2014; Hester and Adams, 2014). Hard, here may include objectivity, unitary viewpoints, and quantitative assessments, and, soft may include subjectivity, pluralistic perspectives, and qualitative assessment (Hester and Adams, 2014, p. 28). The researcher’s job is to recognize that such knowledge is difficult to achieve using only one lens, one observer, and one method. Thus, the observations, knowledge, information, and worldviews held by various other actors are not just relevant but also necessary to knowledge production (Hadorn et al., 2003; Robinson, 2004), which also demand different methods of inquiry. The transgression into various ‘containers of knowledge’ enabled researchers to harness other insights and observations (including non-human subjects, i.e., sensing technology) in gathering and producing research knowledge. The point of departure is in the ‘real world’ issues and then moving into the arena of scholarly knowledge (Robinson, 2008, p. 71). To do so, the approach of this research has been to take research outside conventional laboratory experiments into experiments situated in the actual living and working environments of people living their everyday lives and uses this context as a basis for inquiry.

30

4.1 From laboratory to the living laboratory experiment The research presented in this thesis is comprised of cumulative work done within three research projects between 2015 and 2021, presented in Table 1 below. Three7 of these projects were set up as living laboratory experiments, taking inspiration from the approaches of Ståhlbröst (2013), Nevens et al., (2013), Liedke et al., (2012), Scott, Quist, and Bakker (2009), Almirall and Wareham (2008), Følstad (2008), Eriksson et al., (2005), although quite distinct in setup design. Unlike classical laboratory experiments, wherein research studies try to minimize variance of all or nearly all possibly influential independent variables not pertinent to the immediate problem of the investigation (Kerlinger, 1986, p. 367), a living laboratory suggests the opposite. In behavioural science research, laboratory research is usually undertaken to enable control over variables in one or more of the three classes: actors, behaviours, and contexts (mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories) (Ilgen, 1985). Yet, this control is purchased at a price since laboratory experiments, by their very nature, cannot create designs that truly represent all, or even most, of the conditions present in naturally occurring settings (Bekowits and Donnerstein, 1982). Subjects almost always know they are being studied, and that the setting is experimental, and the setting tends to be highly artificial (Fisher, 1984). The fact that it is isolated from real-life interactions may nullify or even reverse conclusions reached in the laboratory. Hence, these studies often lack external validity (Griffin and Kacmar, 1991). The living laboratory, on the other hand, moves research and development out of laboratories into the field; i.e., into real-life contexts and settings (Følstad, 2008; Ballon and Schuurman, 2015). The phrase ‘living’ defines the nature of the experiment being carried in environments and contexts that are similar to a real living environment, and are set up and designed to be so. Real-user environment settings enable a space for research, design, and innovation with a focus on ‘real everyday life’. Control is forgone in exchange for gaining the naturalness of the field setting. Although it is often referred to as an environment, tool, or method, as well as a design and innovation approach (Eriksson et al., 2005; Hossain et al., 2019), in this thesis, the living lab is used first as a designed research environment to explore new systems in the context of everyday life and as a research method. The living lab represents a transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary research methodology (Geibler et al. 2014), for sensing, prototyping, validating, and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real-life contexts (Eriksson et al., 2005). It aims to generate knowledge about human behaviour and practices through building and deploying designed artefacts (Krogstie, 2012, in Herrera 2017, p. 10). The living laboratory can be set up to try out new alternative sustainable systems from ideation, design, development, and even by embedding them in societal contexts (Hossain et al., 2019). It explicitly takes an open approach to innovation processes by aiming to involve multiple relevant stakeholders in co-creation (Bergvall-Kåreborn, Hoist, and Ståhlbröst, 2009; Hossain et al., 2019). One primary objective, but also a strength, of living laboratory experiments is they allow an understanding of society’s technological requirements and the social impacts of innovation as they occur in real life (Hakkarainen and Hyssalo, 2013). This is shown to be a relevant approach when solving societal challenges such as sustainability (Hossain et al., 2019). Our objectives with the living laboratory experiments were to co-creatively design potentially sustainable system solutions and simultaneously learn about user practices that can emerge from them.

7 In the KTH Mobility Pool living lab, I have been directly involved from setting up the experiment to final evaluations. In the REBUS living lab, I have been collaborating with researchers during analysis. And, in the KTH Liv-In Lab, I have been involved during evaluation and writing of Paper VI.

31

Table 1: Description of the living lab projects

32

4.2 The experimental approach First, in this research, the living laboratory experiments were set in everyday life context such as places and spaces where people carry out their everyday lives. Researchers were immersed in people’s daily lives. So, participants’ everyday life was the subject inquiry in the living labs mainly because it is democratic, as it recognizes the paramount shared reality of a mundane material embeddedness in the world; e.g. everyone eats, sleeps, yawns, defecates (Felski, 1999, p. 15), and it is the area or scene of social action, where daily life manifests (Sztompka, 2008, p. 9-10; Collins, 2004, p. 4). Some participants carried out their everyday life ‘immersed’ in the proto-design and some engaged around the proto-design, and some were merely observing, passively.

Figure 3: KTH Mobility Pool system blueprint (Sopjani et al., 2020)

Figure 4: REBUS system blueprint (Catulli et al., 2020)

33

Figure 5: KTH Live-in-Lab: Testbed KTH and Testbed EM (Malakhatka et al., 2021)

Second, the three living labs have aimed to explore different perspectives on sustainable socio-technical systems. The focus of explorations has been multi-dimensional, namely on user practices, behaviour change, sustainability performance, as well as business models, new concepts and use applications. The approach taken was that new sustainable socio-technical systems cannot be fully anticipated, are ambiguous, include present and future impacts, and need continuous adaptation and social learning (Robinson 2003; 2004). Thus, new systems can be brought into everyday life as suggested proto-designs stimulating new proto-practices. ‘Proto’ denotes something new and in the making, unfinished, or about to become (Håkonsen, 2007). In this thesis, new sustainable systems are referred as ‘proto-designs’ to denote their unfinished features, that they are not-yet commercially available, or not-yet embedded in society. ‘Practice’ denotes a set of actions with a certain degree of coherence and systematic repetition (ibid. p. 13) constituted of material stuff (the proto-designs), meanings, and competencies (Shove et al., 2012; Kuijer, 2014). Taken together, these refer to the simultaneous processes of changing and stabilizing ways of thinking and doing, i.e., ‘a first-time situation,’ implying a situation where people involved develop immediate/first-hand knowledge (Håkonsen, 2007, p. 12-16). Proto-designs are used here as Håkonsen (2007, p. 15) suggests—as ‘thinking and doing devices’, which help to outline what might be important qualities of new sustainable systems and practice formation as they occur in everyday life. Hence, the approach is meant to appreciate the experimental and ‘unfinished features’ of a potential ‘solution’ (ibid.). A proto-practice is brought as a ‘suggestion’ into the real world, successively and recursively refined through feed-in and feedback loops (Lynn et al., 1996; Gross, 2010). Third, the approach was experimental and generative in character. It was inspired by the need to generate evidence-based and creative solutions to intractable environmental problems (Ansell and Bartenberger, 2016). The approach is characterized by a process of generating and iteratively refining both problem understanding and solutions in a continuous feedback loop orchestrated among several distinct and actively-participating actors. This would relate closely to what Donald Schön portrayed as “act in order to see what action leads to, with the most fundamental experimental question ‘What if?’” (1983, p. 145). Such a methodology approaches the needs of exploration and action simultaneously. The logic behind this is not aimed at discerning causal mechanisms but rather at stimulating the generation of knowledge around emerging relationships between people, places, and products/services. Hence, carrying out such experiments entails a distinct ‘designerly’8 mode of agency (see Sjöman and Hesselgren, 2020), where researchers and designers act as facilitators namely ‘creating proposals’ as Binder et al (2015) put it. Both the invitation and the event (of the experiment) thus depend on the ability to craft a proposal that prompts participation (ibid.). In this research, this is done by explicitly and attentively inviting or

8 This is sometimes framed as a form of activist or engaged scholarship, which aims to understand the root causes of societal challenges and issues and looks to transform those conditions (Torres, 2018; Hale, 2001).

34

making participation possible for diverse and relevant actors to co-create those unfinished features. Such work makes issues experientially available to an extent that ‘the possible’ becomes tangible, formable, and within the reach of engaged yet diverse actors (Binder et al., 2015). In a way, it resembles action research (AR) (Lewin, 1947), given many similarities in the process, e.g., researchers “studying social systems while changing them” (Heale 2003, p. 4); the critical, participatory and emancipatory (Heale, 2003, Robson, 2011) as well as “democratic enquiry” (Greenwood and Levin, 2007, p. 72); real world context (Argyris and Schon 1989, Heale 2003); and, learning by doing while aiming to cause change (Heale, 2003; Mehta et al., 2004). Fourth, the approach aimed to include diverse participants in co-creating, implementing, and testing concepts. The three living labs were set up as consortium projects and co-creation was initiated by researchers or the academic institution, while including multiple public and private stakeholders e.g., industrial partners, municipalities, and other organisations. Here all actors engaged with the potential new system are recruited as ‘experts’ of their present practice—defined as someone who is or has been participating in a practice on an everyday basis (Bueger, 2014), and through involvement in the new material/spatial and technical configuration, they can come to know and be exposed to how their practices might be also innovated. So, participants are direct experimenters and contributors in the process. The end-user participants, in particular, are ‘living’ with the proto-designs for a period of time in the hope of seeing possibilities for change in their everyday lives. In other words, the approach is to engage diverse individuals to turn their own everyday lives into a temporary ‘experiment’ through the support of potentially-sustainable hardware and software combinations, e.g. light electric vehicles as opposed to private cars. Scott, Bakker, and Quist (2012) framed this approach as “designing change by living change” turning the focus of design to how users can be collaboratively engaged in the deconstruction of present practice and the formation of more sustainable practices in their own everyday lives (p. 285–286), while simultaneously improving the design. Table 2 shows the characteristics of the process in each living lab.

35

Table 2: Characteristics of the process in three cases

36

4.3 Data collection methods and analysis A mixed-methods research design was employed in each living lab (Creswell, 2003; Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007; Hesse-Biber, 2010; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011), using both qualitative and quantitative methods (Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). This was done by integrating methods during both data collection and data analysis (Östlund et al., 2011), which were most suitable for conducting research. The first goal is to understand the problem from multiple angles (Creswell, 2003; Hesse-Biber, 2015). The second is that the nature of the research inquiry required me to utilize different methods of data collection. The third goal is to improve the validity and reliability of research (Abowitz and Toole, 2010). The research process employed strategies of inquiry that involved collecting data either simultaneously (in parallel) or sequentially (ibid.), e.g., combining one qualitative and one quantitative method in a single research project (Hesse-Biber, 2015). As will be explained below, study data was integrated at some stage of the research process, whether during collection, analysis or at the interpretative stage of the research (Kroll and Neri, 2009). The research tools used are a combination of computer-generated data, questionnaires, interviews, workshops, and user diaries. Using one method over others would have been limiting, given the inherent strengths and weaknesses of each method (Abowitz and Toole, 2010). This is particularly true for studies concerning topics involving human subjects (ibid.), where a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches is recommended whenever possible to counterbalance strengths and weaknesses (Hesse-Biber, 2011). Using multiple methods to study a problem was therefore preferable, to enable richer and more comprehensive data (Neuman, 2000) and develop new perspectives (Hesse-Biber, 2010). Table 2 below gives an overview of the data collection methods used in each paper appended to this thesis. The following sections describe in detail the each living lab methodological setup briefly, following description of methods and how they relate to each paper.

Table 3: Overview of the appended papers

37

4.3.1 Papers I-IV data collection methods and analysis 1. Sensor technology-generated data Sensor technologies were used in data collection as a method of generating quantitative data about system usage. First, log sensors with a telematic device9 were installed in each vehicle, coupled with RFID10 cards, as well as a smartphone application, all of which were connected to a digital platform (IoT11). The IoT system sensed and captured data about vehicle behaviour, user behaviour, and the vehicle pool, which was sent to a cloud, where the data was further processed and analysed. The sensors would capture real-time system data usage, such as frequency of vehicle use, trips and bookings, duration of journeys, kilometres driven, locations, and purpose specified by participants when booking the trip. Data was reported cumulatively each week by the mobility provider for the whole duration of the living lab. Written consent was obtained from participants to allow collection of this data for the duration of the living lab. This was necessary since data was tracked from the vehicles, smart card, and the mobile application during the whole period. However, this data only enabled quantitative insights into users’ everyday behaviour, thus we combined this data with qualitative methods to obtain explanations about behavioural patterns and users. This dataset was used in Papers I and II. 2. Questionnaire An initial questionnaire with open-ended questions was used to survey all research participants at both sites, who also participated in qualitative interviews. The objective was to gather insights into both user and non-user behaviour. Questionnaires were used prior to interviews with all those who participated in our research at both living lab sites. The questionnaire collected socio-demographic data about individuals and their characteristics, such as a) car ownership and commuting patterns, b) pro-environmental behaviour, and c) previous knowledge about electric vehicles and carsharing. This was necessary to serve as a basis for comparing user behaviour changes at the end of the living lab. The workplaces provided contact data on other employees who had only tested the service once during the demo days but had not registered to use the service. This data was used in Papers I and II. 3. Interviews Semi-structured in-depth interviews were used throughout the living lab period to gather data from diverse users, non-users, and organisational and institutional actors at different periods, although different questions were administered, given the diversity of actors. Interviews were conducted primarily face-to-face at the workplaces, with some by phone. The interviews lasted 40–60 minutes depending on the type of actor. Interviews were considered the most appropriate method for gathering contextual, perceptual, and experiential information from actors. With the main study subjects, such as the 16 individual households, we designed a longitudinal interview study exploring how everyday travel practice was modified in three consecutive periods: before, during (after three months), and after the trial (after six months), following guidelines by Ployhart and Vandenberg (2010). As the main approach to these interviews was to understand changes as they were experienced by the participants, the question set was repeated consecutively, with additional questions added as the study progressed. This data is reported in Paper I. With the rest of the research participants, such as daily users and non-users, we designed a two-time interview to be conducted when they first registered as members and then at the end of the living lab. However, we succeeded in obtaining only one interview, as lack of participant availability caused difficulties

9 Telematics is a mix of telecommunications and informatics, and by nature requires the capture, storage, and exchange of sensor data to obtain remote services (Duri et al., 2004). It is considered a subset of IoT since it deploys integrated sensors to obtain certain data in near real-time. A telematics device for vehicles is referred to as a ‘black box’ and contains the following components: a GPS receiver, accelerometer, engine interface, a SIM card, a buzzer, and the expander port. 10 RFID – Radio Frequency Identification 11 IoT – Internet of Things

38

in follow-up. These interviews were focused on individual experiences with the new system since its introduction at the workplaces and participants’ engagement. This data is reported in Paper I. Moreover, for institutional and organisational actors involved in the project, we conducted individual interviews to study their engagement experience in working with diverse partners outside their organisations. These actors represented their respective organisations, as they come from high-level of decision-making positions. This data is reported in Paper III. 4. Workshops Throughout the living lab, workshops (Ørngreen and Levinsen, 2017) were facilitated between researchers, user participants, institutional actors, and organisational actors in the project. These sessions had the intention of generating possible refinements of the product-service system from the user, the host organisations, service and product provider, and real-environment input, to co-create insights and understanding as well as to generate action and direction for the living lab. Each workshop was designed for a specific purpose: to immerse respective actors in generating input for the innovation, reflecting on insights and lessons learned, and making collaborative decisions. In addition, each workshop built on the previous one, considering each actor’s perspective—feed-in and feedback, as the project progressed. The participating actors shared insights about their respective role and actions. Several design methods were used for each workshop to elicit input and engage participants in conversation, namely trigger sensitizing material, persona building, user journey maps, data reports, audio-visual materials and post-it notes (Stickdorn & Schneider 2010; Sanders and Stappers, 2012; 2008). Details about tools used in workshops carried out at the start of the living lab can be found in Sopjani (2015), while those used during the living lab can be found in Hesselgren et al. (2017). These tools were used to explore areas that were critical but difficult to capture, such as daily life situations with the system. Workshops took place in several locations, such as the living lab sites (host organisations), at the university research lab, and at the offices of the private organisations. Workshop data can be found in Papers II and IV. 5. Observations at test sites Test sites were visited regularly by one of the researchers. The main purpose of on-site observations was to monitor overall technical functioning of the mobility system and also explore day-to-day situations at the workplaces through informal interactions with the employees working there, with the information desk staff, and with site managers. These observations were useful for gaining insights into other aspects that may influence system use, e.g., vehicle maintenance, which could have influenced the overall user experience. Of course, it was impossible to control for all variables in the living lab, and technical problems emerged throughout the experiment, e.g., changing vehicle tyres in the winter, smart card not functioning, vehicle not starting, etc., all of which were noted by the researchers. These were used to support Paper II. 6. User diaries User diaries were provided to the caretaker users for a period of one week to capture irregularities and day-to-day experiences that could not be captured in other ways. This data was used to support analysis of driving patterns and travel mode choice, since users could choose their own preferred mode despite having access to the new system. This was necessary to capture the effect of substitution during the environmental impact assessment as well as to elicit at-the-spot user experience, which we were unable to capture through the other methods. The diary was prepared by the research team to enable easy tracking for the user. This data was used as complementary data in Paper II.

39

7. Periodic stakeholder meetings Periodic meetings were held throughout the entire duration of the living lab. In these meetings, each stakeholder involved was usually present and minutes were taken by the project manager, noting information such as actors present, summary of news, activities completed, tasks and next action points. As these were noted digitally, all of the project meeting notes could be traced and tracked and were organised chronologically as a map. This data was primarily used to support the analysis of the co-creation process since most events could be traced from this data. However, it was used as secondary data, as the researchers were involved directly which may have resulted in perceptual biases being present. This data is reported in Paper III and IV. Data analysis For the analysis, datasets were first explored individually to find patterns. Depending on the data method, various platforms were used to conduct the analysis. IBM Watson analytics and Tableau Software were used to run analytics and visualize large datasets from sensor reports to provide descriptive statistics. Details of this data analysis can be found in Gurdur and Sopjani (2017). During analysis, this data was used for two purposes. One was to measure the impact of driving lightweight vehicles to perform a life-cycle assessment and environmental impact assessment. Second, this data was used as trigger material during workshops with stakeholders to engage them in conversations and reflections. This data also helped validate the qualitative data, especially in usage rate, since participants reported more elaborative answers during interviews. The sensor report data also allowed us to distinguish between users/non-users in terms of system use frequency. Based on this data, user engagement and behaviours could be identified, making it possible to select a sample group from the whole user pool to investigate further. Microsoft Excel was used for questionnaire analysis to see demographic patterns of the research participants and support the qualitative analysis. Nvivo, Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word were used for interview analysis. To structure interview data analytically, several frameworks for qualitative data analysis were used, such as Silverman (2013; 2011), Braun and Clarke (2006) and King (2004). For longitudinal interviews, systematic content analysis was most suitable (Bhattacherjee, 2012), with the support of various theoretical frameworks that guided analysis, as presented in the appended papers. For other interviews, grounded theory was most appropriate (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), using open, axial, and selective coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) until theoretical saturation was reached. As workshops and user diaries contained qualitative data, physical boards were used to map the findings based on thematic content (Sørensen et al., 2010). On-site observations, user diaries, and periodic stakeholder meetings were used as secondary data to support the analysis, except for user diaries, which were also used directly for environmental system assessment. They were quite relevant in making sense of the data during the analysis stage. Once all data was structured and organised, data triangulation and integration were performed to bridge gaps, make inferences, and validate results (Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007; Östlund et al., 2011; Creswell and Plano Klark, 2011). In addition, the research team analysed individual datasets independently and discussed the insights generated to further validate the analysis.

4.3.2 Paper V data collection methods and analysis 1. Interviews Semi-structured in-depth interviews were used as the main qualitative method throughout the REBUS project to gather data from users in their everyday consumption context. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in the participants’ homes. A link on the charity website led to the research recruitment website. The main approach of these interviews was to gather data on parent practices and the meanings attributed to the PSS. Interviews were considered the most appropriate method for gathering broader contextual, perceptual, and experiential information from users. Interviews were largely informed by three theoretical frameworks to guide the data

40

gathering process, i.e. Consumer Culture Theory (CCT), Practice Theory (PT), and Personal Construct Psychology (PCP). These were chosen because they supported research inquiry in relation to understanding their everyday life, e.g., changes in the way a product is consumed and used during the daily routine. The interviews probed how participants said they used car seats and pushchairs to project an image and gain social acceptance from peers. At the same time, interviews explored how the use of car seats and pushchairs on rent or lease fit in with the consumers’ other social practices. 2. Survey The Repertory Grid Technique (RGT) research method was used to gather quantitative and qualitative data from a larger sample, since the technique enables both types of data collection in the same instrument. This is the most well-known method of personal construct psychology (PCP) (Kelly, 1955; Winter and Neimeyer, 2015), which was used to supply some theoretical constructs to explain user behaviour. PCP methods are used to understand why people behave the way they do in the present and how they might behave in the future. The focus of this method was to explore how consumers construe different ways of acquiring infant mobility products. This was administered online through Qualtrics’ website, and participants were recruited through an email link sent to members of the parental charity. Participants were self-selecting here, though, and the sample size was considered relatively small and lacked representation. Extensive details about this method can be found in Catulli et al. (2020). 3. Workshops In this living lab, workshops were used both at the start and at the end of the project. Workshops were facilitated between collaborating actors, e.g., the companies, the parental charity, and the logistics company. The intention of the first sessions was to steer stakeholders through discussions on lessons learned and insights generated, while the last sessions aimed to discuss findings and outcomes for stakeholders. The workshops collected qualitative data. However, sales and other data were also collected as a follow-up to the workshops. These workshops had their own limitations, as the researchers conducting the workshops were involved with the organisation and hence issues of perceptual bias may be present. 4. Periodic stakeholder meetings Periodic meetings of the steering committee (including representatives of collaborative parties) were planned at the design stage of the project. These meetings were held to assess progress, formulate strategies, and generate new objectives and questions. Representatives in the project attended most of these meetings and had an opportunity to contribute to reflection and planning. Project statistics, such as the number of products leased and lost by that point, were presented at these meetings. Data analysis In the REBUS living lab, datasets were explored individually due to the diversity of the methods, the different objectives of each method, and the theoretical assumptions underpinning each method. Data analysis was performed separately, and, in some cases, different members of the research team performed the analysis. First, interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then analysed in NVivo. For the analysis of interviews, two theoretical frameworks, as presented above, were applied as these offered views of how users conceptualize new solutions influencing their identity, the value they want to extract from them, and how these solutions blend into the various practices of their everyday life. The survey using Repertory Grid Technique (RGT) was analysed through the analytical tool SPSS v.22. Workshops were digitally recorded and independently transcribed by an agency. These recordings are evidence of due diligence in research. This data was then analysed using NVivo. A dialogue or juxtaposition (Hammersley

41

2008) was conducted between the three sets of results in the inferences made. In addition, the research team discussed insights generated by these different data streams. These discussions had to take place in order to compare data and insights, as well as to ensure generation of a coherent analysis. 4.3.3 Paper VI data collection methods and analysis Since this living lab is ongoing, only Paper VI’s method is presented here. Paper VI focuses on the co-creation process of KTH Live-In Lab during the service concept design phase in the context of the home environment. This paper defines the conceptual basis of a co-creation methodology. First the paper frames the theoretical boundaries from the perspective of new service development theory, since this relates to the purpose of co-creating service concepts. Second, it builds on two theoretical constructs of co-creation from design and innovation disciplines to create a conceptual framework for analysis. The paper then conceptualizes the living lab construct by distinguishing it between the living lab as an environment, emphasizing the real-life aspect of a multi-stakeholder setting; and the living lab as an approach, emphasizing co-creation activities or user-centric methods. Based on these conceptual lenses, the study then presents the case of KTH Live-In Lab and analyses its process first from the perspective of innovation co-creation, where three key aspects are investigated, namely a) stakeholder involvement process and type, b) end-user involvement process and methods, and c) openness and ownership strategy in terms of actor co-creation and participation. The paper then goes on to analyse the case from the perspective of co-creation as design, where three key aspects are investigated, namely a) co-analysis of end users’ daily activities, b) the process of ideation of features and building consensus among actors, and c) the process of aligning and bundling features. Furthermore, the paper looks at the results of this process from an outcome-oriented perspective and a process-oriented perspective to derive understanding of co-creation impacts, and finally evaluates the factors influencing success, as well as the challenges of such a process.

42

4.4 Evaluation of the research quality As with any research method, methodological issues have become apparent in my research process, which require critical evaluation. This can be conducted to a large degree through reliability and validity evaluation, which are two important aspects addressed in social science research (Ihantola and Kihn, 2011). Although the issue of quality within mixed-methods studies is increasingly important (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2008), such research continues to lack proper guidelines regarding the pragmatics and practicalities of conducting it (Östlund et al., 2011). For example, serious challenges have been noted in the methodological underpinnings, advantages and disadvantages of mixed-methods research, e.g., claims of synergy (Hesse-Bieber, 2015), theoretical bias (Howe, 2004; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Giddings, 2006; Holmes, 2006;), research questions and inquiry (Nicholl, 2007; Hesse-Bieber, 2010; 2015), and data integration at different stages of the research process (Erzberger and Kelle, 2003; Östlund et al. 2011). Sound methodological principles, clarity and transparency are therefore seen as crucial, despite challenges in mixed methods reporting (Hesse-Bieber, 2015; 2011; 2010; Östlund et al., 2011). To evaluate research quality, this thesis adopts these measures based on the recommendations of Ihantola and Kihn (2011,) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2008), who proposed an integrative framework for evaluating the validity of mixed-methods research. They use the term inference to specifically connote “both the process of interpreting the findings and the outcome of this interpretation to provide answers to the original research questions” (p. 4). In mixed-methods research, they refer to internal validity and credibility as ‘inference quality’, implying an umbrella term for evaluating the quality of conclusions made based on findings, whereas external validity and transferability are referred to as ‘inference transferability’ to indicate the degree to which conclusions may be applied to other specific settings, people, time periods, contexts, etc. (ibid.). Studies also recommend following standard procedures for both quantitative and qualitative study phases (Ihantola and Kihn, 2011). Six of the papers appended to this thesis combined one or two research methods, and therefore can be subject to inference quality, transferability, and generalizability, including internal validity and external validity threats. To improve evaluation, the results of this study have also been compared to other independent studies using similar methodology, e.g., living labs with mixed-methods approaches. In the following, I present an evaluation for each of the appended papers. In Papers I and II, the methodology was repeated in two environments in parallel and repeated consecutively with different research participants. Different groups of users were observed, and the group characteristics were fairly distributed among the groups in a randomized way. However, given that the living lab was conducted in real-user environments, many situational factors were difficult to control, but there was also no point in doing so because the research goal was to explore emerging factors. For instance, when studying a human subject’s everyday life over a long period of time, it was difficult to continuously monitor for variables of interest since external factors like seasonal changes, weather and technical issues had an impact on the process. User relationships and social factors like job loss, job changes, or moving to a different apartment were also things that could not be controlled in terms of how they affected the study. Pearl and Bareinboim (2014) classified generalization problems into two categories: (1) those that lend themselves to valid recalibration, and (2) those where external validity is theoretically impossible. In this research project, some datasets were recalibrated to create a data model of users in which patterns could be identified, thereby enabling a degree of generalizability. However, as mentioned, ensuring controllable environments is practically impossible in this case, given the context of study. Furthermore, a distinction with this project in relation to its methodology can be highlighted in terms of stakeholder involvement. Users were not only using the designed system, but were also actively engaged in the design process. Therefore, there are

43

risks of bias in observation where response-desirability can be present. However, participation in several research methods, including co-creative workshops, added strength to the study, as some findings from interviews, for instance, were validated through user workshops and through sensor data. Here, a mixed-methods approach made it possible to reduce errors in measurement, and data triangulation during analysis made it possible to see potential biases. Papers I and II may be subject to inference quality due to the ways in which various methods were used during the data gathering process, as well as due to triangulation during the data analysis process. In these studies, a prominent methodological challenge was data integration at the outcome and analysis level. The mixed-methods approach used was concurrent triangulation, meaning that qualitative and quantitative data was collected concurrently and later compared to determine convergence, differences, and combinations (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). However, at the analytical stage, the results of each method were analysed separately, although a similar research question was used to guide the investigation. What became a critical issue is the divergence found in the results of similar measurement constructs. For example, interviews made it possible to assess what subjects reported about their own experiences and their own subjective reality at the discourse level. But computer-generated quantitative data that monitored the subjects’ behaviour showed a different reality than what subjects reported. This has raised both ethical and methodological concerns within my study regarding which of these results depicts the ‘true’ reality of subjects’ behaviour, or whether the diverging results of the two data sources indicate a methodological error. Divergence may occur in any type of mixed-methods design, argues Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), but examples in the literature as to how to take divergence into account are lacking (Pluye et al. (2009). There are different notions as to how to describe divergence in either data or results in a mixed-methods approach, such as conflict, contradiction, discordance, discrepancy, dissonance, and inconsistency (ibid.). Qualitative and quantitative results often seem to contradict each other (Östlund et al. 2011). Divergence and dissonance should be acknowledged and valued in generating unanticipated insight and understanding, and this is often explained as resulting from methodological errors (Greene, 2007, p152). A divergent result could also be a consequence of the inadequacy of the underlying theoretical concepts (Erzberger and Kelle, 2003). This may indicate the need to change or develop the theoretical concepts involved (ibid.) Four general strategies are used to take into account the divergence of qualitative and quantitative data or results: reconciliation, initiation, bracketing and exclusion (Pluye et al., 2009). Given these strategies, in my research I chose both the reconciliation approach, which suggests that data or results can be interpreted in a sense-making plausible manner, which may lead researchers to reanalyse existing data (ibid); and the initiation approach, where the researcher can take new frameworks or perspectives that emerge from conflicting evidence between the qualitative or quantitative findings, whereby asking new research questions is suggested, or collecting and analysing new data to further examine a fresh perspective (Greene et al., 1989; Gaber & Gaber, 1997). These were most plausible since I was able to test the divergence of results by collecting additional data, which made it possible to have a fresher perspective on why results may have diverged. However, the question as to whether there might have been an error in measurement remains a concern, since figuring out sensor-generated data measurement processes was beyond the researcher’s capacity, because the data architecture was constructed by a third party. Furthermore, Papers I and II were limited to the Swedish context, hence it may not be possible to generalize results to other cultural backgrounds, despite having carefully examined subjects’ representation, given the very topic of this thesis. Papers III, IV, V and VI all focus on methodological process analysis (ex-ante) in which researchers were directly involved, indicating subjectivity in research design and analysis. This

44

may threaten both internal and external validity or inference as well as reliability in certain ways. In Paper III, mainly interviews were used to collect data, hence qualitative research validity threats can be identified, including contextual validity, since the study was limited to one case. This does not necessarily lead to representation and generalizable inferences, thereby also affecting the research findings’ external validity. Furthermore, validity threats also exist in relation to the research methods used, i.e., in interviews. This study can also be subject to observer bias and research bias since the researchers were directly involved with the actors who were interviewed, which subsequently could have affected research design and even the analysis. However, reliability can be argued to have been achieved since the data collection process and analysis were performed in a transparent and replicable way, allowing other researchers to assess and examine how conclusions were derived. Paper IV also employed interviews, but with additional data collected during the process, such as through workshops and project documentation. Although systematic data collection and analysis maintained a consistent aim, the study can be subject to inference quality and inference transferability, since the research methods used provided various results which were integrated during analysis. However, that does not ensure the validity of findings, especially since some of the data collected was documented from the subject’s own view of a process as well as the researchers’ view. Biases may be present both in research design and in the conclusions derived, and are thus subject to the threat of interpretative rigor. One measure I have taken has been to be transparent during data collection and analysis to ensure procedural reliability. In Paper V, the process is analysed from a previously developed framework which in one way is validated but can also be subject to researcher bias in interpretation, thus challenging not only the study’s results but also the study’s methods. Furthermore, the applicability of the insights gleaned from the living lab should be treated with caution because of the experimental nature of the project. Approach is context-specific, and results may not be easily transferable to wider markets or cases. Outside this context, system delivery contributors may be difficult to coordinate. Likewise, Paper VI also focuses on a process analysis which is more a meta-analysis of an ongoing process, contrasted against existing literature. A more obvious limitation is the uniqueness of the case, and, in this regard, questions arise related to the subjectivity of the results (even prescriptive ones). Hence, there can be both analytical and methodological biases present, threatening both the internal and the external validity of the study. To reduce these, it is necessary to repeat the methodology in several independent studies to evaluate the extent of these threats, as well as the strengths of the methods utilized throughout this thesis.

45

5 Summaries of appended papers This chapter introduces the thesis’ primary findings by summarizing the background and aims, key results and main contribution of each individual paper. The six papers supporting this thesis discuss people’s presence and involvement in co-creation of new sustainable systems design and development, although with different areas of focus. Each paper draws empirical insights from three living lab experiments. Paper I examines the involvement of both users and non-users and their roles in new sustainable systems, aiming to understand people’s involvement patterns and their roles, and how these affect transition to new mobility system. Paper II delves deeper into co-creation with users by studying how their everyday practices are changed when engaging directly with new sustainable mobility systems in their own everyday life contexts. The analysis reveals implications for transition to sustainable systems, highlighting co-creation with users as central to successful transition. Paper III expands on this to include the involvement of users and other stakeholders, such as private and public actors, in co-creation by studying their motivations, interests, and contributions, and how these affect the alignment of actions and expectations toward transport sector transition. It identifies several barriers and enablers of co-creation. Paper IV directly observes the process of co-creation by looking into the activities that occur and shape interactions between diverse actors, such as end users, private companies, and public organisations with the aim of exploring the dynamics of co-creation and identifying which of its activities support transition. Paper V describes the co-creation of a new system and evaluates its outcomes for the stakeholders involved. It tests and validates the findings of Paper IV, here in the case of an infant mobility product-service system. And finally, Paper VI explores the concept of co-creation theoretically, describing the organisational aspects of co-creation, and identifies its outcomes using the case service design in the built environment.

47

5.1 Paper I – Involving users and user roles in the transition to sustainable mobility systems: The case of light electric vehicle sharing in Sweden

Co-authored with Stier, J. J., Ritzén, S., Hesselgren M., Published in the Special Issue of Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment in 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.12.011 The first paper focuses on understanding how people as end-users are involved in co-creation and what roles they assume in new sustainable systems. The study is based on living lab experimentation with a shared access mobility systems using light electric vehicles (LEVs) installed in two Swedish cities. The purpose of this paper was to identify and define involvement patterns and the characteristics of these based on the roles people assumed, as well as how these affected the new sustainable mobility system. The paper argues that transition towards sustainable mobility systems—such as low carbon and low energy alternatives—necessitate users’ involvement in the process as core stakeholders. This is suggested based on the notion that sustainable systems incorporate travel practices and user mobility cultures, where users play several roles in transition and thus need to be actively involved. The paper draws on theories of user involvement in innovation, design, and transitions, suggesting that engaging users directly in innovation processes not only leads to improved design but also generates changes in users’ practices, while at the same time increasing the rate innovations are adopted. However, representation is often problematic and incoherent since individual motivations and preferences are non-homogenous, hence not all individuals are engaged and contribute to the same extent. The paper thus analyses the involvement and roles of both the user and the non-user group in context. The main result of the paper is a spectrum of four user involvement patterns exhibiting distinct characteristics, with identified areas of overlap. The study shows that both users and non-users have a role as co-creators in building momentum toward new sustainable mobility systems, although they vary in how they contribute to, or act toward, new solutions. The spectrum ranges from non-users to highly active users, where we identified vigilant users12, passive collaborators, active decision-makers, and ambassadors. The results suggested that each of these identified roles contributes to the transition in various ways, such as by inhibiting the momentum of new sustainable systems or possibly accelerating their use and spread. The contrasting roles were identified based on varying characteristics in terms of motivation, intensity of engagement, and influence on others and on the system. The paper found that environmental motivators create conditions encouraging all users to engage, but are not the main drivers for non-users. For both users and non-users, there are additional motivators, values, and reasons for participating which affect how intensely they are engaged during the process, and thus also in the roles they assume, e.g., financial, practical, and experience-related factors such as peer-spread information before trying, initial perceptions formed by trying out the system, barriers experienced during trial, and general interest in sustainable mobility. Based on this analysis, the paper demonstrates variances for each of the four patterns of involvement identified. First, the vigilant users are a non-user group cautious about using and adopting new mobility services despite being aware of their unsustainable travel behaviour. They seek functional and economic benefits from solutions and are not driven to contribute without any obvious gain. Second, passive collaborators are users who are similar to vigilant users, but are driven to participate in the trial phase processes of innovation by need, in this case, having an extra vehicle available and seeking economic benefits. However, they are not actively seeking to engage in initiatives or commit to them—they can be said only to engage with them. Third, active

12 In the paper, we referred to as ‘vigilant users’ at the time when the study was carried out. However, this term was reevaluated during writing of this thesis, hence the author draws out the use of term ‘user’ for the reasons stated in the theory chapter.

48

decision-makers are users who are motivated by their desire to change toward more sustainable means of travel and expand their environmental choices, but are sceptical about proposed alternatives, thus actively want to push for their continuous development. Fourth, ambassadors are users who are not only aware of socio-environmental challenges, but already make decisions towards sustainable living, while also continuously seeking to change their own and their peers’ behaviour. The paper suggests that these nuances in user behaviour are particularly crucial for other stakeholders in innovations; since their involvement is likely to give a comprehensive understanding of how sustainable systems are integrated in everyday life practices as well as why they may not be socially desirable. Non-users are critical actors, and potentially the majority group when it comes to incorporating sustainable systems, and therefore need to be involved and studied. The paper suggests a convergent activation strategy which includes both users and non-users as part of an involvement strategy to enable plurality of contributions and cultivate a culture of diverse user collaboration.

The main contribution of the paper is a spectrum of empirically defined characteristics of both users and non-users, and their relevance for sustainable systems—in this case mobility—which can be used by practitioners to devise involvement strategies when developing sustainable systems, such as in living labs or innovation experiments. It can also serve organisations targeting various social groups for their products and services. If and when users are considered core stakeholders in innovation, nuances obtained from these groups can be crucial in building momentum for other stakeholders and could lead them to either act in support of alternatives or decide against further uptake and upscaling. In this paper, we show that there is a diversity of user characteristics that developers of alternatives must consider when implementing solutions through strategic approaches towards which various users are engaged in the process of sustainability transitions.

Author contribution LS designed the study, reviewed the literature, and did most of the writing. Data collection was conducted together with JJS and MH. LS performed the data analysis and obtained the results, while SR and MH provided feedback and reviewed drafts.

49

5.2 Paper II – Shared mobility services versus private car: Implications of changes in everyday life

Co-authored with Stier J.J., Hesselgren, M., Ritzén, S., Published in the Journal of Cleaner Production in 2020, Issue 259, p.120845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120845

Paper II approaches another angle of co-creation by focusing on how everyday life practices are affected when people exposed to new systems. This assumed that users, like organisations, are embedded in existing unsustainable practices, which together perpetually reinforce a global car-centric transport system. Individual mobility practices favouring private cars as the primary mode of mobility contribute to a significant share of global carbon emissions. The purpose of this paper was to identify how users’ everyday life practices are affected by being involved in new sustainable alternatives in the context of their everyday life. The study is based on living lab experiments with a shared access mobility system using light electric vehicles (LEVs) set up in two cities in Sweden. It draws on transition and social practice theories, which suggest that new sustainable systems intersect with people’s everyday lives and play a role in the transformation of social practices.

The main results of the paper suggest during six months involvement in a new system, led to to a positive impact on users’ mobility practices, increased trust in new energy-efficient and carbon-reducing alternatives, and stimulated active engagement in sustainable system development as well as increased interest in sustainability issues. First, the paper finds that mobility practice around private cars was deeply questioned by users throughout the six months involvement, including an increased awareness of the transition needed in everyday lifestyles. Participants were able to question and challenge much of their everyday mobility practice and how cars are connected to their lives. Using a small-sized vehicle, they became aware that it could replace 75–95% of private car use to meet the users’ commute needs and other activities, which users realized were mainly short trips. The results were similar across all participants involved, except for families with two or more children, where the size of the vehicle, a 2-seater, did not fit into everyday family activities. Second, as expected, users faced many uncertainties in relation to new sustainable systems initially. Daily exposure to new systems resulted, therefore, in increased trust in the new alternative as a potential solution. This was especially true when comparing the initial phase of the experiment with the phase after the six-month period. Initially, there were high uncertainties, doubt, and trust in how these solutions perform in daily life. With time, the use of the solution became ‘natural’ to the extent that new routines had begun to take shape. Third, users contributed greatly to system development by discovering many hurdles in integrating new sustainable systems into their everyday lives. Their daily experimentation and shared insights supported understanding of everyday use problems with new sustainable systems, as shown in the paper’s results. Perhaps most interesting was the diversity of contributions due to different participants’ involvement, e.g., we found challenges were more potent among users with families of two or more children, single parents with children, and the elderly, compared to younger users and single users. For certain user groups, the use of a private car was much easier and more convenient than sharing mobility services, when they compared. Finally, the paper concludes that the main effect of people’s involvement was in how it altered their meaning and competencies around sustainable mobility, increasing sense of confidence and opportunities for change in their mobility behaviours. When comparing user groups, a chain of parameters needs to be considered, e.g., typologies of everyday lives, everyday life logistics, time affluence, and effort requirements for different types of users. The paper argues that co-creating with different end-users provides a more inclusive understanding of the nature of transition in a more systemic and holistic way, centring material innovations around everyday life and not

50

limiting understanding only to user-technology interactions. Such a co-creation approach proved valid and useful in designing and developing new sustainable system solutions. This is because providing opportunities for citizens to question their own practices, e.g., living car-free, is as important as testing new solutions to find new market opportunities. When citizens are exposed to change in their own context, they become much more aware of where, how, and why they maintain a set practice, e.g., using a personal car. They challenge their own practices around car ownership and mobility, while feeling part of a group that is creating change together with other stakeholders and building trust in sustainable alternatives.

Paper II contributes to understanding of users as active co-creators in new sustainable systems, and how their involvement in the context of their everyday life enrichens the practical and contextual meaning of new systems. In addition, it provides direction on the experiential challenges of diverse user groups in relation to the design of new sustainable systems and their implementation in everyday life contexts, e.g., new mobility systems. Furthermore, unlike previous studies suggesting behaviour changes are difficult due to people’s symbolic meaning of material objects, this study demonstrates that individuals (end users) are willing to change towards sustainable alternatives if they are actively able to experiment with their own practices in their own ways. Author contribution LS, JJS, and MH contributed with experimental design, conceptualization, methodology, and data collection. LS contributed with research design, data analysis, validation, most of the writing of the original draft, editing and revisions. JJS contributed with reviewing and supervision of the writing and publication process, project administration and funding acquisition. MH contributed with parts of data analysis, writing a part of theory, and review of results and editing. SR contributed with supervision, input, and review of the study during writing and publication.

51

5.3 Paper III – Aligning private and public domains for sustainable disruptive innovation

Co-authored with Hesselgren M., Stier, J. J., Ritzén, S., Published at the 17th International CINet Conference, in 2016, Turin, Italy.

Paper III expands the co-creation perspective to study the ecosystem of diverse actors engaged in co-creation. The study is based on a private and public actor constellation involving three multi-national companies, a municipality, a non-profit organisation, a research lab, and end user citizens, in the context of developing a new sustainable mobility system in two Swedish cities. The purpose of this paper was to investigate the interests and contributions of various actors in the co-creation process and identify enablers or barriers to the co-creation approach. The study took the perspective of individual (end users), institutional, and organisational (public and private) actors by looking into the aims, interests, competencies, and contributions of each actor. It draws on sustainable transition theories, such as strategic niche management, which suggests that sustainable system innovations can be enacted by several actors, including users and societal groups, by bringing their expertise into the development process to both nurture experimentation and facilitate the articulation and alignment of new technology, demand, and broader societal issues. According to theory, the alignment of visions, referred to as the coordination of actors’ aims and expectations, as well as actions towards common goals, can provide direction for learning processes in multiple dimensions.

The main result of the paper is that the simultaneous involvement of diverse actors proves difficult for effective co-creation when actors are not aligned at a concrete level in terms of aims and interests. For example, the paper shows that interests and goals between public and private actors are not always aligned, and are often met with certain traditions and ways of working in which means of communication diverge. Out of seven key aims and interests, only three were identified as common to all actors, even those with differing perspectives, i.e., type of exploration interest, performance indicators, and purpose of co-creation, e.g., marketing strategies. Although all actors involved were interested in implementing and learning how new sustainable mobility systems could work practically in real contexts, each expressed an interest in learning about the specifics relevant to them, e.g., large companies were interested in learning about the performance of the new vehicles, services, and users’ insights, while the public organisation was interested in learning about behaviour changes and implementation. This diversity of aims and expectations negatively affected the alignment of actors to co-creatively define actions and responsibilities. Actors also expected their involvement to lead to individual and specific interests being met. In contrast, the other key result is that diversity of actors is beneficial to the outcomes of co-creation in terms of competencies, resource contribution, and generated knowledge. For example, each actor brought diverse competencies, e.g., product and service innovation, technology development, and political leadership. When combined, these provided strong support in the process. Access to such diverse knowledge brought with it the possibility of dealing with various challenges, e.g., technical problems, assistance, and implementation challenges. However, there were responsibilities were perceived as unclear or lacking roles among diverse actors at the network level.

Results suggest that diverse competencies without clear responsibilities inhibits involvement cohesiveness and creates vague visions for outcomes. For several of the actors, co-creation was challenging because it was a new undertaking by their respective organisation. The different actors had to step out of their comfort zones and get over the hurdles of understanding each other and their individual ways of working. According to them, this took more time and effort than expected and required a considerate amount of planning. For several of the actors, co-

52

creation was challenging because it was a new undertaking by their respective organisation. The different actors had to step out of their comfort zones and get over the hurdles of understanding each other and their individual ways of working. According to them, this took more time and effort than expected and required a considerate amount of planning.

The paper identified several barriers to and enablers of co-creation between diverse actors. Alignment at only the abstract level; diversity management in interests and aims; temporary engagement; conflicting organisational cultures and working traditions; different perspectives on the focus and activities of co-creation; and time and effort in planning in relation to outcomes were found to be key barriers. Conversely, the convergence of aims at the concrete level; access to diverse competencies and resources; dealing with challenges that require different competencies; and a win-win opportunity to influence systemic change were identified as key enablers. Barriers can be said to arise due to differences in organisational cultures and different perspectives on what the focus and activities of co-creation should be, and how they should be carried out, e.g., distribution of responsibilities. Enablers can be said to arise from noting an opportunity to influence actions and cause change through interactions outside their respective organisational boundaries, where new ecosystem formation enables actors to be experimental and radical. Based on these findings, the paper recommended the use of design methods such as co-creative sessions, and digital and physical interfaces to facilitate communication and engagement between different actors. The paper further contributes to understanding how a co-creative approach among various actors who would otherwise have different decision-making power, and who have different skills and contributions, can be orchestrated and managed by taking into account identified enablers and challenges of this approach. Meanwhile, it also shows how alignment in practical terms is critical to co-creation between diverse actors in supporting transition towards sustainable systems. Author contribution LS designed the study, reviewed the literature, and did most of the writing. Data collection was conducted jointly by JJS and MH. LS performed the data analysis and obtained the results, while SR and JJS provided feedback and reviewed the drafts.

53

5.4 Paper IV – Co-creation with diverse actors for sustainability innovation Co-authored with Hesselgren M., Ritzén, S., Stier, J. J., Published in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17) in 2017, 8(21): Human Behaviour in Design. Vancouver, Canada

Building on Paper III, Paper IV takes a process perspective on co-creation by exploring the dynamics of interactions between fourteen diverse individual and organisational actors from both the private and public sectors. The study focuses on the context of developing a new sustainable mobility system in two cities in Sweden. The purpose of this paper was to identify which specific activities support actors in developing and implementing new sustainable systems together. This is based on the Strategic Niche Management theory, which claims that new sustainable systems are complex and systemic, imposing changes across a multitude of actors along the value network or decision-making process, thus emulating a complex web of interactions and diverse actor involvement that must be coordinated and organised in new ways. However, there has been little investigation of supporting mechanisms for integrating these in the innovation process, especially in terms of involvement of diverse actors simultaneously. It is unclear what activities are needed in order to gain momentum in co-creation and what activities shape interactions between different actors since there are political and economic interests that can create dynamic struggles.

The main result of the paper is the identification of six interdependent mechanisms for enacting activities within co-creation: 1) matching interdependencies by combining competencies and resources between diverse actors; 2) facilitating steering groups of actors toward actions; 3) engaging users at early stages of innovation before fully developing the innovation to better define markets and to understand applicability early on; 4) trying to steer change within users by offering them an opportunity to change their behaviour; 5) simultaneous development and usage (implementation), mediating mutual learning; and 6) continuous steering and facilitating to enable and encourage active collaboration. Furthermore, the paper identified that iterating, learning, facilitating, and reflecting are central characteristics of a co-creative approach. The results suggested that during co-creation there is an interdependent process interacting in symbiosis with human actors, e.g., organisations (public and private), and society (individuals and communities), and non-human actors, e.g., innovation (technology, products, and services) as a multi-scalar system. However, this appears to be dependent on the social anatomy and ‘structure’ of the actors, their competencies, and the available resources—diversity versus vertical or horizontal structure. Furthermore, several actions were identified to support co-creation including pre-studies, problematizing, brainstorming, designing, persona building, prototyping and communicating, informing, trying, interactive workshops, research, and spreading the innovation.

The paper concluded that co-creation can be a core process for transitioning towards sustainable systems due to the simultaneous engagement that it enables, empowering actors and creating immersion, thereby facilitating broader value creation among actors. The dynamics of co-creation are not linear and individually oriented, but rather iterative and mutual, thus bridging several actors and traditions. Developing actors and end users engage as equal actors, supporting each other throughout the process through feed-in and feed-back actions. Co-creation is an interdependent process interacting in symbiosis with organisations (public and private), innovation (technology, products, and services), and society (individuals and communities) and can be a ‘win-win-win’ strategy. From a sustainability perspective, this way of integrating the innovation processes may be a mechanism to accelerate transition between technology and society simultaneously.

A key contribution of the paper is an understanding of co-creation dynamics between diverse actors demonstrating a more democratized process, even though the people involved can be

54

individuals or representatives of organisations of different scale, size, and decision-making power. These findings support and develop further co-creation theory while defining activities that enable it.

Author contribution LS conceptualized the study, collected the data, performed data analysis, and did most of the writing. MH and JJS contributed with analysis and feedback, while SR provided parts of the theory and reviewed drafts.

55

5.5 Paper V – A socio-technical experiment with a resource efficient product-service system

Co-authored with Catulli M., Reed, N., Tzilivakis, J., Green, A., Published in the journal of Resources, Conservation and Recycling, in 2021, 166, p.105364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105364

Paper V applies the results of Paper IV, whereby six key activities for the framework of another living lab set up in the United Kingdom that focused on new sustainable systems in the infant mobility sector, involving diverse actors. The purpose of the paper was to describe the co-creative experimentation process and evaluate its outcomes.

The study reported in this paper sought to investigate real-world problems through a living lab that was designed involving multiple actors, including end users. The purpose of the paper was to describe the co-creation process and evaluate its outcomes. The paper focuses on activities, challenges, and experiences of developing new sustainable systems in the real world while involving diverse actors in the process. It draws from theory of strategic niche management, which suggests that multiple actors can generate knowledge for sustainable innovations in interactions with users throughout innovation development processes in order to learn about relevant constraints and requirements, specify technologies and profile consumers, all while fostering institutional connections and adaptations. These processes facilitate technical innovation and bring about new and more sustainable practices because of new experiences and practical reflection on market-worthy innovations.

The main results of the paper suggest that co-creation can generate insights and strategic directions for the design, launch, and use of sustainable systems innovation in open market contexts. The analytical framework informed by Paper IV offers a promising template for managing co-creation, as it enabled identification of insights and challenges for launching new sustainable systems in the real world along with associated risks. In the case observed, each activity generated critical input and insights for the actors. For example, the actors involved benefited from the process, which further informed the solution’s design, i.e., life-cycle assessments and financial feasibility, but also identified hurdles to large-scale implementation due to user concerns, including legal implications that became obvious during involvement of end-users. Environmental benefits were also observed, which included reduction of particulate plastic matter released into the environment and transportation of materials. Furthermore, considerable barriers to implementing the product-service system in the open market were identified, including attrition through loss or damage, product liability and consumer distrust in sharing products due to fear of contagion e.g., parental concerns about product hygiene. A further key insight is the understanding of changes necessary in legislation designed to support such alternatives, suggesting that new resource-efficient systems involve more variables than just products and services, creating the need for increased engagement by providers, users, and regulatory bodies. Furthermore, insights were also generated in relation to the logistics of not only delivering such services but also in retrieving products, where several managerial implications arise, highlighting the role of both designers and users in designing the logistics of new sustainable systems. User performance becomes an important factor in facilitating service delivery since it affects logistics. Hence, developing close-knit relationships with users may be necessary, but costly. The paper suggests that co-creation allows several actors to simultaneously address issues as they arise and learn about the usefulness and feasibility of innovation in a competitive market before further resources are wasted. The main contribution of the paper is that it demonstrates the direct and indirect benefits of co-creation through multi-actor involvement based on the knowledge and insights generated as well

56

as potential impacts on the development of new sustainable alternatives prior to market introduction. The study also validates a framework for exploring dynamics in co-creation, which can further support the development of processes and activities for diverse actors. The paper contributes to development related to co-creation in both theory and practice. At the same time, it also provides new knowledge for the development and design of more sustainable systems through a more holistic understanding of their applications in the real world. Author contribution MC contributed with conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, resources, data curation, writing—original draft writing—review and editing, project administration, funding acquisition, and supervision. LS contributed with conceptualization, writing—original draft writing—review and editing. NR contributed with writing, reviewing, and editing. JT contributed with methodology, investigation, formal analysis, and writing of the original draft. AG contributed via investigation and formal analysis.

57

5.6 Paper VI – Co-creating service concepts for the built environment based on the end user’s daily activities analysis: KTH Live-in-Lab explorative case study

Co-authored with Malakhatka E., and Lundqvist, P., Published in the journal of Sustainability in 2021, 13(4), p.1942. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041942 Paper VI takes another perspective on co-creation by looking at its process definition and organisation. It argues that co-creation with users as well as other potential actors is a powerful engine for innovation, since it pushes systems to open themselves to many diverse participants, whose input can take product and service offerings in unexpected directions, potentially serving a much broader range of needs. However, despite the significant advantages that co-creation can offer, there is surprisingly little research providing a strategic approach for identifying the most advantageous co-creation opportunities, especially when many possible options are available. The purpose of this paper was to explore the co-creation both theoretically and practically, and identify key outcomes for the actors involved using the case of new sustainable systems in the built environment. The study draws from the case of KTH Live-In Lab, a multi-testbed platform for accelerated innovation in the building industry intended to facilitate the advent of sustainable and resource-effective future buildings. The paper first defines the concept of co-creation theoretically by distinguishing between design and innovation areas as two different approaches in literature. It then applies those two theoretical perspectives in the case of KTH Live-In Lab to identify the co-creative process used for service concept design in the built environment. It goes on to evaluate the co-creation process in terms of outcomes from the point of innovation, knowledge transfer, sustainability, and user experience, and suggests how it facilitates multi-stakeholder engagement. Furthermore, the paper highlights the concept of the living lab as an environment for accelerating and facilitating the innovation process (emphasizing the real-life aspect of a multi-stakeholder settings) in contrast to the living lab as an approach (emphasizing co-creation activities or user-centric methods). The main results of the paper are six key organisational aspects identified as critical to making co-creation an advantageous strategy for the participating stakeholders. These include 1) a clear strategy of which types of actors are relevant for different types of co-creation, which proved to be relevant and determined by the orientation of stakeholders; 2) defining access to the end user in everyday life settings, which needs to be organised according to legal and ethical standards as well as according to users’ motivations; 3) determining openness and an ownership strategy, e.g., who is the initiator and how other contributors join in during the process; 4) co-analysing end users’ daily activities, which defines how end users are observed and their methods of observation; 5) ideating offers and building consensus, which relates to possible improvements around a particular activity, where different proposals can emerge and appear dependent on the level of the stakeholders’ professional background and interaction with end users; and 6) aligning and bundling offerings, which is the process of transforming ideas into solid offers. Furthermore, several benefits and challenges for co-creation (in living lab settings) could be derived. The main advantages identified include the ability to consider each activity from different angles; enabling dialogue with an in-depth understanding of different points of view; the intersection between various professional and non-professional actors; more understanding and elucidation of ‘products and services in use’, where users act as disruptors; opening up potential for better customization of future services by focusing on user insights; and, finally, the perceived value of networking and the possibility of collaboration from all participants. The main challenges to managing such processes include the uniqueness of the cases and thus the replicability of the methods we used; language diversity concerning points of view and building consensus around these points of view; and, finally, the unpredictability of the effects and their quantification. Thus, the paper suggests that with further methodological

58

improvements, co-creating with multiple actors and departing from user’s everyday lives proves to be a valid method for enabling the emergence of innovative service concepts. The main contribution of this paper is a developed process that enables strong interaction and valuable output for various stakeholders and end users. An additional outcome of the study is the identification of the factors influencing success and the challenges of the proposed process of service concept co-creation, in this case applied to the context of the built environment. The practical part of this study showcases the implementation of the theory into the process of service concepts co-creation at the established Living Lab environment, including both perspectives of co-creation (innovation and design). Hence, the study makes both theoretical and practical contributions to the development of co-creation as a key part in design and devopment processes. Author contribution EM contributed with conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing —original draft preparation, writing, reviewing and editing, and visualization. LS contributed with methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, writing, reviewing and editing. PL contributed with review, editing, and supervision.

59

6 Discussion This thesis aimed to study the involvement of multiple actors in the co-creation of new sustainable systems design and development, and the potential outcomes of such an approach for transition. To this aim, this thesis presented six papers with empirical results supporting the overarching research question: How does co-creation in design and development of sustainable systems support transition? In the following, six main findings are discussed providing empirical support. 6.1, 6.2 discuss SRQ1: How are people involved and in what ways do they contribute to the co-creation of sustainable systems? 6.3 discuss SRQ2: Which drivers motivate end-users’ and other stakeholders’ involvement in co-creation? 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6. discuss SRQ3: What factors support or inhibit the process of co-creation and what outcomes can be expected? 6.1 The form of involvement defines who co-creates new sustainable systems

Forms of involvement define who is involved in co-creating new sustainable systems. This finding is supported by Papers I, II, V, and VI. In three of the living labs, forms of involvement were different, as were the type of people that were involved in co-creation, and three parameters seem to be critical in defining who co-creates.

The first regards to how people can be recruited to participate. KTH Mobility Pool made open calls with the intent of engaging diverse participants in its setup, whereas REBUS LL and KTH Live-In Lab were oriented toward selecting participants, focusing on segment users. Three of the living labs, however, invited people to participate on a voluntary basis, where they could choose how they would be involved in activities. KTH Mobility Pool did not target any user segment but focused on sufficient representation of diverse socio-economic groups. REBUS living lab, on the other hand, targeted certain types of users and thus had a more selective approach as to who was involved. KTH Live-in Lab straddles the divide, having diverse user representation while also being selective in certain criteria set by the type of environment, e.g., student-dedicated buildings situated in a campus area, where rules demanded stricter classification. All the living labs involved users in the research, design, and development activities in which participants involved and performed different tasks either voluntarily or with incentives. This also included the way data and information provided by the users was handled. KTH Mobility Pool and KTH Live-in Lab specifically focused on this part given that participants would be immersed entirely in the process through daily living with the proto-design, e.g., daily use of a new system that was still being developed, and within it, by living in the building, both of which were equipped with sensor technology monitoring much of the users’ activity. These insights support Vines et al. (2013), who suggested that the user is constructed when participation is configured. When such processes are configured, there are influencing factors which can lead to certain individuals participating more than others, which reduces the potential of integrating diverse voices in the design process while amplifying those that are most often heard.

Second is the duration, intensity, and stages of the process. In the three cases, various participants were (are) involved both for short and long periods of time. The duration of involvement depended on participants’ commitment over time; for example, in the KTH Living Lab, some participants dropped out of the experiment in later stages due to life-changing events or technical challenges. Because these are ‘living’ labs, life events and conditions influence involvement dynamics. Involvement also ranged from focus groups to large samples of participants in one or more organised activities. Focus groups were more intensively engaged in both design and research activities, whereas larger groups related to the new systems were involved once or twice, mainly through research activities. In the case of KTH Mobility Pool, participants who were intensively engaged were the ones actually living with the proto-design,

60

and sometimes this required heavy dedication to the project. As the project progressed, participants differed in how they chose to engage, which made researchers work to include individuals that were less involved and those who were the least involved. The KTH Live-in Lab also has different parameters of defining high-to-low involvement and whose presence they see as crucial. Because there are many smaller and larger experiments that can be carried throughout an academic year, there are also different intensities of participant involvement in the projects. On the other hand, in the REBUS LL, participants were not intensively involved, although they were listened to and invited to several activities. Each living lab can be said to have reached high to medium to low degrees of involvement, depending on the experience that participants had when engaging in the process, supporting Alam’s claim (2002) that involvement is a continuum between high and low intensity in user group involvement. However, these cases showed that involvement does not necessarily occur sequentially in all stages of an innovation or design process, and the same users are not always the ones involved. In the three cases presented in this thesis, different participants were involved in the user role from the concept phase to the implementation and testing phases. The KTH Mobility Pool LL, for example, involved users during concept ideation, designing the system and trying it in the real world, where users co-designed and co-experienced the new system in the context of their everyday life (Paper IV). Likewise, the REBUS LL and KTH LL also included users at different phases, eliciting valuable decision-driving information for concepts and proto-designs (Paper V, VI). Like Vines et al. (2013) suggested, here we can observe that decisions made before and during participation have a strong influence on the quality of involvement and representation. This implies that the methods involved do have a strong say in the type of ‘users’ that will be attracted to co-creation processes, further supporting the observations and arguments of Wallich et al. (2017), Schaban-Maurer (2013), Sanders and Stappers (2008), and Kujala (2003). In literature, variables like these have been considered critical for innovation project outcomes (e.g. Lettl, 2007).

Third is how people behave toward the process during their involvement. For example, both KTH Mobility Pool LL (Paper II) and REBUS LL (Paper VI) showed how many valuable parameters regarding the proposed designs were made clearly visible only during the period when real users were actually using the systems. These all contributed to the process of modelling the user and uses of the new designed systems. Paper I and II in the case of KTH Mobility Pool illustrates this more specifically. KTH Mobility Pool system was introduced to the two workplaces without a specific user target. The system design was initially driven by several insights on car driving behaviours derived from exploratory studies with individuals at the two workplaces. These users had to be identified, understood, explored, and then modelled from the large pool of individuals at the two workplaces. For example, by opening the design to a large user base, the solution was tested out at a large scale; more than 500 end-users got to try the proto-design system (LEV pool system), 167 were registered as members using the system at different frequencies, and 16 participants were involved extensively as voluntary co-creators. For the majority, the light-electric vehicle was completely new, and in fact, the system was new to the world. Through an individual’s involvement (or lack thereof), both the user model and the design were refined. For example, it was found that the small size vehicle replaced between 75–95% of users’ commute needs and activities otherwise done by private car, which users realized were most often short trips. The results were similar across all user groups, except for families with two or more children, who could not be supported all the time by the 2-seater vehicles due to the ways in which their everyday lives were organised (see Paper II). Likewise, for elderly citizens, the solution posed more problems, but these were mainly functional challenges having to do with the relative newness of such vehicles and the service design. However, the vehicles were more problematic when coupled with the sharing concept. Users predominantly preferred to have a co-ownership model where they did not have to continuously plan their commute, since fully shared vehicles, particularly for families and the elderly, appeared to be more challenging (Paper II). As it

61

stands, lightweight electric vehicles shared between users are somewhat disruptive in the sense that they represent an overall lifestyle adjustment for various user groups (Paper II). The solution appeared to benefit several diverse user groups in terms of family structure, age, and socio-economic backgrounds, but clearly did not benefit everyone with commuting needs. Both Paper I and II indicate the contrasting views of users as to what it meant to change to more sustainable everyday mobility. As observed in some users, who, even after six months, had not changed much in their opinions about cars and their own practices. Designing a new mobility system for these users meant different requirements and values. This is relevant because it revealed a new perspective about the proto-design: the limits of achieving workability for a variety of users.

Unlike many innovation, technology, and design studies (e.g. Kaulio, 1988; Alam, 2002; Bogers et al. 2010; Piller, Ihl, and Vossen, 2010; Bano and Zowghi 2015; Agrawal and Rahman, 2015; Davis and Andrew, 2017), which suggest that users need to be involved, which types of people are selected for involvement and how they are involved seems to matter more than just involving any user. Involvement of ‘end-users’ as a critical actor in any new sustainable system, and therefore needs to be thoroughly thought out, which supports the contributions of Oudshoorn and Pinch (2003). It is argued that design and innovation processes still have a predominant interest in fitting users to solutions (Redstrom, 2006; Vines, et al., 2013), where there is a tendency to design the people that will use the new products, rather than designing the products that people will use (ibid.). For instance, Sanders and Stappers (2008, p. 8) note that participation is focused more toward identifying presumably positive future opportunities than it is on the identification and amelioration of adverse consequences of design, even though both these problems need to be addressed in present societal challenges. Vines et al. (2013) suggest that ‘user design’ occurs at the time when the process of participation is articulated, implying that decisions made before and during participation have a strong influence on the quality of users’ involvement in the process (Vines et al., 2013). Through involvement, it appears, certain user archetypes and designs can be obtained, which can lead to the inclusion or exclusion of certain societal groups and communities. Does this then have anything to do with how design speaks, communicates, and attracts certain societal groups? Is a segmented and targeted user base more effective than a wide-open unspecific user base in increasing the success of innovative solutions? Involving different individuals in the position of key stakeholders, at different stages in a co-creation process appears to be a more effective approach to modelling and defining the user and possibly increasing accessibility of new sustainable systems. However, this process needs to be informed by past as well as present social realities reflecting larger human society across different geographies. This is in order to ensure that those being involved provide representative characteristics of larger populations. This can be done, as in the case of KTH Mobility Pool or KTH Live-In LB, for example, by involving various individuals at different stages, and while alternating between types of users throughout the process, to support modelling of user archetypes as well as match technological offers with various user groups.

6.2 Both users and non-users contribute to co-creating new sustainable systems at various intensities

Both users and non-users co-create, although they do so at different levels of intensity and with different effects. This was shown in Paper I, where both user and non-user groups were studied. In this study, four types of involvement patterns from non-users to very active users were identified, which were distinguished by distinct roles such as vigilant users, passive collaborators, active decision makers, and ambassadors. Each of these roles was critical but also contrasted in how they contributed to the process, e.g., in building momentum for the new sustainable systems or by inhibiting it.

62

A key insight in this study is the identification of the ambassador role, which represents the intensively involved user group. The ambassadors played a key role in the case of the KTH Mobility Pool in terms of co-creating new concepts, boosting the spread of the concept solution, persuading their family and peers, driving the engagement of other groups, challenging status quos, and in thinking beyond the immediate, functional, or economic benefits of new sustainable systems, i.e., mobility, in this case. This finding is in line with the research of Heikkinen et al., (2007), who found similar user patterns which they framed as advocates, describing them as distributors of positive information about the innovation. Similarly, Nyström et al (2014) identified champions, gatekeepers, and promoter roles, such as orchestrators, all relating to characteristics of promoting new ideas and engaging in creating the conditions for change, while also motivating others to change. However, these terms namely refer to different actors in innovation networks or grassroots and political movements, reflecting less on their involvement and roles in new sustainable systems. More closely aligned to the ambassador role in Paper I, however, is the finding by Kanger and Schot (2016) of the user-legitimator, who is described as expressing the need for building rationale and meaning behind change towards sustainable pathways, e.g., through systems and practices, by anchoring expectations, describing their significance, and interacting with other actors.

A second key insight in this study is the identification of the non-user group role and its relevance in the case of sustainable mobility systems. In the study, they were conceptualized as vigilant (users) since they shared the characteristic of being more cautious in using a new system and involving themselves in the system. These individuals stood at the opposite extreme to the more active group; however, they played a key role in the case studied in terms of input on technical impracticalities of the new mobility system design through their behavioural patterns, perceptions, and attitudes towards the new mobility system. Based on their behavioural patterns and characteristics, the non-users can be said to experience entry barriers to new alternatives, which are imposed by their own expectations, attitudes, values, and by features of the design. While this finding resonates with Oudshoorn and Pinch (2003), who considered these types of individuals as imperative in developing and improving products and services, it contradicts the idea as to which types of participants need to be involved in design and development. For example, the most deeply involved users are said to be those with early adopter and lead user characteristics, generally following lead user theory (Hippel, 1988; 2005) or early adopter theory (Rogers, 2003). In fact, the non-user group is largely neglected in much of innovation processes literature. Lampe et al., (2010) termed these individuals ‘silent users’. As Lampe et al., (2010) have argued, not accounting for, or engaging with, such groups may lead to an overall misjudgement of population-level interests. This can be specifically relevant at the design and early development stage of innovation, where certain parameters about users and use functions of products and services are determined. Moreover, if the non-user group is representative of mass population when it comes to new sustainable systems, it raises critical questions about representation and about who is shaping the new sustainable systems that are and will occupy future critical and complex systems such as transport, food, energy, etc.

This indicates that design and development of new sustainable systems is confronted by variations in user/non-user contribution. Table 4 below summarizes how each pattern of involvement varies in how it contributes to new sustainable systems. These may lead to conflicting outcomes for new sustainable systems, potentially creating a plurality of improvement possibilities that need to be considered during design and development. For example, vigilant users can be said to delay their transition to new sustainable systems if they are not involved and included, whereas ambassadors provide strong support for change both in development and in their commitment to changing their own practices and those of their peers.

63

Table 4: Patterns of involvement and contribution

Based on these results, it appears that regardless of whether individuals are users or non-users of a new system, they can be seen as acting in its co-creation. Some are not involved with their presence but contribute to a new system, e.g., vigilant users, and some are involved to a great extent, e.g., ambassadors. Co-creation is thus neither binary nor a one-time occurrence. Rather, it is a spectrum characterized by different intensities regarding how individuals immerse themselves into and throughout a process. This finding resonates with the argument of Vines et al. (2013), who suggested that participation in any process can never be framed as binary because individuals engage and contribute in very different ways, some being passive and some more vocal, e.g. “witting, unwitting”, “spectator-like”, or, as a “reflexive commentator or as a creator that leads the participation of others.” These empirical results are an initial hint towards rethinking the view of user involvement to suggest that various individuals are always partaking throughout all stages of design and development although with different levels of intensity. The non-user is thus also present, even if not using a certain innovative solution against presently existing practices. Through their use or non-use, individuals can grant direction to new sustainable systems, as a new system benefits positively as well as negatively with every involved or not-involved user; thus, both users and non-users are in fact co-creating new sustainable systems. As such, it makes sense to view co-creation as an umbrella term for different forms of involvement intensities, in line with Alam (2002), who suggests that forms of partaking should be described as a continuum where representation varies from passive to intense. These insights contradict the previous belief that only users are relevant, and that only those involved can support innovation. In fact, non-users seem to matter just as much. Furthermore, such insights

64

challenge the present definition of co-creation being user-centric or customer-centric, and instead, agree with the position of Sanders and Stappers (2012), who suggest that all people can be competent participants in design practice, not just ‘users’. Besides users and designers inferring or determining meaning and expectations around new sustainable systems, there are also non-users, or individuals who are not yet using those systems, but who are passively participating—by not using them. Early studies in innovation highlighted that people who are not using new products or services must be involved in development activities (Kreuz and Förster, 2003; Oudshoorn and Pinch, 2003), but these calls may have been neglected during the last few decades, where user-centric and customer-centric approaches focusing primarily on certain user segments, target populations, and early adopters have received more attention in innovation research. This is probably due to the incentives organisations have to involve those who bring in highest monetary value. However, for sustainability-driven systems, this may be quite critical, if these groups have anything to do with the mass groups of society who do not use or engage with new sustainable systems. The challenge lies in how to access and involve non-users. 6.3 Users are driven by similar concerns as developers to co-create new

sustainable systems What drives involvement in co-creative processes is the aspiration and concern surrounding a transition toward more sustainable systems and ways of living. However, this was expressed in different ways, as is explained below. Paper I, II, and III provide empirical grounds for such insight. According to each of these papers, these drivers can explain why various individual users but also institutional and organisational actors were involved in co-creating a new sustainable system in the transport sector (KTH Mobility Pool case). One of the first observed drivers is a strong desire to move toward sustainability, thus being open to change. The majority of those who were both actively and passively involved had already been contemplating making changes to their lifestyles and were actively looking for more sustainable practices and ways of living. Particularly those with a family of two or more children, wanted to see how a new mobility system could support their transportation needs to avoid purchasing a second car due to environmental concerns. In addition, for some users, there were the economic benefits that were persuasive, for example, free and low-cost access to a vehicle, since they perceived private cars as too expensive. Ethical concerns, such as environmental protection, energy saving, regional development or health issues were also previously identified (Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2004; Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2003; Ornetzeder et al., 2003). Others have shown that a sense of responsibility (Talsma and Molenbroek, 2012), civic duty, the wish to improve things (Wise, Paton, and Gegenhuber, 2012), and building trust (Voorberg et al., 2015) are all critical, particularly for sustainability-related innovations. Similar results can be suggested for organisational actors who wanted to see how implementation could affect changes in their organisation (for public actors), e.g., support their 2030 fossil fuel-free strategies, support for their business (for private providers), e.g., through exploring new ways of thinking about mobility, and reducing energy and carbon emissions through its implementation (this was key for all participating actors). Previous research suggests that both monetary and non-monetary benefits motivate participation in co-creation activities (Wise, Paton, and Gegenhuber, 2012; Hoyer et al., 2010; Nambisan and Baron, 2009). Some studies have explicitly stressed monetary benefits as prime drivers for end-users and firms to collaborate (von Krogh and von Hippel, 2006). In addition, motivations can be often linked to seeking functional benefits from innovation, e.g., system features such as perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use (Davis 1989; Venkantesh et al. 2003), or novelty (Rogers, 2003), which in this case was clearly present due to the distinctive features of the innovation, e.g. small size and electric drive train vehicle, peer-to-peer features, and the multi-user concept. However, these were secondary drivers. An openness

65

to change was a critical driver, which may indicate that people are actively looking for ways in which they can make changes in their daily lives. A second observed driver is the need to reduce uncertainty surrounding change from technological, environmental, and social points of view. All participants in the case of KTH Mobility pool expressed the need to experiment with how sustainable solutions ‘work’ in practice. Most of the participants were curious to see how a new system makes transportation less environmentally impactful, easier, and cost effective. End-users were curious to test a potential transportation solution that would enable them to live more sustainably. Participation for them was a way of trying out possibilities for change without assuming risk. Through involvement, they perceived that no abrupt changes needed to be made, but rather, they could ‘try it out’ and ‘see if it works’. Whereas for organisations, both private and public, a relevant part of their objectives was to explore new concepts towards sustainable systems—in this case, a light electric shared mobility system. There were uncertainties on both the end-user side as well on the other actors’ side; ‘…to see how it works’ was something expressed by all end-user participants. It appears that uncertainties are shared by various actors including users, providers, and developers. In Paper III, for example, it could be observed that all interviewees showed an interest in ‘test[ing] concepts in real life’, to gain ‘proof of concept’, and reduce fear as well as their resistance towards new sustainable systems. This insight partially confirms previous research suggesting that the desire to gain knowledge about technology (or a product/service) motivates both individuals and organisations to participate in co-creation since they receive cognitive benefits from information acquisition and learning (Nambisan and Baron, 2009; Hotyet et al., 2010). However, it is a new insight on drivers of co-creation, since it suggests that various stakeholders share uncertainties around new sustainable systems and perceive risks in fully committing their resources. This supports the theory that co-creation can be an effective approach to pooling resources to reduce uncertainties from a point investment (Enkel, Gassmann, Chesbrough, 2009; Piller, Ihl, and Vossen, 2011), even if participating actors are diverse and share distinct drivers or motivations. A third observed driver is the ambition to influence others and make ‘change’ visible. Some, but not all, of the end-users were keen to act as a role model for others to follow, in relation to reducing personal impact on the environment. They wanted to explicitly show others in their surroundings that they are acting towards transforming their own habits, and, in line with their own interests, make others reflect on sustainability issues surrounding transportation. These are more related to participants who engaged in the KTH Mobility Pool case from the context of their workplace, invoking a sense of peer-pressure and a need to relate that was expressed by some participants. Likewise, for organisational actors, it was relevant to show how change could be accomplished in practice. For example, both the public organisation as well as the private companies participating in the KTH Mobility Pool living lab were motivated to show that “it is possible to change”. By participating, they perceived that they could show to many different target groups that there are ‘other ways’ of achieving mobility, to make change visible to society at large, to “democratize the knowledge, so it does not remain in the academy; to learn in order to affect the public opinion” (Paper III). This was also important for their brand image to be involved in what they perceived as a ‘future-oriented project’. This confirms insights from previous literature related to co-creation in sustainability-related innovations. For example, self-marketing (Hars and Ou, 2002); reputation (Agrawal and Rahman, 2015); achieving a certain level of fame, notoriety or prestige, and self-expression (Weber and Geerts, 2011); increased status, social esteem, ‘good citizenship’, and strengthening of ties with relevant others (Nambisan and Baron 2009) and influence on peers (Wise, Paton, and Gegenhuber, 2012) were previously shown to increase willingness to engage in co-creation activities. At a more intangible level, actors appreciated being part of a future-

66

oriented project13 with sustainability ambitions; “talking about it ... and being part of the ‘movement’ has been really fun.” For example, participants developed a connection with the project as they perceived themselves as contributing to the larger picture of a sustainable society. This emotional connection was a clear positive driver for users, because working together empowered them to contribute. These empirical insights suggest that shared environmental concerns but also shared uncertainties surrounding new solutions to environmental problems drive users as well as developers to get involved and to get together to try out potential solutions. At the same time, so does a sense of gaining agency in the trajectory of new sustainable systems in meaningful ways and feeling ‘part of’ the larger transitions. This confirms theory on the premises of co-creation (Itten et al., 2020) as well as on user involvement (Fischer et al., 2020). What is surprising, however, is that there can be multiple and more nuanced drivers and motivations, and that it is not only positive motivations, per se, that drive involvement in co-creation, but rather inherent concerns and uncertainties about the future. This could be observed not only in the case of KTH Mobility Pool living lab but also in the two other cases. Both developers and users of new sustainable systems appear to share these as common concerns which push them to engage in collective action. These insights give a picture that various stakeholders are in the same position of uncertainty when it comes to making a step towards new sustainable systems individually. Though, are more open to do so while engaging together in taking risks and sharing knowledge. This supports theory that co-creation can be thus an antidote to reduce uncertainties with regard to the development of new alternative sustainable systems. 6.4 Common design language aligns co-creation

Co-creation with end-users and with external stakeholders who are diverse, e.g., public and private organisations, is new in practice and confronts many traditional ways of organising and managing design and development processes. In practice it requires weaving together multiple perspectives which do not always align. This is difficult work without challenging the status and position of the designer in a co-creative design and development process. Papers III, IV, and VI, suggest that it is not interests and visions that necessarily align actors to co-create, but rather finding a common design language. The results of Papers III and VI, specifically, suggested that interests and aims of various actors, e.g., public, private, NGO, and end-users, are not always aligned, and are often met with certain traditions and ways of working in which communication languages diverge. In these papers, it was shown that actors had not previously worked with other organisations at the level of engagement co-creation demanded. Several actors had traditionally been collaborating vertically with their supply chains. This was a new undertaking by all the actors involved and it proved to be challenging for everyone. Each actor has different interests and learning needs regarding expected outcomes, which also affected their direct or indirect involvement in co-creation activities. For example, out of eight identified aims and interests expressed by most actors in relation to the KTH Mobility Pool living lab, only four of them converged across all actors; understanding the workability of the solution, its application in real environments, potential changes in societal behaviours, and using the project as a strategy for personal and organisational

13 Paper I, II, and II actors studied in the case of KTH Mobility Pool living lab were involved throughout the whole period or during a great part of it.

67

branding (Paper III). Differences could be observed between large organisational actors (public and private). Furthermore, although competencies from individual actors were perceived as straightforward, actors perceived unclear responsibilities or lacked defined roles when working co-creatively (Paper III). The diversity of competences without clear responsibilities inhibited involvement cohesiveness and created vague visions for outcomes, taking more time and effort than initially expected. This insight confirms the studies by Enkel, Gassmann, Chesbrough (2009) and Canie ls & Romijn (2008), who also found that such processes can lead to the consumption of more time and financial resources when not managed properly. Indeed, based on Paper III, several barriers were identified during the co-creation process Table 5 below. These barriers relate namely to the dynamics between diverse actors when co-creating, which included institutional, organisational, and end-user actors’ worldviews and interests. At the same time, it wasn’t uncommon for these barriers to act as enablers of the co-creation process once recognized, e.g., when aims converged at concrete levels; when actors could access diverse competencies and resources that were complementary to the process; and when dealing with challenges that required different competencies. It was clear in Paper III that actors need to align at practical levels, since doing otherwise impeded coherent functioning and the cohesion of actor networks in reaching collective ambitions, subsequently hindering full commitment in pushing the process forward. As recognized in Smith, Voß, and Grin, 2010, actors are in fact found in situations where considerable cognitive and socio-economic, as well as political work, needs to be performed.

Table 5: Barriers and enablers of co-creation

Barriers Enablers Aligning aims and interests only at abstract levels.

Convergence of aims at concrete levels.

Managing diversity of interests and needs in co-creation activities.

Access to diverse competencies and resources, i.e. individual actors benefiting from group resources.

Similar competencies and resources with temporary engagement.

Complementary competencies and resources with straightforward commitment.

Conflicting organisational cultures and working traditions.

Dealing with challenges that require different competencies.

Different perspectives as to what the focus and activities of co-creation should be.

Consumption of resources such as time and effort in planning in relation to outcomes.

Indeed, there are managerial disadvantages to a co-creative approach. In addition to Paper III results, Paper VI identified several of those in the case of KTH Live-in Lab, presented in Table 6 below, such as diversity of languages concerning points of view, building consensus, and unpredictability of effects, but also highlighted the uniqueness of each case. Although which of these are the most critical was not assessed in this study, it can be noted that management of diverse perspectives and communication languages might be quite critical in how actors are steered and how they engage in consensus building. These results suggest that building consensus around points of view challenge co-creation. As noted in other research, since co-creation can be considered an alternative social structure, it has a potentially disruptive nature as well, wherein actors need to be mindful of reinforcing hierarchical social structures which co-creation aims to dismantle (Itten et al., 2020). There are risks of reinforcing top-down structures disguised as a participatory practice (Mosse, 2001). Processes of co-creation take time to take off in aligning actors’ aims, interests, visions, and expectations. Recent studies have also suggested that it can be

68

a ‘slow’ process, difficult to both initiate and sustain, potentially leading to outcomes that are neither expected nor desired (Ambole et al., 2019). Meanwhile, while these factors can slow the process, they are not sufficient indicators that outcomes will be undesired. In fact, co-creative work rarely leads to undesired outcomes (e.g. John-Steiner, 2000), but how it is managed can affect the process considerably. As suggested in Paper VI, co-creation, if curated well, can serve as a path-breaking approach with several advantages, both in terms of the process as well as in its outcomes; e.g. being able to consider each activity from different perspectives, and causing various professional and non-professional actors who have traditionally been separated to intersect.

Table 6: Advantages and disadvantages of co-creation approach

Advantages Disadvantages Ability to consider each activity from different angles The uniqueness of the cases (its replicability.)

Enabling dialogue with an in-depth understanding of different points of view.

The diversity of languages concerning points of view and building consensus around them.

The intersection between various professional and non-professional actors.

The unpredictability of the effects and their quantification.

Deeper understanding of the ‘products and services in use’, where users act as disruptors.

Opening potential for better customization of future services by focusing on users’ insights.

The perceived value of networking and the possibility of collaboration from all participants.

However, there are key organisational aspects to be considered in advance in making co-creation an advantageous strategy for participating stakeholders, e.g., which types of actors should be involved, determining who is the initiator, who can join and under what conditions, ways of accessing end-users, and who is involved, as well as what methods should be used (Paper VI). Each component needs to be developed and explored between participating actors to steer the process to desired outcomes. These components might be particularly useful in mitigating risks identified in co-creation literature, such as managing expectations; i.e., expectation gaps between users and developers, and power dynamics; i.e. moving power from one actor to another and what each actor values (Itten et al., 2020). Defining these components in advance can enable several different actors to have a voice, e.g., equal distribution of roles and responsibilities, build consensus, and benefit from it, and thus also limit potential risks, uncertainties, and conflicts that may arise in the process. Davis and Andrew (2017) note, for example, perceived risks in relation to feedback loops of the co-creation process, complex power dynamics, and process challenges between various professional and non-professional actors. In fact, co-creation presents a difficult context, as noted, since it challenges existing social hierarchies, professional incentive structures, and cultural assumptions (Flinders et al., 2016). At the same time, in three of the living lab contexts, actors have been shown to exercise innovative power and thus challenge established norms or technologies, thus demonstrating a certain level of independence from regimes (Avelino, 2011; Köhler et al., 2019), i.e., established shared and stable sets of rules or routines which direct the behaviours of actors and shape innovative activities towards a specific trajectory (Kemp et al., 2000; Kanger and Schot, 2016). Given the diverse constellation of actors in the process and the multiplicity of viewpoints, any divergences and convergences between them need to be balanced and overcome, and at the same time turned into meaningful actions. To ensure a co-creative process throughout design and development, however, means that the designers have to work within a common design language to steer actors and their activities forward. As Hoffman (2007) argued, users and producers have

69

different languages, values, and coding schemes. One way this was done was through activities undertaken simultaneously, as shown in Paper IV, which was validated further in Paper V. This study, for example, identified five key interdependent activities that supported the co-creation process, as shown Table 7 below. First, designers needed to match interdependencies between involved actors through combining competencies to define the pool of available resources. This allowed for much broader input on new sustainable system design due to a variety of insights and resources that become available or complemented each other, while also increasing the ability of individual actors to influence change. Second, designers had to facilitate the process, due to the need for intertwining multiple perspectives and insights. This activity enabled bringing in and fleshing out insights made between end-users and other actors. The third activity was to engage real end-users all the way. This enabled understanding as to the applicability of innovation in real-life contexts before making the technical solution fully functional, building trust in the actor network. Real-world use extensively increased insights into the hurdles and drawbacks of the new systems, but also identified gaps which were not and could not have been predicted nor conceived prior to the experiment. Fourth was offering users opportunities to modify practices through trials of concepts and solutions. Setting up the system in a real-user environment implied that end-users would also be directly and indirectly participating in design and development, hence, through their trials, end-users could also modify their own practices including how they travelled to work, given that a new system was made available to them. Fifth was capturing and mediating mutual learning through simultaneous development and usage, which was a way to co-create change across all stakeholders involved. Simultaneous development and usage allowed for possible actions to take place to push the innovation forward, since a holistic understanding of requirements was provided. This way, not only were uncertainties reduced, but also more applicable solutions were adapted to the users’ everyday context. Meanwhile, a broader range of actors felt included in design and development efforts.

Table 7: Five key activities supporting co-creation

No. Process of activities

1 Matching interdependencies through combining competencies and resources between diverse actors

2 Facilitating steering the group of actors toward action.

3 Engaging end-users at early stages

4 Offering users opportunities to modify practices through trials of concepts and

solutions

5 Capturing and mediating mutual learning through simultaneous development

and usage

In addition, finding this common design language required both cognitive and physical tools to steer the process. To track progress but also enable knowledge transfer, Paper IV showed that actors divided the process into design loops, which can be described as cognitive mental models by which actors resonate and align with each other in workflows, e.g., design loop 1 - understand and define, design loop 2 - create and design (Paper IV). However, the author reflects that proto-designs and users’ everyday lives acted as commons tools for this design language. Some would interpret these as boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989; Carlile, 2002). As defined by Star & Griesemer (1989), boundary objects are those objects which “are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites” (p. 393). Accordingly, boundary objects are said to

70

serve as a central element for the negotiations, conversations, and actions between actors. As Pedersen (2015) suggested, proto-designs have the ability to represent ‘matters of concern’. Others have termed these ‘constituents’, implying that these are representations of the objects of design (Binder et al., 2011). Obviously, the value that materiality has in spanning knowledge and translating knowledge in design processes is critical to participatory design and other frameworks, but the point here is to not enter that debate. Rather, we indicate that in co-creation, proto-designs act as language-communing tools to enable an interface, through which actors could communicate. In a way, the proto-designs acted as mediums of communication. Metaphorically, it is like ‘sitting around campfire, which stimulates storytelling’ so proto-designs stimulate involvement in the process. Because many diverse actors were involved with many perspectives, maintaining some centrality or orchestration through a common design language keeps track of the process, without jeopardizing the ability to expand or shrink away from it, e.g., through experimentation, changes, adaptation, etc. These insights contradict theory that actors, once aligned towards shared visions about sustainability, gain direction and coordinate mutual learning processes, e.g., Raven, van den Bosch, and Waterings, 2010; Smith and Raven, 2012; Sengers et al., 2019. Alignment at an abstract level, (e.g., sustainability goals) is not sufficient as it cannot ensure success even when actors bring competencies that balance innovation requirements. The results also challenge the way co-creation is perceived as always having a positive value for pooling resources, engaging actors, and adding value to innovation. These results instead suggest that co-creation is a new approach and challenging from a managerial aspect, where common visions and objectives are insufficient. It needs organisational structure and new management approaches to be steered and advanced. Common design language is one of the ingredients necessary to enable co-creation; however, more research is needed in this direction. 6.5 Co-creation generates learning and strategic direction

Co-creation generates several outcomes that benefit involved actors both in learning about new sustainable systems and providing strategic direction. First, a co-creative approach generates and simultaneously validates new sustainable concepts (Paper VI), the design and development of new sustainable systems (Paper III), as well as implementation phases of new sustainable systems (Paper II, V). Take, for example, a diverse map of ideas covering a wide range of proposals that emerged from the co-creation process in the KTH Live-in Lab from three key bundles of service concepts that were created together with users. Likewise, in the cases of both KTH Mobility Pool and REBUS, new sustainable systems benefited from gathering knowledge around real users, usage, user types, and everyday life contexts; thus, validating different users’ experiences with new sustainable systems and the impacts emerging from such interactions. In the case of KTH Mobility Pool, the proto-designed system replaced users’ daily trips and resulted in a higher vehicle utilization rate than predicted (Paper II). This validated that idea the needs of local transportation can be solved without people taking their own family car to work or using a rental car, where a flexible pooling system can reduce requirements for planning local transport and increase accessibility. On the other hand, in the case of REBUS, users’ input and their engagements shed light on the applicability of the system in real-world environments, which enabled key insights into the potential impacts that the proto-designed system could have on users, and vice versa. These insights confirm previous findings that innovations do in fact benefit all stages when users are involved (Bano and Zowghi 2015; Davis and Andrew, 2017).

Recent research on living lab-based co-creation approaches further support the integration of users in development processes (e.g. Schuurman, 2018; Vogel et al., 2020). Such an approach enables both providers and users to design and implement sustainability- and user-friendly

71

systems of products and services. Having users present at all stages reduces uncertainty about new sustainable systems. Users experience a new option as to how they access products, what works for them and what doesn’t, and why, stimulating further engagement and increasing trust in sustainable alternatives (Paper I, II). The lived experiences of people with the proto-designed systems further support their development since various users actively contributed (Paper I). Access to a variety of participants enabled an understanding of potential new concepts from multiple angles and actor perspectives, resulting in a dialogue and in-depth understanding of different points of view (Paper VI) as well as validation of new sustainable systems (Paper IV, V). Interactive sessions allowed the exchange of both information and opinions, in addition to building dialogue, thus expanding individual perspectives; e.g. users realized that many of their desires were not realizable due to several reasons limiting industrial actors and the specifics of the industry itself, which is very standardized (for example, in the case of buildings, Paper VI). And, providers of products and services realized the limitations of their technologies as well as contextual factors, which were not predicted (e.g. features of the system, Paper II, Paper V). These insights confirm previous studies suggesting the positive influence of users on the process of innovation and its outcomes (Baroudi, Olson, and Blake, 1986; Bano and Zowghi 2015). These relate specifically to studies by Lettl (2007) and Magnusson et al., (2003), who describe user involvement as a critical competency for organisations and firms, which can be harnessed.

Second, by having users present and actively involved, considerable input regarding the practical logistics and restraints of new sustainable systems can be generated. User and non-user involvement in proto-designs in everyday life contexts enables direct observation of potential hurdles and difficulties in new system delivery for all parties. As Hoffman (2007) argued, the involved stakeholders learn about products; their environmental, societal, and economic impacts; their use; the environmental aspects of changes in consumer behaviour; and they develop ideas on how to influence corporate strategies. For example, in the case of KTH Mobility Pool, several restraints for LEV fleet management in shared systems, operations, logistics, and business models were identified and pinpointed, which were not conceived in advance or predicted by developers. Specifically, following users’ everyday life experiences with proto-designs, many insights about logistics, delivery, operations, etc., could be obtained. These also showed how they interfaced with users’ time, efforts, and energy needed to engage with the new systems from an everyday life point of view (Paper II). Barriers implementing the new systems in the open market were identified, where a co-ownership model and light weight electric vehicles would need to be modified to fit to users, as stated by the users themselves (Paper II). Similarly, in the case of REBUS, many restraints around the design were made apparent based on user input, such as concerns about using refurbished pushchairs and car seats, which they thought previous users could have damaged or contaminated; efforts to recover products, e.g., difficulty in contacting users to collect equipment at the end of the lease period, penalties regarding damaged products, etc. (Paper V). Furthermore, considerable barriers to the implementation of the new system in the open market were identified, including attrition through loss or damage, product liability and consumer distrust in sharing products due to fear of contamination (Paper V). Insights were also generated in relation to the logistics of delivering such services but also in retrieving products, where several managerial implications arise, highlighting the role of both designers and users in designing the logistics of new systems (Paper V). Key input in both cases was also the understanding of changes necessary in legislation, rules, and institutional frameworks to support new sustainable systems, suggesting that these involve more variables than just products and services, which creates the need for increased engagement by both providers and users as well as regulatory bodies. Similar findings have been revealed in the construction sector by Vogel (2020), who proposes that legal and institutional frameworks are resulting in weak or negative incentives for construction industry actors to invest in and install

72

resource-efficient technologies. These insights are also in line with the claim that users’ involvement improves the quality of design decisions (Gulari et al., 2011; Fischer et al., 2020). User presence during design and development decisions appears to improve understanding of requirements and needs (Bano and Zowghi, 2014), but also making apparent the limitations coming from both developers’ and users’ side. As Davis and Andrew (2017) suggested, this approach, on one hand, ensures that products and services being designed meet user needs, and on the other, helps end users to understand how a product or service works while also enabling users to have an active interest in its ongoing success. From a sustainability point of view, it reinforces the findings of Heiskanen, Kasanen, and Timonen (2004) that assert that co-creation supports the identification of conditions for user adoption as well as factors inhibiting their adoption. Third, users’ involvement enables accurate environmental assessment of new systems by accounting for user practices in the use-phase of new systems which are already at the development stage. This is because users hold crucial knowledge about environmental aspects of products and services during the decisive life-cycle usage stage, which is normally concealed from producers (Hoffman, 2007). In the KTH Mobility Pool, it was found that the proto-designs have true potential to significantly reducing environmental impact and energy use, when they replace conventional cars14, which was a higher impact than had been assumed when conceptualizing the system. The environmental benefits were shown to be both direct and indirect, with promising direct environmental benefits. The total environmental impact (CO2-e) was found to decrease by about 80% when using a LEV compared to a mid-range gasoline-powered car. Although the project concluded that usage was small compared to the average usage of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) today, if scaled into a larger LEVpool system, this would lead to considerable impact on energy and carbon reduction in comparison to internal combustion engine vehicles. Likewise, in the REBUS case, the usage by and explorations of users, led to an understanding of environmental benefits identified through the life-cycle assessment using real world data. The results showed that the system design is worth pursuing15. The new system was shown to provide significant reductions in emissions to air, ground, and water, with the most notable benefits being reduction in particulate matter, followed by acidification, photo-chemical ozone formation, climate change and eutrophication (terrestrial and marine); reduction in plastic use (especially polypropylene); and reduction in the transportation of new components to build car seats for conventional acquisition. These benefits were possible only through the contextual everyday knowledge of system users. Because user practices have a high influence on the total environmental impacts of new systems, developing and designing these systems in user- and stakeholder-integrated settings supports their accurate assessment. Liedtke et al. (2015) even suggested that when users’ social practices of utilizing novelties are considered, it reduces rebound effects caused by incorrect novelty application. Fourth, co-creation generates reliable input for all parties involved, while expanding opportunities for new networks. Actors related to developing and providing new sustainable systems were supported in their strategic decisions through learning about the ‘workability’ of new sustainable systems in practice. This was observed in each of the living lab cases. In the KTH Mobility Pool and REBUS, actors gained proof-of-concept and learned about the

14 This data has been calculated by one of the actors in the project using my own data collected during the project. The details can be found in Stier et al., (2017). The ten test LEVs were run 30 620 km with 3717 trips booked in total during the project, with majority of trips being between 5–15km. The total amount of trips replaced 1800 km of petrol and diesel cars, saving approximately 1240 kWh and emissions of 350 kg CO2e per month (during trial phase). Furthermore, other emissions such as carbon monoxide (7.2 kg), hydrocarbons (1.6), and nitrogen oxides (0.76 kg), as well as 18 g of particles were saved each month. 15 A total of 892 physical products had been leased to parents, of which 827 were car seats and car seat bases and 65 were pushchairs, with some of them being reutilized three times. In total, the shared infant mobility products were accessed 1044 times.

73

desirability of innovative sustainable systems, while not investing too many resources individually. This facilitated them to engage their community in dialogue about transitioning to a fossil fuel free society and articulate visions about a fossil fuel free future with a ‘proof of concept’ for their organisation. Involving users enabled learning about the desirability of peer-to-peer systems with a radical service concept in terms of the user model (Paper III and V). This informed their business strategy and new opportunities for mass-scaling of the business model. In addition, the organisations involved could affect various changes in their respective contexts and influence policy change/making through learning about the applicability of sustainable mobility alternatives in their context and through the dissemination of knowledge inside the organisations (Paper III). In the KTH Live-in Lab, having users present also meant a direction for the other actors in terms of where they could focus their activities, opening new potential strategic directions (Paper VI). The direct involvement of users benefited all other actors in the process, since such format was shown to enhance understanding and meaning of the ‘products and services in use’, where in this case, the end-users were often those who brought disruptive perspectives into the dialogue, challenging the industrial stakeholders. Enkel, Gassmann, Chesbrough, (2009) argued that co-creation enriches internal R&D activities, enabling an efficient way of creating and capturing value from innovation activities. It can be interpreted that co-creation does in fact maximize learning for the actors involved. In addition, co-creation has an aspect of socialization, where participating actors perceive value in networking and the possibility of new collaborations emerging from the process, especially for industrial actors. In the KTH Mobility Pool, for example, the approach has pushed the actors to pursue other innovative sustainable mobility solutions (Paper III). An openness for the new has been fostered among participating private and public actors with a stronger desire to transition toward a more sustainable future. In KTH Live-In lab, it allowed for the intersection of various professional and non-professional actors with different knowledge pools, which would not have otherwise occured, hence enabling better navigation and openness in understanding each other (Paper VI). In this case, for example, individuals with managerial positions, designers, engineers, researchers, and ordinary users were all in one place, who otherwise would rarely intersect. These insights shed light to the social aspect of co-creation which was highlighted as a gap in research by to a review by Fischer et al. (2020). They also resonate with Seyfang et al. (2010), who suggested that users’ involvement pushes and encourages established actors to seek new solutions and new opportunities.

Based on these empirical insights, co-creation can be an effective approach to reveal multiple parameters including scale, context, behaviour, logistics and delivery, barriers, and benefits, all of which contribute to understanding the environmental, social, and economic impacts of new sustainable systems. These insights indicate that there are promising outcomes for co-creative development approaches, where trust, support, and sense of certainty and workability of new sustainable systems are validated and enhanced. By collaborating with users in their real-life conditions or ‘piloting’ the design and operation of new systems, actors can address issues as they arise and learn about the usefulness and feasibility of the innovation in a competitive market, before further resources are wasted by persisting with the implementation of something that promises little added value for costs incurred (Papers IV, V). Therefore, it can be concluded that co-creation, overall, generates learning and strategic direction for all actors involved in the design and development of new sustainable systems. This thesis confirms Hoffman (2007), who suggested that involving users as partners leads to mutual learning about sustainability for all involved parties. It also validates the findings of Scott, Bakker, and Quist (2012) and Liedtke et al. (2012), and supports theoretical stances that technical innovations can be balanced with innovations in user practices (Shove et al., 2012; Kuijer, 2014). Similar to Heiskanen, Kasanen, and Timonen (2005), this contributes to the claim that new sustainable systems can be supported

74

by co-creative approaches in identifying the conditions necessary for implementation but also in the acceptance and embedding of innovations in user context.

6.6 Co-creation immerses people in behavioural changes by exposing them to the possibilities for change

When people are involved in co-creating new sustainable systems, they are exposed to new ideas as to how they can change their everyday life practices. Such experience cultivates openness to change as people get immersed in trying out new possibilities for their everyday lives. For example, in Paper II, it can be noted how participants changed their views on the private car after having been immersed in the project for six months. The experience itself led to a deconstruction of a routinized travel practice—car based commute, enabling deep questions as to the meaning of private cars as a means of daily commuting, opening up critical reflections in relation to existing mobility practices, i.e., awareness of where, how, and why end-users maintain a set practice, e.g., using a car, and challenged their own practices around car ownership and mobility. Previous research by Scott, Quist, and Bakker (2009) and Hesselgren and Hasselqvist (2016), showed similar results, suggesting that users, by ‘living change’, can alter their practices. This is also supported by social practice theory, which suggests that there are no technical innovations without innovations in practice (Shove and Walker, 2010).

Furthermore, in Paper II, it can be observed how users’ perceptions changed toward electric vehicles and peer-to-peer services. Obviously, participants were aware that this was an experiment they were involved in; though, a sense of confidence, trust, and understanding of their role in sustainable transportation could be noticed after six months. These participants were contemplating and reflecting throughout the period of involvement, an indicator of which is in how they described experiences with the new system, e.g., paying attention to the comfort of vehicles, the mileage driven, safety and security, fuel savings, time and planning it took daily, as well as hurdles and benefits of the new system (Paper II). The frequent interactions with the researchers and developers also enabled those participants to proactively contribute to making changes in their own everyday life, where some were willing to compromise doing so while others were not (Paper II). According to participants, this day-to-day direct involvement encouraged reflection and reassurance about how they used, engaged, and lived with material products, hence also on their contribution to the overall environmental impacts of their behaviour. Design opportunities, as such, motivates users to change because they expose the user to change (Ehn, 1989; Rohracher et al., 2003; Vines et al., 2013).

Additionally, some of the participants felt empowered to collaborate and forward the initiative, which resulted in a kind of activism at work and with peers in pushing forward the implementation of more sustainable transportation solutions, while also being critical to design and its limitations in the everyday life. Those users actively engaged in discussion and dialogue about electric vehicles, sharing resources, and their need to shift mobility practices and reduce mobility-related impacts, i.e., emissions and carbon footprints. Similar findings were suggested by Talsma and Molenbroek (2012) in the case of eco-tourism in India, where people put extensive effort into improving these services (in Voorberg et al., 2015). In addition, users felt encouraged to further involve themselves in issues of sustainability and initiated discussions at home, with colleagues, and with peers about change at the individual, community, organisational, and city level in which politics and rules were also held to task. Similar findings have been suggested by Füller et al. (2009), who showed that users engaging in co-creation feel empowered. In this thesis, they realized the interdependence of their actions and the need for collective aspirations to change. They also felt encouraged to further involve themselves in issues of sustainability and initiated discussions at home, with colleagues and with peers about change at the individual,

75

community, organisational, and city level in which politics and rules were also put at stake. Similar findings were suggested by Talsma and Molenbroek (2012) in the case of eco-tourism in India, where people put more effort into improving these services (in Voorberg et al., 2015). Additionally, Füller et al. (2009) also showed users engaging in co-creation feel empowered. Some of the participants indeed felt empowered for having been given the role of co-creators in the development process. They also wanted to be seen as being open-minded toward altering their mobility practices and to be seen as influencers, e.g., they wanted to be noticed for driving a shared small electric vehicle at work (Paper II).

As Jalas et al., (2017) argued, users can be augmented through design experimentation. They also engage in multiple ways based on their individual positions and beliefs, when given the opportunity. Users in the case of KTH Mobility Pool were not only the subjects researching mobility practices, but a partner in researching and in supporting the development and design of new mobility practices. Paper II supports the idea that users are experts in their own worlds (Olsson, 2009, p. 29) and of their own experience (Sanders and Stappers, 2008; 2012), and that they are knowing subjects (Wilson, 1996), with multiple identities (Lindsay, 2003). The exposure that the co-creation process enabled both for end-users and other stakeholders is thus promising in potentially accelerating the application of new sustainable systems, although more empirical results may be needed to validate these insights. What this implies is that user involvement is relevant in addressing the discrepancy between new sustainable systems and behaviour change. Unlike simply nudging behaviours, or designing incentives for users to change their behaviour, involving them in the process of change inspires users toward reflective experimentation and innovation in their everyday life. These findings also reflect those of Hayes (2011) who suggests that exposure to new ideas, processes, and lenses provoke changes in users.

However, for such outcomes, it appears that design opportunities need to be created where individuals can immerse themselves and experiment with their own everyday life configurations. Users are not passively engaging with products and services, but consciously and meticulously arranging, configuring, and altering their own realities through the products and services that occupy their lives. These results present another supporting argument; that users’ presence in co-creation is not only beneficial for new system development but also for stimulating changes in users’ everyday life practices. This presents a new opportunity for rethinking behavioural changes in relation to new sustainable systems, by considering how involvement at early stages of design and development can facilitate exposing society to new systems promising more sustainable ways of living.

77

7 Conclusions While many new alternative approaches to existing complex systems like transportation have been introduced, the transition of current transport systems towards sustainability is frequently met with challenges to wide implementation, societal uptake, and use of alternative new systems. These factors continue to contribute to high economic, ecological, and socio-cultural impact uncertainties surrounding new systems as they play out in everyday life. This thesis argued that transportation systems are intertwined with human everyday life practices and ways of living, values, and belief systems, among other things. It suggested that a critical issue in transition to new sustainable systems such as those in transportation is the involvement of people, where end-users of alternatives become prime stakeholders who need to be involved in any meaningful attempt to transition. In light of such arguments, the thesis argued that new transport systems need to incorporate people and their logics, demanding their presence as active creative participants in their design and development. Co-creation was proposed to enable a radically different form of involvement, since this approach enables sharing design authorship in the development of new sustainable systems as well as driving collective change, through combining resources and immersing people in transition. Given the complexity of sustainable systems, it was argued that co-creative approaches may support transition, since such approaches allow both people and design to be influenced reciprocally, therefore bringing about systemic transformation towards the objectives of sustainability. However, several research gaps were identified with regards to how end-users can be involved at a level where they together with multiple actors are co-creating solutions. Studies this far have not provided an explicit narrative and systematic understanding of how co-creation might support transition of the transport system and practices. This thesis thus aimed to study the involvement of multiple actors in co-creation of new sustainable systems design and development, the process, and the potential outcomes for transition. To achieve these aims, the thesis presented six papers with empirical results to support the overarching research question raised. Based on the empirical results and findings discussed, three main conclusions can be drawn. The first is that people can be involved in new systems in various ways whether or not they are users of the system. This thesis finds that involvement in co-creation is neither binary nor a one-time occurrence. Rather, it is a spectrum of varying intensities regarding how individuals immerse themselves in and throughout a process. Four patterns of involvement were identified from non-users to highly active users, each co-creating differently. New sustainable systems appear to be co-created through the involvement of both users and non-users in the process. This suggests that both matter during design and development, and potentially in accelerating transition as well. Through their use or non-use practices, people can give direction to new sustainable systems, and through every involved or uninvolved person, a new system is affected both positively and negatively; thus, both users and non-users are in fact co-creating new sustainable systems. The involvement of a spectrum of users and non-users in co-creation and at different stages can thus be a more effective approach to modelling and defining the uses and application of new sustainable systems, and possibly increasing their accessibility, by representing and appealing to a wider population in design. This, however, raises important implications for how the involvement of ‘users’ and ‘non-users’ is defined, which requires meticulous planning and articulation of forms of involvement. As this thesis suggests, involvement is defined partially by those initiating it and partially by the end-user’s behaviours towards design. Hence, which types of users are involved and how they are involved seems to matter more than simply involving any ‘user’. The ‘user’ of a new system should not be modelled or predicted in advance, but instead configured through the involvement of people’s diverse everyday lives. This is because,

78

depending on who is involved and how, new sustainable systems can include or exclude representation of societal patterns in the process, e.g. diverse patterns of everyday living practices. The involvement of those who will ultimately engage with new systems in their everyday lives, therefore needs to be thoroughly articulated and considered when deciding on the method of involvement. Designing methods that seek to involve a spectrum of people and activate their diverse roles in new sustainable systems could be an important steering mechanism for transition, by expanding the accessibility of such systems to a wider population. Motivations also seem to play a role in driving involvement and how intensively people are involved. This thesis found that co-creation of new systems is driven namely by a strong shared desire to progress towards sustainability; an openness to change; a wish to reduce the uncertainty of change from a technological, environmental, and social point of view; and ambitions to influence others and make ‘change’ visible. These findings led to the conclusion that it is not the same motivations, per se, that drive co-creation, but rather shared inherent concerns and uncertainties about the future. These results indicate that, firstly, there may be multiple, more nuanced motivations by which actors are driven to co-create new sustainable systems; and secondly, there appears an interest in seeing change in society from a number of different stakeholders, thus further strengthening the idea that co-creative approaches could be designed to strategically immerse stakeholders in bringing about systemic change.

The second conclusion is that co-creation generates multi-dimensional learning and strategic direction, in addition to immersing people in behavioural changes by exposing them to possibilities for change. This helps to build trust in new energy-efficient and carbon-reducing alternatives, validate the logistical workability of new sustainable systems and their true impacts, and stimulate engagement in new sustainable system development. These outcomes indicate that co-creation, if well organised, can improve the efficacy of development processes, because it integrates several linear processes of innovation into one; e.g., design, development, marketing, communication, and implementation. This emerges as the result of an in-depth understanding of different points of view, which contributes to the expansion of knowledge not only for developers but also for end-users, who gain insight into each other’s challenges in making changes. In particular, the involvement of end-user actors shows promise in steering the direction of other stakeholders, e.g. the public and private organizations, and may prove useful for all other actors, since such a format gives a more hands-on understanding of the meaning of solutions as they play out in the real world, opening up the potential for development and customisation of future products, services, and practices. Although it is too early to estimate how far a co-creative approach actually improves efficacy, these findings can motivate the pursuit of co-creative approaches in practice and stimulate new research to put this to test. The co-creation approach used in this thesis has shown to be strategically relevant for transition; however, more quantitative studies may be needed to validate them.

The third conclusion is that the co-creation approach is still new in practice and proves challenging from a managerial standpoint when common visions and objectives are not sufficient to align stakeholders. This thesis showed that several barriers exist when involving people in co-creation, e.g., alignment of concrete tasks and responsibilities, managing conflicting interests and needs in the co-creation activities, conflicting organisational cultures, divergence in perspectives, and requirements such as time and effort to carry the work. However, there were also enablers which were found to stimulate the process, e.g., access to diverse competencies and resources, complementing stakeholder resources, which supported dealing with complex challenges that were outside individual actor’s capacities. Consequently, five key activities were identified to support co-creation by aligning and steering actors: 1) matching systemic innovation requirements by combining the competencies and resources of diverse actors; 2) facilitation to steer the group of actors into actions; 3) engaging end-users early on; 4) offering users

79

opportunities to engage on their terms; and 5) capturing and mediating mutual learning by bridging development with implementation. Furthermore, while several advantages to co-creation were identified, such as the ability to consider activities from multiple perspectives; enabling meeting of various professional and non-professional actors, outside their respective places, organizations, or ways of living; gaining holistic understanding of the systemic nature of sustainable innovations; opening up the potential for creating more diverse offers; and, networking and new collaboration opportunities, the barriers and disadvantages seem to be mainly managerial. This thesis showed that co-creation approaches therefore need organisational structure and new management methods in order to progress. Common design language, which uses both cognitive and physical tools to facilitate users and stakeholders in co-creation, is one enabling factor of co-creation, although more research is needed to strengthen this conclusion.

Finally, an important realisation emerging from this research is that if we are going to stimulate behaviour changes towards more sustainable social and technological systems, design needs to foster the presence of people for whom the designed systems are intended, and do so in places where they are contextualised, e.g., installation of proto-designs-practices in real living/working environments. Besides focusing on changing behaviours through nudging, subsidies, incentives, and interventions into people’s everyday lives, people can be meaningfully involved in processes that create opportunities and possibilities for change. Research thus needs to focus on increasing the active involvement of users, non-users, and related stakeholders in design and development processes for new sustainable systems, despite the present managerial challenges as discussed above. Co-creation approaches could increase the representation of wider cross-section of society in developing new sustainable systems as well as widen the practical applications of innovative systems in different societal contexts. The findings of this thesis subsequently lead to a new hypothesis that the more people involved in the development of new sustainable systems, the faster the transition to such systems will be. However, we must be cautious regarding what happens when people transition from non-engagement to engagement in one way or another with new sustainable alternatives. Can these newly-designed solutions fulfil their promise of delivering net positive impacts to support a more sustainable everyday life for the majority?

81

8 Implications for transport Since the main research focus has been on transport systems, it is important to situate the findings in this sector. The results appear to be of utmost importance given the complexity of the system, the automobility lock-in, and the inherent dependence that the system reciprocates between transport vehicles, services, and infrastructures and user transport practices, which are embedded and learned ways of doing things, cultural norms, and everyday life logistics. The involvement of various users and non-users in co-creation may be quite necessary, not only to develop new transport systems, but also to increase the accessibility of sustainable transport innovations, instead of privileging subsets of societal groups who are likely to adopt new products, services, and systems, e.g., early adopter user characteristics. This is especially crucial if sustainability transitions involve a shared responsibility of building expectations about the alternative systems. For example, debates about mobility equity and transport diversity have recently been addressed in relation to sustainable transport. As discussed in the background chapter, transport modality can exclude individuals based on various parameters, e.g., gender, socio-economic background, place and location, etc. This thesis supports the concerns about exclusion and privileging of certain societal groups through design and development. These concerns have been hinted at in other research, which has criticized the tight linkage between user models and design outcomes and determining who it is that is most likely to benefit from innovations in certain domains and contexts. Although any type of conclusion is still early, the results of this thesis indicate that involvement as a concept in itself is much more deeply rooted than has been covered in research, particularly when integrating it with concepts of sustainability. A reflection raised from the findings of this thesis is how we approach the acceleration of a transition to new sustainable systems by accounting for user participation in this transition. In the case studied most in this thesis, e.g., sustainable transport, non-car users can be said to be present in the overall transport system, i.e., they represent a larger subset of mainstream society when it comes to transport participation today, even though car users dominate the transport infrastructure. However, non-car users are the least involved in new sustainable transport systems. It appears that car users are the continuous focal actors in transition processes, as it is their practices which are targeted, e.g., switching from fossil fuel cars to electric cars. While it is car practices that seem to generate the core problems in transport, too much focus on them can lead to many potential systems not being pursued due to the limited representation that car users provide for population-level interest. The turning point in transport studies can be how exploring new sustainable transport systems can involve the perspective of non-car users instead of trying to change the practices of car users and owners. The more non-users of cars are accounted for in innovation processes, the higher the likelihood of a system change, as it is those individuals who will potentially delegitimise current private car ownership norms. For example, if non-car owners in one area of an urban city are in fact bicycle users, developing systems that support their cycling can potentially be more impactful in both further fostering cycling practices and indirectly de-incentivising private car driving. Increased involvement in the new system could reconfigure participation in the old systems.

83

9 Limitations and future research This thesis used a mixed method data collection approach while situating research in experimental setups, and there are research limitations in relation to the conclusions that can be derived from such work. These were addressed in detail in chapter 4, section 4.4. Since the primary findings are derived mainly from qualitative inquiry, there are inherent limitations to the generalizability of findings, e.g., co-creation is inherently iterative, thus different results may be observed every time it is applied both in terms of process and outcome. For example, although all three cases applied a co-creation approach, each carried out a slightly different process, which may have affected how findings were interpreted. However, given the processes and outcome results for the three different cases, some results stood out clearly in each case; for example in challenges faced during the process and in outcomes. These findings may contribute to different contexts concerned with the development of sustainability-oriented innovations, particularly complex systems that are essential for society such as housing, energy, agriculture, and food, where multiple stakeholders are critical. As shown in this thesis, each living lab experiment has tested different technological solutions, while involving end-users actively in the process, while including large, small, public and private organisations as stakeholders. They demonstrated similar results validating, each case’s methodology, hence such an approach can be potentially applied in different contexts of sustainable systems innovation. However, such an approach is scale-independent: both complex large-scale and more streamlined small-scale projects can integrate co-creative approaches and benefit several actors. It must be noted that co-creation research is still theoretically weak, hence several research directions could be considered for future research. One direction is research on design strategies regarding involvement in co-creation approaches. Which actors should co-create and what are the most strategic combinations between systems, sectors, and actors’ backgrounds to accelerate transition? For example, users-as-actors are already quite diverse and use contexts are unique, requiring meticulous planning by process initiators. We have seen through the cases presented that involving diverse user groups and prototyping solutions in real environments provides a plurality of perspectives as to potential solutions. This information would have not been obtained if only certain targeted social groups were involved. An explicit focus on user diversity instead of user segmentation could increase social participation and representation in transition processes; however, developing a strategy for user involvement is challenging due to risks in social biases, seclusion, engenderment, etc. Different modes of involvement, as shown, will also lead to different results in innovation processes. In any application context, however, critical assessment of involvement strategies as well as typology or diversity of individual and organisational actors must be accounted for in advance. A second potential research trajectory is a focus on how responsibilities and commitment in deliberate co-creation approaches are shared. Co-creation inherently solicits equitable agency although it is critical that responsibilities and commitments are shared among actors in order to increase activation of all actors in an ecosystem, thus improving the ability to influence systems change. There are notable challenges observed with managing such processes due to the diversity of languages in relation to points of view and building consensus around them. As shown in these studies, co-creation needs both agility and structure to ensure strategic direction for all relevant actors’ needs, expectations, and interests. Developing better tools and methods for managing co-creation could be another research direction. Another possibility relates to how co-creative approaches can balance structure and experimental messiness. There is inherent unpredictability in these effects and their quantification in co-creation work, due to the nature of the process itself. To ensure success, as much structure as

84

possible needs to be given to such work; however, this can come at the risk of making the process extremely complex, and resource-intense in planning effort, time dedicated, and monitoring; potentially also affecting outcome type and quality. There are challenges therefore between an experimental, open, and transparent approach, and a more structured one in ensuring equitable power dynamics, representation, and defined roles and responsibilities. This also challenges the replicability of the approach, which largely depends on the uniqueness of the addressed issue. More research is needed on the long-term effects of co-creative approaches. So far, we observe that co-creation can generate impact, but participating actors (public or private) have agency as to how they participate and respond to participation. Hence, further research could be directed toward qualitative and quantitative analysis of outcomes, as well as the scope, scale, and temporal factors that shape co-creation impacts, particularly in terms of their application. A potential concern emerging on a more abstract level is: if socio-technical systems are shaped co-creatively, could this lead to future compounded complexity due to potential system entanglement effects it can have on actors, resource use, and eventually, on technological systems? This could potentially result in what I would refer to as ‘future action paralysis’, e.g., an inability to cause any meaningful change or reverse consequences of a system due to overcomplexity, and the accountability and responsibility of individual actors (especially legal accountability), which can prove counterproductive in the long run. Critical theoretical research is necessary at this point.

87

10 References Abowitz, D.A. & Toole, T.M., 2010. Mixed Method Research: Fundamental Issues of Design, Validity, and Reliability in Construction Research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1), pp.108–116. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000026. Adams, E.A., Sambu, D. & Smiley, S.L., 2018. Urban water supply in Sub-Saharan Africa: historical and emerging policies and institutional arrangements. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35(2), pp.240–263. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1423282. Cherunya, P.C., 2019. Rethinking User Agency in Sustainability Transitions: Analyzing the roles of informal settlement dwellers in a spintered sanitation regime. PhD Thesis. Utrecht University Agrawal, A.K. & Rahman, Z., 2015. Roles and Resource Contributions of Customers in Value Co-creation. International Strategic Management Review, 3(1-2), pp.144–160. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ism.2015.03.001. Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp.179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t Alam, I., 2002. An Exploratory Investigation of User Involvement in New Service Development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), pp.250–261. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00970302030003006. Almirall, E. & Wareham, J., 2011. Living Labs: arbiters of mid- and ground-level innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(1), pp.87–102. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2011.537110. Ambole, A., Musango, J.K., Buyana, K., Ogot, M., Anditi, C., Mwau, B., Kovacic, Z., Smit, S., Lwasa, S., Nsangi, G., Sseviiri, H., Brent, A.C., 2019. Mediating household energy transitions through co-design in urban Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. Energy Research & Social Science, 55, pp.208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.009 Ansell, C.K. & Bartenberger, M., 2016. Varieties of experimentalism. Ecological Economics, 130, pp.64–73. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.016. Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A., 1989. Participatory Action Research and Action Science Compared. American Behavioral Scientist, 32(5), pp.612–623. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764289032005008.

Audouin, M., 2019. In Finger, M., Audouin M., Editors (Eds.), The Governance of Smart Transportation Systems (1-10). Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-96526-0 Avelino, F., 2017. Power in Sustainability Transitions: Analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(6), pp.505–520. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eet.1777. Axsen, J., & Sovacool, B. K., 2019. The roles of users in electric, shared and automated mobility transitions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 71, pp.1–21. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2019.02.012 Ballon, P. & Schuurman, D., 2015. Living labs: concepts, tools and cases. info, 17(4). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/info-04-2015-0024. Banister, D., 2008. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), pp.73–80. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005. Bano, M., & Zowghi, D., 2015. A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success. Information and Software Technology, 58, pp.148–169. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2014.06.011 Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M., 2012. Access-Based Consumption: The Case of Car Sharing: Table 1. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), pp.881–898. doi:10.1086/666376 Barile, S. et al., 2020. Technology, Value Co-Creation and Innovation in Service Ecosystems: Toward Sustainable Co-Innovation. Sustainability, 12(7), p.2759. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12072759. Barki, H., & Hartwick, J., 1989. Rethinking the Concept of User Involvement. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), p.53. doi:10.2307/248700 (Barki and Hartwich, 1989) Baroudi, J. J., Olson, M. H., & Ives, B., 1986. An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 29(3), pp.232–238. doi:10.1145/5666.5669 Barr, S., & Prillwitz, J. 2014. A Smarter Choice? Exploring the Behaviour Change Agenda for Environmentally Sustainable Mobility. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(1), pp.1–19. doi:10.1068/c1201 Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E., 1982. External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American

88

Psychologist, 37(3), pp.245–257. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.3.245 Berg, J., Henriksson M., & Ihlström, J., 2019. Comfort First! Vehicle-Sharing Systems in Urban Residential Areas: The Importance for Everyday Mobility and Reduction of Car Use among Pilot Users. Sustainability, 11(9), p.2521. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11092521. Bergvall-Kareborn, B., Hoist M., and Stahlbrost, A., 2009. "Concept Design with a Living Lab Approach," In: 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2009, pp. 1-10. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2009.123. Bhattacherjee, A., 2012. "Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices." Textbooks Collection. Book 3. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/oa_textbooks/3 Binder, T., Brandt, E., Ehn, P., & Halse, J., 2015. Democratic design experiments: between parliament and laboratory. CoDesign, 11(3-4), pp.152–165. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081248. Binder, Thomas, Eva Brandt, Joachim Halse, Maria Foverskov, Sissel Olander, and Signe Yndigegn., 2011. Living the (co-design) lab. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Nordic Design Conference, Making Design Matter. Helsinki. Binder, T., Brandt, E., & Gregory, J., 2008. Design participation(-s) – a creative commons for ongoing change. CoDesign, 4, pp.79 - 83. Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A., 2010. Participatory design and “democratizing innovation.” In: Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference on - PDC ’10. doi:10.1145/1900441.1900448 Ives, B., Olson, M.H., 1984. User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research. Management Science, 30(5), pp.586-603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.5.586 Bleijenberg A., 2012. The Attractiveness of Car Use. In: Zachariadis T. (eds) Cars and Carbon. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2123-4_2 Blok, V., Long, T. B., Gaziulusoy, A. I., Ciliz, N., Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., Boks, C., 2015. From best practices to bridges for a more sustainable future: advances and challenges in the transition to global sustainable production and consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, pp.19–30. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.119 Bocken, N. M. P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C., & van der Grinten, B., 2016. Product design and business model

strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5), pp.308–320. doi:10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124 Bødker, S., 2003. A for Alternatives. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems: 15(1), Article 1. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol15/iss1/1 Bogers, M., Afuah, A. & Bastian, B., 2010. Users as Innovators: A Review, Critique, and Future Research Directions. Journal of Management, 36(4), pp.857–875. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309353944. Botero, A. & Hyysalo, S., 2013. Ageing together: Steps towards evolutionary co-design in everyday practices. CoDesign, 9(1), pp.37–54. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2012.760608. Botsman, R. & Rogers, R., 2010. What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. Harper Business, New York. Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp.77–101. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Brunner, H., Hirz, M., Hirschberg, W., & Fallast, K., 2018. Evaluation of various means of transport for urban areas. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 8(1). doi:10.1186/s13705-018-0149-0 Bueger, C., 2013. Pathways to practice: praxiography and international politics. European Political Science Review, 6(3), pp.383–406. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1755773913000167. Caniëls, M.C.J. & Romijn, H.A., 2008. Actor networks in Strategic Niche Management: Insights from social network theory. Futures, 40(7), pp.613–629. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.12.005. Carlile, P.R., 2002. A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science, 13(4), pp.442–455. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953. Carroll, J.M. & Rosson, M.B., 2007. Participatory design in community informatics. Design Studies, 28(3), pp.243–261. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.007. Cass, N. & Faulconbridge, J., 2016. Commuting practices: New insights into modal shift from theories of social practice. Transport Policy, 45, pp.1–14. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.08.002.

89

Catulli, D.M., Reed, N., Tzilivakis, J. & Green, A., 2020. Extending the Life of Infant Mobility Products: Implementing a Product Service System: Report on DEFRA ABR112 (Project EV0534)/ Re-engineering Business for Sustainability. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), London. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=18198 Ceccagnoli, C.F., Huang & Wu D. J., 2012. Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem! The Case of Enterprise Software. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), p.263. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41410417. Ceschin, F., 2014. Sustainable Product-Service Systems. Springer Briefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03795-0. Chesbrough, H. W., 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA. Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. The Era of Open Innovation, in: MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 44, 3, p. 35-41. Clark, B., Chatterjee, K., & Melia, S., 2016. Changes to commute mode: The role of life events, spatial context and environmental attitude. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 89, pp.89–105. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2016.05.005 Clewlow, R.R. & Mishra, G.S., 2017. Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States (Research Report). UC Davis Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways of the Institute of Transportation Studies Cohen A., Shaheen, S., 2016. Planning for Shared Mobility. American Planning Association, Chicago Collins, R., 2014. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400851744 Conge, P. J. 1988. “The Concept of Political Participation: Toward a Definition.” Comparative Politics, vol. 20, no. 2, Comparative Politics, Ph.D. Programs in Political Science, City University of New York, pp. 241–49, https://doi.org/10.2307/421669. Cova, B. & Dalli, D., 2009. Working consumers: the next step in marketing theory? Marketing Theory, 9(3), pp.315–339. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470593109338144.

Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L., 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, Los Angeles. Creswell, J. W., 2003. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, Calif, Sage Publications. Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), p.319. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249008. Davis, A., & Andrew, J., 2017. Co-creating Urban Environments to Engage Citizens in a Low-carbon Future. Procedia Engineering, 180, 651–657. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.224 De Koning, J.I.; Crul, M.R.; Wever, R., 2016. Models of co-creation. In: Service Design Geographies, Proceedings of the ServDes Conference No. 125 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S., 2005. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, pp. 1– 32, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, Stephan, Pick, D., Pirner, P., 2010. Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), pp.253–266. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375599. Dumitru, A., Garcia Mira, R., 2017. Green Lifestyles, Alternative Models and Upscaling Regional Sustainability. Institute of Psychosocial Studies and Research, Spain. Available at: http://www.people-environment-udc.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/revista_glamurs_bj.pdf. (Accessed 9 November 2021). Duri, S., Elliott, J., Gruteser, M, Liu, X., Moskowitz, P., Perez, R., Singg, M., Tang., J. 2004. Data Protection and Data Sharing in Telematics. Mobile Networks and Applications, 9(6), pp.693–701. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/b:mone.0000042507.74516.00. European Environmental Agency, 2020. Monitoring CO2 Emissions from Passenger Cars and Vans in 2018. Copenhagen, Denmark. ISBN 9789294802224. Egede, P., 2017. Environmental Assessment of Lightweight Electric Vehicles. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40277-2. Ehn, P., 1989. The art and science of designing computer artifacts. Scandinavian Journal of Information

90

Systems: 1(1), Article 3. Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol1/iss1/3 Ehn, P., 1988. Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum. Available at https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:580037/FULLTEXT02 Enkel, E., Gassmann, O. & Chesbrough, H., 2009. Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), pp.311–316. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00570.x. Enzmann, J., & Ringel, M., 2020. Reducing Road Transport Emissions in Europe: Investigating A Demand Side Driven Approach. Sustainability, 12(18), p.7594. doi:10.3390/su12187594 Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V. and Kulkki, S. 2005. State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation-a European approach. Lulea Cent. Distance-Spanning Technol. Lulea Univ. Technol. Swed. pp.1–13. Feick, L.F. & Price, L.L., 1987. The Market Maven: A Diffuser of Marketplace Information. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), p.83. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251146. Fischer, F., 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Fischer, L.-B., & Newig, J., 2016. Importance of Actors and Agency in Sustainability Transitions: A Systematic Exploration of the Literature. Sustainability, 8(5), p.476. doi:10.3390/su8050476 Fischer, B., Peine, A. & Östlund, B., 2019. The Importance of User Involvement: A Systematic Review of Involving Older Users in Technology Design P. C. Heyn, ed. The Gerontologist, 60(7), pp.e513–e523. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz163. Fisher, C. D., 1984. Laboratory experimentation. In: Bateman, T. S. and Ferris, G. R. (Eds) Method and Analysis in Organizational Research, Reston Publishing Company, Reston, Virginia, pp. 169-185 Fichter, K. & Clausen, J., 2016. Diffusion Dynamics of Sustainable Innovation - Insights on Diffusion Patterns Based on the Analysis of 100 Sustainable Product and Service Innovations. Journal of Innovation Management, 4(2), pp.30–67. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_004.002_0004.

Flinders, M., Wood, M., Cunningham, M., 2016. The politics of co-production: risks, limits and pollution. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and

Practice, 12, pp.261–279. https://doi.org/info:doi/10.1332/174426415X14412037949967 Flyvbjerg, B., 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Følstad, A., 2008. Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. Electron. J. Virt. Org. Network 10, pp.99-131. Franke, N. & Piller, F., 2004. Value Creation by Toolkits for User Innovation and Design: The Case of the Watch Market. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(6), pp.401–415. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00094.x. Franke, N. & Shah, S., 2003. How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy, 32(1), pp.157–178. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00006-9. Franke, N., von Hippel, E.A. & Schreier, M., 2005. Finding Commercially Attractive User Innovations: A Test of Lead User Theory. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.721182. Frenken, K. & Schor, J., 2017. Putting the sharing economy into perspective. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, pp.3–10. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003. Füller, J. et al., 2009. Consumer Empowerment Through Internet-Based Co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), pp.71–102. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222260303. Gaber, J. & Gaber, S.L., 1997. Utilizing Mixed-Method Research Designs in Planning: The Case of 14th Street, New York City. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(2), pp.95–103. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456x9701700201. Gagliardi, A.R., Berta, W., Kothari, A., Boyko, J., Urquhart, R., 2015. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implementation Science, 11(1). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0399-1. Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., Singh, S., 2010. Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), pp.283–296. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375604.

91

Gales, L. & Mansour-Cole, D., 1995. User involvement in innovation projects: Toward an information processing model. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 12(1-2), pp.77–109. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0923-4748(95)00005-7. García-Olivares, A., Solé, J. & Osychenko, O., 2018. Transportation in a 100% renewable energy system. Energy Conversion and Management, 158, pp.266–285. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.12.053. Marie, G., 1994. Questioning the concept of the “user.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(2), pp.113–124. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80165-3. Geels, F.W. & Johnson, V., 2018. Towards a modular and temporal understanding of system diffusion: Adoption models and socio-technical theories applied to Austrian biomass district-heating (1979–2013). Energy Research & Social Science, 38, pp.138–153. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.02.010. Geels, Frank W., Sovacool, Benjamin K., Schwanen, Tim and Sorrell, Steven, 2017. The sociotechnical dynamics of low-carbon transitions. Joule, 1 (3). pp. 463-479. ISSN 2542-4351 Geels, F. W., Berkhout, F., & van Vuuren, D. P., 2016. Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), pp.576–583. doi:10.1038/nclimate2980 Geels, F.W., 2010. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), pp.495–510. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022. Geels, F. W., & Johnson, V., 2018. Towards a modular and temporal understanding of system diffusion: Adoption models and socio-technical theories applied to Austrian biomass district-heating (1979–2013). Energy Research & Social Science, 38, pp.138–153. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.02.010 Geels, F. W., Schwanen, T., Sorrell, S., Jenkins, K., & Sovacool, B. K., 2018. Reducing energy demand through low carbon innovation: A sociotechnical transitions perspective and thirteen research debates. Energy Research & Social Science, 40, pp.23–35. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.003 Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), pp.1257–1274. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8.

Geels, F.W., McMeekin, A., Mylan, J., Southerton, D., 2015. A critical appraisal of Sustainable Consumption and Production research: The reformist, revolutionary and reconfiguration positions. Global Environmental Change, 34, pp.1–12. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.013. Von Geibler, J., Erdmann, L., Liedtke, C., Rohn, H., Stabe, M., Berner, S., 2014. Exploring the Potential of a German Living Lab Research Infrastructure for the Development of Low Resource Products and Services. Resources, 3(3), pp.575–598. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/resources3030575. Giddings, L.S., 2006. Mixed-methods research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(3), pp.195–203. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1744987106064635. Girardin, F. Calabrese, F., Fiore, D., Ratti C., & Blat J., 2008. Digital Footprinting: Uncovering Tourists with User-Generated Content. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7(4), pp.36–43. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/mprv.2008.71.

Godin, B., 2008. Innovation: The History of a Category. Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working Paper No. 1

Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J. & Graham, W.F., 1989. Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), pp.255–274. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255. Greene, J.C., 2007. Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, Jossey Bass. Greenwood, D., and Levin, M., 2007. Introduction to Action Research. 2nd Ed. Sage Publications. Griffin, R. & Michele Kacmar, K., 1991. Laboratory research in management: Misconceptions and missed opportunities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(4), pp.301–311. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030120405. Grönroos, C., 2012. Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to the future. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13-14), pp.1520–1534. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2012.737357. Grönroos, C. & Voima, P., 2012. Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), pp.133–150. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3. Guell, C., Panter, J., Jones, N. R., & Ogilvie, D., 2012. Towards a differentiated understanding of active

92

travel behaviour: Using social theory to explore everyday commuting. Social Science & Medicine, 75(1), pp.233–239. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.038 Gulari, M., Boru, A., Malins, J., 2011. Towards an evolutionary understanding on the success of participatory design. In: Proceedings of E&PDE 2011, the 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, London, UK, 08.–09.09.2011. Gurdur, D. & Sopjani, L., 2018. Visual Analytics to Support the Service Design for Sustainable Mobility. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/sustech.2018.8671353. Hadorn, G. H., Pohl, Ch., & Scheringer, M., 2003. Methodology of Transdisciplinary Research. In: Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) (Eds.), UNESCO and EOLSS Publishers: Paris Hagman, J., 2020. Diffusion of Battery Electric Vehicles: The role of total cost of ownership. KTH Royal Institute of Technology. PhD Thesis. http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1458540/FULLTEXT01.pdf Hagman, J., Ritzén, S., Stier, J. J., & Susilo, Y., 2016. Total cost of ownership and its potential implications for battery electric vehicle diffusion. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 18, pp.11–17. doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.01.003 Hakkarainen, L. & Hyysalo, S., 2013. How Do We Keep the Living Laboratory Alive? Learning and Conflicts in Living Lab Collaboration. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(12), pp.16–22. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.22215/timreview749. Håkonsen, G., 2007. Making a difference: Creative dialogues, protopractice and the moral shaping of knowledge in a media company. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. PhD Thesis. Halavais, A., 2015. Bigger sociological imaginations: framing big social data theory and methods. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), pp.583–594. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2015.1008543. Hale, C. R., 2001. What is activist research? Social Science Research Council 2 (1–2), pp.13–15. Hargreaves, T., 2011. Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79–99. doi:10.1177/1469540510390500 Hars, A., & Ou, S., 2002. Working for Free? Motivations for Participating in Open-Source

Projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3), pp.25–39. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2002.11044241. Hart, R. Kyriakopoulou, J., Mensah, T., 2017. To buy or not to buy? Vehicle demand and policy for sustainable transport. http://www.ekoninternt.se/buyornot/projectplan.pdf Hayes, G.R., 2011. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 18(3), pp.1–20. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1993060.1993065. Heale, G., 2003. Applying theory to practice: an action research resource pack for professionals. Clinical Chiropractic, 6(1), pp.4–14. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1479-2354(02)00003-2. Robson C., 2011. Real World Research. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Heikkinen, M. T., Mainela, T., Still, J., & Tähtinen, J., 2007. Roles for managing in mobile service development nets. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(7), pp.909–925. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.05.014. Heinen, E. & Mattioli, G., 2019. Multimodality and CO2 emissions: A relationship moderated by distance. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 75, pp.179–196. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.08.022. Heinen, E. & Mattioli, G., 2017. Does a high level of multimodality mean less car use? An exploration of multimodality trends in England. Transportation, 46(4), pp.1093–1126. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9810-2. Heiskanen, E., & Lovio, R., 2010. User−Producer Interaction in Housing Energy Innovations. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(1), pp.91–102. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00196.x Heiskanen, E., Johnson, M., Robinson, S., Vadovics, E., & Saastamoinen, M., 2010. Low-carbon communities as a context for individual behavioural change. Energy Policy, 38(12), pp.7586–7595. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.002 Heiskanen, E., Kasanen, P., & Timonen, P., 2005. Consumer participation in sustainable technology development. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(2), pp.98–107. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2004.00426.x Hennig-Thurau, T., Walsh, G., & Walsh, G., 2003. Electronic Word-of-Mouth: Motives for and Consequences of Reading Customer Articulations on

93

the Internet. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2), pp.51–74. doi:10.1080/10864415 Herrera, N. R., 2016. The Emergence of Living Lab Methods. In Keyson D.V., Lockton, D., Guerra-Santin (eds). Living Labs, pp.9–22. Springer. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33527-8_2. Herring, H. & Roy, R., 2007. Technological innovation, energy efficient design and the rebound effect. Technovation, 27(4), pp.194–203. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.11.004. Herstatt, C. & Hippel, E., 1992. From Experience: Developing New Product Concepts Via the Lead User Method: A Case Study in a “Low-Tech” Field. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9(3), pp.213–221. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.930213. Luthje, C. & Herstatt, C., 2004. The Lead User method: an outline of empirical findings and issues for future research. R&D Management, 34(5), pp.553–568. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2004.00362.x. Hertwich, E.G., 2008. Consumption and the Rebound Effect: An Industrial Ecology Perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1-2), pp.85–98. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/1088198054084635. Hesse-Biber, S., 2010. Qualitative Approaches to Mixed Methods Practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), pp.455–468. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364611. Hesse-Biber, S., 2015. Mixed Methods Research. Qualitative Health Research, 25(6), pp.775–788. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580558. Hesselgren, M., Hasselqvist, H., & Eriksson, E., 2015. A car-free year: providing vehicles for change. In: Nordes2015: Design ecologies. Stockholm. (Vol. 6) Hesselgren, M., Hasselqvist, H., & Sopjani, L., 2017. Design strategies for exploring and bridging: Intersections of everyday life and decision-making for sustainability. In: Design Management Academy Conference 2017: Research Perspectives on Creative Intersections, Hong Kong. pp. 189–205). https://doi.org/10.21606/dma.2017.101 Hester, P.T. & Adams, K. M., 2014. Systemic Thinking: Fundamentals for Understanding Problems and Messes. Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, Springer 26, pp.35–50. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07629-4_3.

Von Hippel, E., 1986. A source of novel product concepts. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 4(2), p.158. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(87)90069-5. Von Hippel, E., 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press Von Hippel, E., 2005. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, UK: The MIT Press. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2333.001.0001. Hoffmann, E., 2007. Consumer integration in sustainable product development. Strategic Direction, 24(1). doi:10.1108/sd.2008.05624aad.005 Hoffman, D.L., Kopalle, P.K. & Novak, T.P., 2010. The “Right” Consumers for Better Concepts: Identifying Consumers High in Emergent Nature to Develop New Product Concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), pp.854–865. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.854. Holden, E., Banister, D., Gössling, S., Gilpin, G., & Linnerud, K., 2020. Grand Narratives for sustainable mobility: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 65, p.101454. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101454 Hoogma, R., & Schot, J., 2001. How innovative are users? A critique of learning-by-doing and -using. In Coombs, R., Green, K., Richards, A., Walsh, V (Eds). Technology and the Market: Demand, Users, and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp216-233. doi:10.4337/9781843762867.00018 Hossain, M., Leminen, S. & Westerlund, M., 2019. A Systematic Review of Living Lab Literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, pp.976-988. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257 Howe, K. R., 2004. A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, pp.42–61. doi:10.1177/1077800403259491 Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., Singh, S.S., 2010. Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), pp.283–296. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375604. Humphreys, A., & Grayson, K., 2008. The Intersecting Roles of Consumer and Producer: A Critical Perspective on Co-production, Co-creation and Prosumption. Sociology Compass, 2(3), pp.963–980. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00112.x Ihantola, E. & Kihn, L., 2011. Threats to validity and reliability in mixed methods accounting research J. Grafton, ed. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(1), pp.39–58. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/11766091111124694.

94

Ilgen, Daniel R., 1985. Laboratory Research: A Question of When, Not If. In Locke A. E. Generalizing from laboratory to field settings: Research findings from industrial-organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Illich, I., 1973. Tools for Conviviality. Harper and Row. ISBN 9780714509730 IPCC. 2018. Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press. Itten, A. V., Sherry-Brennan, F., Sundaram, A., Hoppe, T., & Devine-Wright, P. (2020). State-of-the-art report for co-creation approaches and practices with a special focus on the sustainable heating transition: Shifft work package 2 deliverable 2.1.1. Provincie Zuid-Holland. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22835.17440 Jackson, T., 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption. A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behavior and Behavioral Change. Report to the Sustainable Development Network. Retrieved June, 2021 from https://www.c2p2online.com/documents/MotivatingSC.pdf. Jégou, F., Liberman, J. & Wallenborn, G., 2009. Collaborative design sessions of objects proposing energy-saving practices. Energy Efficiency & Behaviour conference. Maastricht, The Netherlands John-Steiner, V., 2000. Creative Collaboration. Oxford University press, Inc. New York Jonas, W., 2014. Sense of Vertigo? Design Thinking as General Problem Solver. In: 9th European Academy of Design Kamargianni, M., Li, W., Matyas, M., Schäfer, A., 2016. A Critical Review of New Mobility Services for Urban Transport. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, pp.3294–3303. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.277. Kang, M., 2014. Understanding Public Engagement: Conceptualizing and Measuring its Influence on Supportive Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 26(5), pp.399–416. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2014.956107. Kanger, L. & Schot, J., 2016. User-Made Immobilities: A Transitions Perspective. Mobilities, 11:4, 5, pp. 98-613. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2807044. Kanger, L., Geels, F., Sovacool, B., Schot, J., 2019. Technological diffusion as a process of societal embedding: Lessons from historical automobile transitions for future electric mobility. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 71, pp.47–66. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.11.012. Karakaya, E., Hidalgo, A. & Nuur, C., 2014. Diffusion of eco-innovations: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33, pp.392–399. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.083. Sochor, J., Karlsson, I. C. M., & Strömberg, H., 2016. Trying Out Mobility as a Service: Experiences from a Field Trial and Implications for Understanding Demand. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2542(1), pp.57–64. doi:10.3141/2542-07 Katzev, R., 2003. Car Sharing: A New Approach to Urban Transportation Problems. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), pp.65–86. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2003.00015.x Kaulio, M. A., 1998. Customer, consumer and user involvement in product development: A framework and a review of selected methods. Total Quality Management, 9(1), pp.141–149. doi:10.1080/0954412989333 Kelly, G. A., 1955. The psychology of personal constructs (Vols. 1 & 2). Norton, New York. Kemp, R. & Rotmans, J., 2005. The Management of the Co-Evolution of Technical, Environmental and Social Systems. Towards Environmental Innovation Systems, pp.33–55. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27298-4_3. Kerlinger, F. R., 1986. Foundation of Behavioral Research. 3rd Edition. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York King, N., 2004. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassell, C., Symon, G. (Eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. SAGE Publishing, London, Thousand Oaks. Knudsen, M.P., 2007. The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(2), pp.117–138. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00238.x

95

Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, pp.1–32. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 Kozinets, R.V., Hemetsberger, A. & Schau, H.J., 2008. The Wisdom of Consumer Crowds. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(4), pp.339–354. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0276146708325382. Krogstie, J., 2012. Bridging Research and Innovation by Applying Living Labs for Design Science Research. Nordic Contributions in IS Research, pp. 161–176. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Kroll, T. & Neri, M., 2009. Designs for Mixed Methods Research. Mixed Methods Research for Nursing and the Health Sciences, pp.31–49. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444316490.ch3. Kuijer, S.C., 2014. Implications of Social Practice Theory for Sustainable Design. Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. PhD Thesis. Kujala, S., 2003. User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(1), pp.1–16. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290301782. Laakso, S., 2017. Giving up cars – The impact of a mobility experiment on carbon emissions and everyday routines. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, pp.135–142. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.035 Lachmund, J., 1998. Between Scrutiny and Treatment: Physical Diagnosis and the Restructuring of 19th Century Medical Practice. Sociology of Health &Illness 20 (6), pp.779–801. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.00129. Lamb, R., & Kling, R., 2003. Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), p.197. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30036529. Lampe, C., Wash, R., Velasquez, A., Ozkava, E., 2010. Motivations to participate in online communities. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’10, https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753616. Lawson, S. J., Gleim, M. R., Perren, R., & Hwang, J., 2016. Freedom from ownership: An exploration of access-based consumption. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), pp.2615–2623. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.021 Felski, R., 2000. Doing Time: Feminist Theory and Postmodern Culture. NYU Press

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/warw/detail.action?docID=865460. Lettl, C., 2007. User involvement competence for radical innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(1-2), 53–75. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2007.01.004 Levy, C., 2013. Travel choice reframed: “deep distribution” and gender in urban transport. Environment and Urbanization, 25(1), pp.47–63. doi:10.1177/0956247813477810 Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in Group Dynamics. 1:143-153. Liedtke, C., Baedeker, C., Hasselkuß, M., Rohn, H., & Grinewitschus, V., 2015. User-integrated innovation in Sustainable LivingLabs: an experimental infrastructure for researching and developing sustainable product service systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, pp.106–116. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.070 Liedtke, C., Jolanta Welfens, M., Rohn, H., & Nordmann, J., 2012. LIVING LAB: user-driven innovation for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2), pp.106–118. doi:10.1108/14676371211211809 Lindsay, C. 2003. From the Shadows: Users as Designers, Producers, Marketers, Distributors, and Technical Support. In Oudshoorn and Pinch (Eds.). The MIT Press: London, England Litman, T., 2008. Guide to calculating mobility management benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org). www.vtpi.org/tdmben.pdf Litman, T., 2020. Evaluating transportation diversity multimodal planning for efficient and equitable communities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org). http://www.vtpi.org/choice.pdf Lusch, R.F. & Vargo, S.L., 2006. Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), pp.281–288. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470593106066781. Vargo, S.L., 2011. Market systems, stakeholders and value propositions. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), pp.217–222. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111095667. Lynn, G.S., Morone, J.G. & Paulson, A.S., 1996. Marketing and Discontinuous Innovation: The Probe and Learn Process. California Management Review, 38(3), pp.8–37. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165841. Maerivoet, S., Daems, F., Maertens, F., Renckens, K., Van Houtte, P., & Buelens, L., 2012. A Field Trial on

96

Smart Mobility. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 54, pp.926–935. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.808 Magnusson, P. R., Matthing, J., & Kristensson, P., 2003. Managing User Involvement in Service Innovation. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), pp.111–124. doi:10.1177/1094670503257028 Magnusson, P.R., 2009. Exploring the Contributions of Involving Ordinary Users in Ideation of Technology-Based Services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(5), pp.578–593. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00684.x. Malakhatka, E., Sopjani, L. & Lundqvist, P., 2021. Co-Creating Service Concepts for the Built Environment Based on the End-User’s Daily Activities Analysis: KTH Live-in-Lab Explorative Case Study. Sustainability, 13(4), p.1942. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13041942. Manzini, E. 2015. Design, When Everybody Designs. The MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262028608 Martin, E., & Shaheen, S., 2011. The Impact of Carsharing on Public Transit and Non-Motorized Travel: An Exploration of North American Carsharing Survey Data. Energies, 4(11), pp.2094–2114. doi:10.3390/en4112094 McLuhan, Marshall. (1964). Understanding media: the extensions of man. London: Routledge & K. Paul Mehta, D., Pancholi, J. & Shukla, P., 2003. Action research in policy making: a case in the dairy industry in Gujarat, India. AI & Society, 18(4), pp.344–363. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00146-003-0288-4. Melton, N., Axsen, J., & Sperling, D., 2016. Moving beyond alternative fuel hype to decarbonize transportation. Nature Energy, 1(3). doi:10.1038/nenergy.2016.13 Metz, D., 2008. The Myth of Travel Time Saving. Transport Reviews, 28(3), pp.321–336. doi:10.1080/01441640701642348 Lee, K.M., 2004. Presence, Explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), pp.27–50. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x. Mirriam-Webster, 2021. Google. Mont, O., 2002. Clarifying the concept of product–service system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3), pp.237–245. doi:10.1016/s0959-6526(01)00039-7 Moore, G., 1991. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers. New York, NY: Harper Business Essentials

Moriarty, P., & Honnery, D., 2004. Forecasting world transport in the year 2050. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 35(1/2), p.151. doi:10.1504/ijvd.2004.004053 Moriarty, P., & Honnery, D., 2008. Low-mobility: The future of transport. Futures, 40(10), p.865–872. doi:10.101/j.futures.2008.07.021 Mosse, D., 2001. “People’s knowledge”, participation and patronage: Operations and representations in rural development, in: Cooke, B., Kothari, U. (Eds.), Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books, London, UK, pp. 17–35. Müggenburg, H., Busch-Geertsema, A., & Lanzendorf, M., 2015. Mobility biographies: A review of achievements and challenges of the mobility biographies approach and a framework for further research. Journal of Transport Geography, 46, pp.151–163. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.06.004 Mumford, E., 1979. Consensus system design: an evaluation of this approach, in: N. Szyperski, E. Grochla (Eds.), Design and Implementation of Computer-Based Information Systems. Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Groningen, Holland Mumford, E. 1995. Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis: The ETHICS Approach. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Naess, P., 2012. Urban form and travel behavior: experience from a Nordic context. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 5(2). doi:10.5198/jtlu.v5i2.314 Nambisan, S. & Baron, R.A., 2009. Virtual Customer Environments: Testing a Model of Voluntary Participation in Value Co-creation Activities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(4), pp.388–406. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00667.x. Nettleton, S., & Green, J., 2014. Thinking about Changing Mobility Practices: How a Social Practice Approach Can Help. From Health Behaviours to Health Practices, pp.82–94. doi:10.1002/9781118898345.ch8 Neuman, W. L., 2000. Social Research Methods Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Nevens, F., Frantzeskakib, N., Gorissena, L., Loorbach, D., 2013. Urban Transition Labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, pp.111–122. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.001. Newell, P., Twena, M. and Daley, F. 2021. “Scaling behaviour change for a 1.5-degree world: challenges and opportunities,” Global Sustainability. Cambridge University Press, 4, p. e22. doi: 10.1017/sus.2021.23.

97

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J., 2007. Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, p.147–153. Nevens, F., Seppo L., Westerlund, M., Kortelainen, M., 2013. Urban Transition Labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, pp.111–122. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.001. Olsson, M.R., 2016. Re-Thinking Our Concept Of Users. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 47(4), pp.286–299. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2016.1253426. Ornetzeder M, Rohracher H., 2003. User-led innovations, participation processes and the use of energy technologies. In ECEEE 2003 Summer Study – Time to Turn Down Energy Demand, St. Raphael. Ørngreen, R., and Levinsen, K., 2017. Workshops as a Research Methodology. The Electronic Journal of e- Learning, 15(1), pp. 70-81. Available online at www.ejel.org Östlund U., Kidd, L., Wengström, Y., Rowa-Dewar, N., 2011. Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: A methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(3), pp.369– 383. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005. Ostrom, E., 1996. Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), pp.1073–1087. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-750x(96)00023-x. Oudshoorn, N., Pinch, T., 2003. How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England. Pangbourne, K., Mladenović, M. N., Stead, D., & Milakis, D. (2020). Questioning mobility as a service: Unanticipated implications for society and governance. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 131, pp.35–49. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.033 Pearl, J. & Bareinboim, E., 2014. External Validity: From Do-Calculus to Transportability Across Populations. Statistical Science, 29(4). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/14-sts486. Pedersen, S. B., 2016. Navigating Prototyping Spaces: Translation of knowledge and actors in Participatory Design. Aalborg University. PhD Thesis. Perng, S.Y., 2019. Anticipating digital futures: ruins, entanglements and the possibilities of shared technology making. Mobilities, 14(4), pp.418–434.

Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2019.1594867. Pesch, U., Spekkink, W. & Quist, J., 2018. Local sustainability initiatives: innovation and civic engagement in societal experiments. European Planning Studies, 27(2), pp.300–317. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1464549. Pettersen, I.N., 2015. Towards practice-oriented design for sustainability: the compatibility with selected design fields. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 8(3), pp.206–218. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2014.1001468. Pettersen, I.N., Boks, C. & Tukker, A., 2013. Framing the role of design in transformation of consumption practices: beyond the designer-product-user triad. International Journal of Technology Management, 63(1/2), p.70. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2013.055580. Piller, F.T., Ihl, C., Vossen, A. 2010. A typology of customer co-creation in the innovation process. SSRN Electronic J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1732127. Ployhart, R.E. & Vandenberg, R.J., 2009. Longitudinal Research: The Theory, Design, and Analysis of Change. Journal of Management, 36(1), pp.94–120. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110. Pluye, P., Grad, R.M., Levine, A., & Nicolau, B., 2009. Understanding divergence of quantitative and qualitative data (or results) in mixed methods studies. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(1), pp.58–72. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/mra.455.3.1.58. Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V., 2004. Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership, 32(3), pp.4–9. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878570410699249. Ramaswamy, V., Ozcan, K., 2015. Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: An integrative framework and research implications. Int. J. Res. Mark. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.07.001 Raven, R., Bosch, S.V. den, & Waterings, R., 2010. Transitions and strategic niche management: towards a competence kit for practitioners. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), p.57. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2010.033128. Reckwitz, A. 2002. Toward a Theory of Social Practices. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), pp.243–263. doi:10.1177/13684310222225432 Redlich, T., Moritz, M., & Wulfsberg, J.P., 2018. Introduction: Co-creation in the Era of Bottom-Up

98

Economics. Co-Creation, pp.1–6. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97788-1_1. Redström, J., 2006. Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Design Studies, 27(2), pp.123–139. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.06.001. Ringenson, T., Arnfalk, P., Kramers, A., & Sopjani, L., 2018. Indicators for Promising Accessibility and Mobility Services. Sustainability, 10(8), p.2836. doi:10.3390/su10082836 Robinson, J., 2003. Future subjunctive: backcasting as social learning. Futures, 35(8), pp.839–856. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0016-3287(03)00039-9. Robinson, J., 2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), pp.369–384. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.017. Robinson, J., 2008. Being undisciplined: Transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures, 40(1), pp.70–86. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.06.007. Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, fifth ed. Free Press, New York Rohracher, H., 2003. The Role of Users in the Social Shaping of Environmental Technologies. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 16(2), pp.177–192. doi:10.1080/13511610304516 Ruhrort, L., Steiner, J., Graff, A., Hinkeldein, D., & Hoffman, C., 2014. Carsharing with electric vehicles in the context of users' mobility needs - results from user-centred research from the BeMobility field trial (Berlin). Int. J. Automotive Technology and Management, 14(3/4). Sanders, E.B.-N. & Jan Stappers, P., 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Design: Critical and Primary Sources. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781474282932.0011. Sanders, L., & Stappers, P. J. 2012. Convivial design toolbox: generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. Saunders, T., 2018. Seven principles for public engagement in science and innovation policymaking. A guide from Nesta’s inclusive innovation team. Nesta. Statistikmyndigheten SCB. 2019. www.scb.se. Statistikdatabas juni 2019.

Schaban-Maurer, B., 2013. The roles of the citizen practitioner in citizen engagement for architecture, urban design, and planning policy: A Phronesis-based approach. McGill University. https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/6q182p566 Schafer, A., & Victor, D. G., 2000. The future mobility of the world population. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 34(3), pp.171–205. doi:10.1016/s0965-8564(98)00071-8 Schafft, K. A., & Brown D. L., 2000. Social Capital and Grassroots Development: The Case of Roma Self- Governance in Hungary. Social Problems 47(2), pp.201–219. doi:10.2307/3097198. Scheiner, J., 2007. Mobility biographies: Elements of a biographical theory of travel demand. Erdkunde, 61(2), 161–173. doi:10.3112/erdkunde.2007.02.03 Schön, D. A., 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith Schot, J. & Geels, F.W., 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), pp.537–554. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651. Schot, J., Kanger, L. & Verbong, G., 2016. The roles of users in shaping transitions to new energy systems. Nature Energy, 1(5). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.54. Schuurman. D., 2018. Bridging the gap between Open and User Innovation? Exploring the value of Living Labs as a means to structure user contribution and manage distributed innovation. Ghent University and Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). PhD Thesis. Schwanen, T., Banister, D., & Anable, J., 2012. Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: the case of low-carbon mobility. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, pp.522–532. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.06.003 Scott, K., Bakker, C. & Quist, J., 2012. Designing change by living change. Design Studies, 33(3), pp.279–297. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.08.002. Scott, K., Quist, J. & Bakker, C. 2009. Co-design, social practices and sustainable innovation: involving users in a living lab exploratory study on bathing. Joint actions on climate change conference. Aalborg, Denmark Sengers, F., Wieczorek, A. J., & Raven, R., 2019. Experimenting for sustainability transitions: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and

99

Social Change, 145, pp.153–164. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031 Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A., 2012. Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), pp.381–400. doi:10.1068/c10222 Seyfang, G., Haxeltine, A., Hargreaves, T., Longhurst, N., 2010. Energy and communities in transition—towards a new research agenda on agency and civil society in sustainability transitions. CSERGE Working Paper. Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/48803/1/636134792.pdf Shaheen, S.A., Cohen, A.P., Zohdy, I., 2016. Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Shaheen, S. A., & Cohen, A. P., 2012. Carsharing and Personal Vehicle Services: Worldwide Market Developments and Emerging Trends. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 7(1), pp.5–34. doi:10.1080/15568318.2012.660103 Shaheen, S. A., Cohen, A. P., & Roberts, J. D., 2006. Carsharing in North America. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1986(1), pp.116–124. doi:10.1177/0361198106198600115 Shaheen, S., Totte, H., & Stocker, A., 2018. Future of Mobility White Paper. UC Berkeley: Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Berkeley. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2WH2N5D Sheller, M., & Urry, J., 2000. The City and the Car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 737–757. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.00276 Sheller, M., & Urry, J., 2016. Mobilizing the new mobilities paradigm. Applied Mobilities, 1(1), 10–25. doi:10.1080/23800127.2016.1151216 Sheller, M., 2004. Automotive Emotions. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(4-5), pp.221–242. doi:10.1177/0263276404046068 Shoup, D., 2005. The High Cost of Free Parking. Planners Press (www.planning.org) Shove, E. & Walker, G., 2010. Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life. Research Policy, 39(4), pp.471–476. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.019. Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M., 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday life and how it changes.

London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250655 Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42(6), pp.1273–1285. doi:10.1068/a42282 Silverman, D., 2013. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. SAGE Publishing. Silverman, D., 2011. Interpreting Qualitative Data. SAGE Publications Ltd. Sjöman, M., & Hesselgren, M., 2020. Designerly Living Labs: Early-stage exploration of future sustainable concepts. In: DRS2020: Synergy. doi:10.21606/drs.2020.307 Smith, A. & Raven, R., 2012. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), pp.1025–1036. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012. Smith, A., Voß, J.-P., & Grin, J., 2010. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), pp.435–448. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023 Maglio, P.P. & Spohrer, J., 2008. Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), pp.18–20. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0058-9. Sopjani, L. Janhager, J. S., Hesselgren, M., Ritzen, S., 2020. Shared mobility services versus private car: Implications of changes in everyday life. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, p.120845. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120845. Sorrell, S., 2015. Reducing energy demand: A review of issues, challenges and approaches. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, pp.74–82. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.002 Sovacool, B.K. & Hess, D.J., 2017. Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change. Social Studies of Science, 47(5), pp.703–750. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312717709363. Sovacool, B.K. & Axsen, J., 2018. Functional, symbolic and societal frames for automobility: Implications for sustainability transitions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 118, pp.730–746. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.10.008. Spaargaren, G., 2003. Sustainable Consumption: A Theoretical and Environmental Policy Perspective.

100

Society & Natural Resources, 16(8), pp.687–701. doi:10.1080/08941920309192 Sperling, D., 2009. Two Billion Cars: Driving Towards Sustainability. Oxford University Press: New York Sperling, D., 2018. Three Revolutions: Steering Automated, Shared, and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future. Island Press, Washington, DC. ISBN: 9781610919067 Spurling, N., McMeekin, A., Shove, E., Southerton, D., Welch, D., 2013. Interventions in Practice-Re-Framing Policy Approaches to Consumer Behaviour. Sustainable Practices Research Group Report. September 2013. Ståhlbröst, A., 2013. A Living Lab as a Service: Creating Value for Micro-enterprises through Collaboration and Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(11), pp.37–42. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.22215/timreview744. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R., 1989. Institutional Ecology, `Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), pp.387–420 Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J., 2014. This is Service Design Thinking: Basics – Tools – Cases. Amsterdam: BIS Publisher. Stier, J.J., Hesselgren, M., Gyllenspetz, P., Georen, P., Sopjani, L., 2017. LEV-pool Lätta Elfordon I Nypooltja€nst, vols. 37839e2. Energimyndigheten, Stockholm, pp. 1e79. Stokes, K., Clarence, E., Anderson, L., Rinne, A., 2014. Making Sense of The UK Collaborative Economy. Nesta and Collaborative Lab, London, September 2014 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M., 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications, Inc. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Sztompka, P., 2008. The Focus on Everyday Life: a New Turn in Sociology. European Review, 16(1), pp.23–37. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1062798708000045. Sundeen, R., 1988. Explaining Participation in Co-Production – A Study of Volunteers. Social Science Quarterly, 69(3), pp.547–568 Talsma, L., and J. F. M. Molenbroek. 2012. User-Centered Co-Tourism Development. Work. A Journal

of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation, 41, pp.2147–2154. Tashakkori, A. & Creswell, J.W., 2007. Editorial: Exploring the Nature of Research Questions in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), pp. 207-211. doi: 10.1177/1558689807302814 Tashakkori A., & Teddlie, C., 2008. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioural Sciences. SAGE Publications: Los Angeles Tether, B.S. & Tajar, A., 2008. Beyond industry–university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37(6-7), pp.1079–1095. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.003. Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R., 2003. Libertarian Paternalism. American Economic Review, 93(2), pp.175–179. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/000282803321947001. Torres, R.M., 2018. Everyday Encounters with Activist Scholarship. The Professional Geographer, 71(1), pp.161–166. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2018.1453184. Bondorova B., and Archer G., 2017. 2017. Does sharing cars really reduce car use? Transport and Environment. Tukker, A., 2015. Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy – a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, pp.76–91. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.049. Urban, G.L. & von Hippel, E., 1988. Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products. Management Science, 34(5), pp.569–582. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.5.569. Urry, J., 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first Century. Routledge, London and New York Urry, J., 2004. The “System” of Automobility. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(4-5), pp.25–39. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046059. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D., 2003. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), p.425. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30036540. Vergragt, P., Akenji, L. & Dewick, P., 2014. Sustainable production, consumption, and livelihoods: global and regional research perspectives.

101

Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, pp.1–12. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.028. Vezzoli, C., Ceschin, F., Diehl, J. C., & Kohtala, C., 2015. New design challenges to widely implement ‘Sustainable Product–Service Systems’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, pp.1–12. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.061 Vines, J., Clarke, R., Wright, P., McCarthy, J., & Olivier, P., 2013. Configuring participation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:10.1145/2470654.2470716 Vogel, A.J. 2020. Incentivising Innovation in the Swedish Construction Industry. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. PhD Thesis. Vogel, J.A., Van Bueren, E., Leendert, V., Goldberg, B., 2020. Co-Creation in Living Labs to Accelerate Innovation. Civil Engineering Research Journal, 10(1). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.19080/cerj.2020.10.555776. von Krogh, G. & von Hippel, E., 2006. The Promise of Research on Open Source Software. Management Science, 52(7), pp.975–983. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0560.

von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal Fur Betriebswirtschaft, 55(1), pp.63–78. doi:10.1007/s11301-004-0002-8

Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G., 2015. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), pp.1333–1357. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.930505 Wallisch, A., Maccioni, L., Trautmann, L., Ostermeyer, E., Borgianni, Y., & Borg, J. C., 2018. Lessons learnt in designing transportation solutions for elderly people following a participatory approach. In M. Storga, N. Pavkovic, N. Bojcetic, S. Skec, & D. Marjanovic (Eds.), DS 92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, 3, pp.1393–

1404. Croatia: Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb. doi:10.21278/idc.2018.0361 Wallisch, A., and Sankowski, O., 2019. Kaleidoscope of User Involvement – Product Development Methods in an Interdisciplinary Context. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pp.8–14. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27928-8_2. Warde, A., 2005. Consumption and Theories of Practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), pp.131–153. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469540505053090. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2004. Mobility 2030: Meeting the Challenges to Sustainability Weber, M. & Geerts, S.A.M., 2011. Customer Involved Open Innovation. Handbook of Research on Trends in Product Design and Development, pp.259–288. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-617-9.ch014. Wilson T. 1996. Information Behaviour: an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Information seeking in context. In: Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, pp.14-16, Tampere, Finland. Winter, D., and R. Neimeyer., 2015. Constructivist therapy. In E. S. N. (Ed.). The Sage encyclopedia of theory in counseling and psychotherapy. Sage, London. Wise, S., Paton, R.A. & Gegenhuber, T., 2012. Value co-creation through collective intelligence in the public sector. VINE, 42(2), pp.251–276. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03055721211227273.

Zachariadis, T., 2012. Introduction. In Zachariadis T., Editor (Eds.), Cars and carbon, Automobiles and European Climate Policy in a Global Context, pp.1-15. Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2123-4

m - y{t{7 yt m- t { ± -s t) y -

Documents