Experimentation labs - Revision history

Karlijn Schipper: /* Summary of relevant approaches */

2020-02-17T15:30:07Z

Summary of relevant approaches

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, 17 February 2020
Line 23:		Line 23:
	Starting from the premise that flexible and dynamic approaches that include experimentation and learning are part of what is required for transformation towards social and environmental sustainability, urban experimentation labs have transformative potential, as they are also well-located in inter-connected spaces and actors. However, research shows that this potential can be compromised when its principles (of co-creation) are not followed in the development phase of an intervention/solution, or if this phase is not included as part of the lab at all. The limitations of this research/policy method in relation to shifting power relations, and thus challenging dominant institutions, could be further seen in how citizens are conceptualised by its proponents. The main shift with regard to how citizens are included is from audience/end-users, to co-creators/discussion partners. However, their role in articulating and defining the problems (of urban justice and sustainability) for which solutions are designed remains unclear. Achieving participation dynamics is in itself a challenge, as communities might doubt the extent to which their involvement will have tangible positive impacts. More recent projects seem to take on this challenge. CLEVERcities, for example, is an effort to implement CLEVER Action Labs (CAL) in order to co-design, co-implement and co-manage NBS interventions in deprived districts, starting from specific place-based NBS technologies as impulses. The Cultural Creative Spaces and Cities project <ref>http://www.creativespacesandcities.com</ref> is also exploring new and groundbreaking methodologies of co-creation and of policy development, to override hierarchical organisational structures in favour of horizontal and collaborative approaches.		Starting from the premise that flexible and dynamic approaches that include experimentation and learning are part of what is required for transformation towards social and environmental sustainability, urban experimentation labs have transformative potential, as they are also well-located in inter-connected spaces and actors. However, research shows that this potential can be compromised when its principles (of co-creation) are not followed in the development phase of an intervention/solution, or if this phase is not included as part of the lab at all. The limitations of this research/policy method in relation to shifting power relations, and thus challenging dominant institutions, could be further seen in how citizens are conceptualised by its proponents. The main shift with regard to how citizens are included is from audience/end-users, to co-creators/discussion partners. However, their role in articulating and defining the problems (of urban justice and sustainability) for which solutions are designed remains unclear. Achieving participation dynamics is in itself a challenge, as communities might doubt the extent to which their involvement will have tangible positive impacts. More recent projects seem to take on this challenge. CLEVERcities, for example, is an effort to implement CLEVER Action Labs (CAL) in order to co-design, co-implement and co-manage NBS interventions in deprived districts, starting from specific place-based NBS technologies as impulses. The Cultural Creative Spaces and Cities project <ref>http://www.creativespacesandcities.com</ref> is also exploring new and groundbreaking methodologies of co-creation and of policy development, to override hierarchical organisational structures in favour of horizontal and collaborative approaches.

	==~~Summary of relevant approaches~~==		==Illustration==

	The GUST project offers a number of illustrative examples where urban living labs of collaboration and innovation have been formed. In Malmö, Sweden, for example, an “Innovation Platform” was created that brought together business, academia and community actors with the goal of renovating existing apartment buildings in the city and through such regenerating to push for socio-economic development and employment while also integrating long-term environmental goals. In another example, the Concept House Village <ref>http://www.concepthousevillage.nl/</ref> in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, is a test-bed for sustainable building technologies and new building retrofitting approaches in the Heijplaat area. In this case, the occupant is actively engaged and seen as key for the design, the development and the use of the houses. Actors that enabled and guided this process were two academic institutions, the building industry, branch organisations, the local community and the municipality of Rotterdam (at a later stage). At a higher level, the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)<ref>https://enoll.org/</ref> is an international federation of benchmarked Living Labs in Europe and worldwide, which acts as a point of reference for public and private organisations engaged in experimentation environments. It includes a wide variety of innovations which can act in many different domains (e.g. health, energy, age) or can have a more territorial character (e.g. in a city) but with a multi-domain approach.		The GUST project offers a number of illustrative examples where urban living labs of collaboration and innovation have been formed. In Malmö, Sweden, for example, an “Innovation Platform” was created that brought together business, academia and community actors with the goal of renovating existing apartment buildings in the city and through such regenerating to push for socio-economic development and employment while also integrating long-term environmental goals. In another example, the Concept House Village <ref>http://www.concepthousevillage.nl/</ref> in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, is a test-bed for sustainable building technologies and new building retrofitting approaches in the Heijplaat area. In this case, the occupant is actively engaged and seen as key for the design, the development and the use of the houses. Actors that enabled and guided this process were two academic institutions, the building industry, branch organisations, the local community and the municipality of Rotterdam (at a later stage). At a higher level, the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)<ref>https://enoll.org/</ref> is an international federation of benchmarked Living Labs in Europe and worldwide, which acts as a point of reference for public and private organisations engaged in experimentation environments. It includes a wide variety of innovations which can act in many different domains (e.g. health, energy, age) or can have a more territorial character (e.g. in a city) but with a multi-domain approach.

	==References==		==References==

Karlijn Schipper: /* Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice */

2020-01-17T15:16:17Z

Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 17 January 2020
Line 13:		Line 13:
	==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==		==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

	This approach has largely emerged as an urban methodology (process, environment, or type of governance), applied in real-life in urban spaces of small or large scale. A neighbourhood, a street, a building or a whole city can be imagined and considered as a living lab where new ideas and technologies can be developed and tested. Experimental labs have been predominantly urban. Justice is not explicitly a theme in the content of urban experimentation labs, but notions of justice as a principle arise along the co-creation theme, where local citizens and community groups can have access to fair, open and transparent processes of city making. However, as case findings show, some urban labs (or larger-scale clusters of labs) include membership fees in order to be part of decision making, while in smaller-scale examples the process followed for the selection of participants is not clear and appears to be controlled by research institutes and/or city officials. There is thus the risk of patronising ethics and discrediting of local and situated knowledge(s). Sustainability is addressed at large by experimentation labs. [[Nature-based ~~Solutions~~]] (which by definition require innovation and multi-stakeholder partnerships) are common targets for living labs, whereas energy and mobility related challenges are also often tacked as they can involve innovative technologies and systems. As said before, labs assume that engaging “users” in the conceptualisation, design and testing of sustainability solutions (enhanced participatory justice) will enable better innovations with greater uptake and replication. The limitation of conceptualising justice more broadly in the core themes that labs tackle, but also in their methodology and process, bares the risk of such innovation and solutions having disappointing performance in terms of their expected benefits.		This approach has largely emerged as an urban methodology (process, environment, or type of governance), applied in real-life in urban spaces of small or large scale. A neighbourhood, a street, a building or a whole city can be imagined and considered as a living lab where new ideas and technologies can be developed and tested. Experimental labs have been predominantly urban. Justice is not explicitly a theme in the content of urban experimentation labs, but notions of justice as a principle arise along the co-creation theme, where local citizens and community groups can have access to fair, open and transparent processes of city making. However, as case findings show, some urban labs (or larger-scale clusters of labs) include membership fees in order to be part of decision making, while in smaller-scale examples the process followed for the selection of participants is not clear and appears to be controlled by research institutes and/or city officials. There is thus the risk of patronising ethics and discrediting of local and situated knowledge(s). Sustainability is addressed at large by experimentation labs. [[Nature-based solutions]] (which by definition require innovation and multi-stakeholder partnerships) are common targets for living labs, whereas energy and mobility related challenges are also often tacked as they can involve innovative technologies and systems. As said before, labs assume that engaging “users” in the conceptualisation, design and testing of sustainability solutions (enhanced participatory justice) will enable better innovations with greater uptake and replication. The limitation of conceptualising justice more broadly in the core themes that labs tackle, but also in their methodology and process, bares the risk of such innovation and solutions having disappointing performance in terms of their expected benefits.

	==Narrative of change==		==Narrative of change==

Karlijn Schipper: /* Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice */

2020-01-17T15:16:07Z

Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:16, 17 January 2020
Line 13:		Line 13:
	==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==		==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

	This approach has largely emerged as an urban methodology (process, environment, or type of governance), applied in real-life in urban spaces of small or large scale. A neighbourhood, a street, a building or a whole city can be imagined and considered as a living lab where new ideas and technologies can be developed and tested. Experimental labs have been predominantly urban. Justice is not explicitly a theme in the content of urban experimentation labs, but notions of justice as a principle arise along the co-creation theme, where local citizens and community groups can have access to fair, open and transparent processes of city making. However, as case findings show, some urban labs (or larger-scale clusters of labs) include membership fees in order to be part of decision making, while in smaller-scale examples the process followed for the selection of participants is not clear and appears to be controlled by research institutes and/or city officials. There is thus the risk of patronising ethics and discrediting of local and situated knowledge(s). Sustainability is addressed at large by experimentation labs. Nature-based Solutions (which by definition require innovation and multi-stakeholder partnerships) are common targets for living labs, whereas energy and mobility related challenges are also often tacked as they can involve innovative technologies and systems. As said before, labs assume that engaging “users” in the conceptualisation, design and testing of sustainability solutions (enhanced participatory justice) will enable better innovations with greater uptake and replication. The limitation of conceptualising justice more broadly in the core themes that labs tackle, but also in their methodology and process, bares the risk of such innovation and solutions having disappointing performance in terms of their expected benefits.		This approach has largely emerged as an urban methodology (process, environment, or type of governance), applied in real-life in urban spaces of small or large scale. A neighbourhood, a street, a building or a whole city can be imagined and considered as a living lab where new ideas and technologies can be developed and tested. Experimental labs have been predominantly urban. Justice is not explicitly a theme in the content of urban experimentation labs, but notions of justice as a principle arise along the co-creation theme, where local citizens and community groups can have access to fair, open and transparent processes of city making. However, as case findings show, some urban labs (or larger-scale clusters of labs) include membership fees in order to be part of decision making, while in smaller-scale examples the process followed for the selection of participants is not clear and appears to be controlled by research institutes and/or city officials. There is thus the risk of patronising ethics and discrediting of local and situated knowledge(s). Sustainability is addressed at large by experimentation labs. [[Nature-based Solutions]] (which by definition require innovation and multi-stakeholder partnerships) are common targets for living labs, whereas energy and mobility related challenges are also often tacked as they can involve innovative technologies and systems. As said before, labs assume that engaging “users” in the conceptualisation, design and testing of sustainability solutions (enhanced participatory justice) will enable better innovations with greater uptake and replication. The limitation of conceptualising justice more broadly in the core themes that labs tackle, but also in their methodology and process, bares the risk of such innovation and solutions having disappointing performance in terms of their expected benefits.

	==Narrative of change==		==Narrative of change==

Panagiota Kotsila at 09:47, 16 December 2019

2019-12-16T09:47:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:47, 16 December 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:
	==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==		==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

	This approach has largely emerged as an urban methodology (process, environment, or type of governance), applied in real-life in urban spaces of small or large scale. A neighbourhood, a street, a building or a whole city can be imagined and considered as a living lab where new ideas and technologies can be developed and tested. Experimental labs have been predominantly urban. Justice is not explicitly a theme in the content of urban experimentation labs, but notions of justice as a principle arise along the co-creation theme, where local citizens and community groups can have access to fair, open and transparent processes of city making. However, as case findings show, some urban labs (or larger-scale clusters of labs) include membership fees in order to be part of decision making, while in smaller-scale examples the process followed for the selection of participants is not clear and appears to be controlled by research institutes and/or city officials. Sustainability is addressed at large by experimentation labs. Nature-based Solutions (which by definition require innovation and multi-stakeholder partnerships) are common targets for living labs, whereas energy and mobility related challenges are also often tacked as they can involve innovative technologies and systems. As said before, labs assume that engaging “users” in the conceptualisation, design and testing of sustainability solutions (enhanced participatory justice) will enable better innovations with greater uptake and replication. The limitation of conceptualising justice more broadly in the core themes that labs tackle, but also in their methodology and process, bares the risk of such innovation and solutions having disappointing performance in terms of their expected benefits.		This approach has largely emerged as an urban methodology (process, environment, or type of governance), applied in real-life in urban spaces of small or large scale. A neighbourhood, a street, a building or a whole city can be imagined and considered as a living lab where new ideas and technologies can be developed and tested. Experimental labs have been predominantly urban. Justice is not explicitly a theme in the content of urban experimentation labs, but notions of justice as a principle arise along the co-creation theme, where local citizens and community groups can have access to fair, open and transparent processes of city making. However, as case findings show, some urban labs (or larger-scale clusters of labs) include membership fees in order to be part of decision making, while in smaller-scale examples the process followed for the selection of participants is not clear and appears to be controlled by research institutes and/or city officials. There is thus the risk of patronising ethics and discrediting of local and situated knowledge(s). Sustainability is addressed at large by experimentation labs. Nature-based Solutions (which by definition require innovation and multi-stakeholder partnerships) are common targets for living labs, whereas energy and mobility related challenges are also often tacked as they can involve innovative technologies and systems. As said before, labs assume that engaging “users” in the conceptualisation, design and testing of sustainability solutions (enhanced participatory justice) will enable better innovations with greater uptake and replication. The limitation of conceptualising justice more broadly in the core themes that labs tackle, but also in their methodology and process, bares the risk of such innovation and solutions having disappointing performance in terms of their expected benefits.

	==Narrative of change==		==Narrative of change==
Line 21:		Line 21:
	==Transformative potential==		==Transformative potential==

	Starting from the premise that flexible and dynamic approaches that include experimentation and learning are part of what is required for transformation towards social and environmental sustainability, urban experimentation labs have transformative potential, as they are also well-located in inter-connected spaces and actors. However, research shows that this potential can be compromised when its principles (of co-creation) are not followed in the development phase of an intervention/solution, or if this phase is not included as part of the lab at all. The limitations of this research/policy method in relation to shifting power relations, and thus challenging dominant institutions, could be further seen in how citizens are conceptualised by its proponents. The main shift with regard to how citizens are included is from audience/end-users, to co-creators/discussion partners. However, their role in articulating and defining the problems (of urban justice and sustainability) for which solutions are designed remains unclear. More recent projects seem to take on this challenge. CLEVERcities, for example, is an effort to implement CLEVER Action Labs (CAL) in order to co-design, co-implement and co-manage NBS interventions in deprived districts, starting from specific place-based NBS technologies as impulses. The Cultural Creative Spaces and Cities project <ref>http://www.creativespacesandcities.com</ref> is also exploring new and groundbreaking methodologies of co-creation and of policy development, to override hierarchical organisational structures in favour of horizontal and collaborative approaches.		Starting from the premise that flexible and dynamic approaches that include experimentation and learning are part of what is required for transformation towards social and environmental sustainability, urban experimentation labs have transformative potential, as they are also well-located in inter-connected spaces and actors. However, research shows that this potential can be compromised when its principles (of co-creation) are not followed in the development phase of an intervention/solution, or if this phase is not included as part of the lab at all. The limitations of this research/policy method in relation to shifting power relations, and thus challenging dominant institutions, could be further seen in how citizens are conceptualised by its proponents. The main shift with regard to how citizens are included is from audience/end-users, to co-creators/discussion partners. However, their role in articulating and defining the problems (of urban justice and sustainability) for which solutions are designed remains unclear. Achieving participation dynamics is in itself a challenge, as communities might doubt the extent to which their involvement will have tangible positive impacts. More recent projects seem to take on this challenge. CLEVERcities, for example, is an effort to implement CLEVER Action Labs (CAL) in order to co-design, co-implement and co-manage NBS interventions in deprived districts, starting from specific place-based NBS technologies as impulses. The Cultural Creative Spaces and Cities project <ref>http://www.creativespacesandcities.com</ref> is also exploring new and groundbreaking methodologies of co-creation and of policy development, to override hierarchical organisational structures in favour of horizontal and collaborative approaches.

	==Summary of relevant approaches==		==Summary of relevant approaches==

Panagiota Kotsila at 09:33, 16 December 2019

2019-12-16T09:33:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 16 December 2019
Line 5:		Line 5:
	==General introduction to approach==		==General introduction to approach==

	Experimentation labs, in general, constitute new and unconventional ways of participation in urban spaces. Research on urban labs shows that there is still much opaqueness on what constitutes an urban (living, smart, innovation) lab, and what does not. While initially they mainly have included businesses, entrepreneurs and researchers along with city authorities, they also increasingly aim at including citizens at all stages (research, development, testing implementation). Experimentation labs thus can be considered part of multiple stakeholders partnerships processes and knowledge brokerage (co-learning), but they are ~~mostly~~ ephemeral and ~~not always~~ binding in terms of policy outcomes. However, this co-creation aspect is challenging to achieve in practice, especially when projects aim at developing highly technological innovations, often pursued in the search for smart and sustainable cities.		Experimentation labs, in general, constitute new and unconventional ways of participation in urban spaces. Research on urban labs shows that there is still much opaqueness on what constitutes an urban (living, smart, innovation) lab, and what does not. While initially they mainly have included businesses, entrepreneurs and researchers along with city authorities, they also increasingly aim at including citizens at all stages (research, development, testing implementation). Experimentation labs thus can be considered part of multiple stakeholders partnerships processes and knowledge brokerage (co-learning), but they are often ephemeral and non-binding in terms of policy outcomes. However, in certain cases, this co-creation aspect is challenging to achieve in practice, especially when projects aim at developing highly technological innovations, often pursued in the search for smart and sustainable cities.

	==Shapes, sizes and applications==		==Shapes, sizes and applications==

	Experimentation labs are very common in urban settings, and we have observed various types being applied to questions of urban sustainability. Depending on their focus and function they can be found under “Living Labs”, “Action Labs” and “Innovation Labs”, or “Smart (Urban) Labs” or simply “City Labs”. The main idea in most of these remains the co-creation and exploration of emerging ideas, breakthrough scenarios, innovative concepts and related ~~products~~. Living Labs focus on ~~the idea of an~~ experiential ~~environment~~ where policy makers and ~~users/~~citizens design, explore, experience and refine new policies ~~and~~ regulations in real-life scenarios ~~for evaluating their~~ potential impacts before their ~~implementations, in relation~~, for example, to learning and collaboration in the development of the city (as in the case of the Eindhoven Living Lab collection of initiatives, TRANSIT (2014-2017) project <ref>http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/</ref>), Nature-based Solutions (UNALAB (2017-2022) <ref>https://www.unalab.eu/</ref>, CLEVER Cities (2018-2023) <ref>http://clevercities.eu/</ref>), or more generally transitions to sustainability (GUST (2014-16) <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TwD7UsDWrw&feature=youtu.be</ref>). Specific thematic labs might focus on a concrete (while also multi-dimensional) aspect of sustainability policy, like mobility (Cities4people <ref>https://cities4people.eu/</ref>), or energy and mobility (Smart Urban Labs - TRANSFORM (2013-15) <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/186978/factsheet/en</ref>). Experimentation labs emerged nearly a decade ago, as a way of innovating in cities with technology and people, and the research conducted to study and proliferate them has followed soon after. They are mushrooming rapidly across the globe and seem to have captured an important part of the discourse around future city governance. However, they are limited in how they include questions of culture and conflict, and struggle with how to include people’s voices beyond data entries or one-off or tokenistic participation structures.		Experimentation labs are very common in urban settings, and we have observed various types being applied to questions of urban sustainability. Depending on their focus and function they can be found under “Living Labs”, “Action Labs” and “Innovation Labs”, or “Smart (Urban) Labs” or simply “City Labs”. The main idea in most of these remains the co-creation and exploration of emerging ideas, breakthrough scenarios, innovative concepts and related activities or projects. Living Labs focus on creating experiential environments where policy makers and citizens design, explore, experience and refine new ideas (policies, regulations, technologies etc.) in real-life scenarios. The aim is to be able to evaluate the potential impacts of such innovations before their implementation. Living labs can have different aims, for example, to foster learning and collaboration in the development of the city (as in the case of the Eindhoven Living Lab collection of initiatives, TRANSIT (2014-2017) project <ref>http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/</ref>), to support Nature-based Solutions (UNALAB (2017-2022) <ref>https://www.unalab.eu/</ref>, CLEVER Cities (2018-2023) <ref>http://clevercities.eu/</ref>), or more generally to encourage transitions to sustainability (GUST (2014-16) <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TwD7UsDWrw&feature=youtu.be</ref>). Specific thematic labs might focus on a concrete (while also multi-dimensional) aspect of sustainability policy, like mobility (Cities4people <ref>https://cities4people.eu/</ref>), or energy and mobility (Smart Urban Labs - TRANSFORM (2013-15) <ref>https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/186978/factsheet/en</ref>). Experimentation labs emerged nearly a decade ago, as a way of innovating in cities with technology and people, and the research conducted to study and proliferate them has followed soon after. They are mushrooming rapidly across the globe and seem to have captured an important part of the discourse around future city governance. However, they are limited in how they include questions of culture and conflict, and struggle with how to include people’s voices beyond data entries or one-off or tokenistic participation structures.

	==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==		==Relation to UrbanA themes: Cities, sustainability, and justice==

Lin at 19:07, 24 November 2019

2019-11-24T19:07:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 24 November 2019
Line 34:		Line 34:
	[[Category: Digital fabrication]]		[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
	[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]		[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
	[[Category: Nature-based ~~solution~~]]		[[Category: Nature-based solutions]]
	[[Category: ~~CLEVERCity~~]]		[[Category: CLEVERcities]]
	[[Category: TRANSIT]]		[[Category: TRANSIT]]
	[[Category: European Network of Living Labs]]		[[Category: European Network of Living Labs]]

Lin at 19:06, 24 November 2019

2019-11-24T19:06:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 24 November 2019
Line 34:		Line 34:
	[[Category: Digital fabrication]]		[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
	[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]		[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
	[[Category: ~~Cultural Creative Spaces and Cities~~]]		[[Category: Nature-based solution]]
			[[Category: CLEVERCity]]
	[[Category: TRANSIT]]		[[Category: TRANSIT]]
	[[Category: European Network of Living Labs]]		[[Category: European Network of Living Labs]]

Lin at 20:25, 21 November 2019

2019-11-21T20:25:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 21 November 2019
Line 34:		Line 34:
	[[Category: Digital fabrication]]		[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
	[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]		[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
	[[Category: ~~CLEVER action Labs~~]]		[[Category: Cultural Creative Spaces and Cities]]
	[[Category: ~~Urban Innovation Labs~~]]		[[Category: TRANSIT]]
	[[Category: ~~Urban living labs]]~~		[[Category: European Network of Living Labs]]
	~~[[Category: Urban Labs]]~~
	~~[[Category: Smart Urban Labs]]~~
	~~[[Category: City~~ Labs]]

Lin at 09:47, 15 November 2019

2019-11-15T09:47:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:47, 15 November 2019
Line 31:		Line 31:

	[[Category: Approaches]]		[[Category: Approaches]]
			[[Category: Experimentation Labs]]
			[[Category: Digital fabrication]]
	[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]		[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
	~~[[Category: Experimentation Labs]]~~
	[[Category: CLEVER action Labs]]		[[Category: CLEVER action Labs]]
	[[Category: Urban Innovation Labs]]		[[Category: Urban Innovation Labs]]

Karlijn Schipper at 09:46, 29 October 2019

2019-10-29T09:46:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:46, 29 October 2019
Line 31:		Line 31:

	[[Category: Approaches]]		[[Category: Approaches]]
			[[Category: Governance and participation processes]]
	[[Category: Experimentation Labs]]		[[Category: Experimentation Labs]]
	[[Category: CLEVER action Labs]]		[[Category: CLEVER action Labs]]