Living Lab jako sposób kształcenia w zakresie recyklingu. Doświadczenia warsztatowe

Salih Ceylan, Mehmet Emre Arslan

doi:10.37190/arc210208

Streszczenie

Tematem artykułu są żyjące laboratoria (Living Labs) – innowacyjne platformy służące spotkaniom i wymianie myśli między specjalistami i użytkownikami w celu wypracowania i wdrożenia ulepszeń zorientowanych na potrzeby tych ostatnich. Wspomniane modyfikacje mogą dotyczyć nie tylko produktów i usług, ale też na przykład miejskiego środowiska życia. Living Labs należą do tych przedsięwzięć, które traktują zrównoważony rozwój w kontekście społecznym. Działania praktyczne Living Labs dotyczą bezpośrednio codziennych problemów lokalnych społeczności, a w poszukiwaniu rozwiązań bierze się pod uwagę opinie i pomysły ich członków, dlatego platformy te są potencjalnie ważnym miejscem wspomagającym kształtowanie zrównoważonych społeczeństw. Celem niniejszej pracy było przybliżenie korzyści płynących z istnienia żyjących laboratoriów. Uczyniono to na podstawie studium przypadku Başakşehir Living Lab – organizacji prowadzącej badania nad efektywnym wykorzystaniem zasobów naturalnych i poprawą jakości życia w jednej z dzielnic Stambułu, miasta z największą liczbą mieszkańców w Turcji. W publikacji skupiono się na przedstawieniu serii warsztatów zatytułowanych: „Od odpadów elektronicznych do projektu”, których celem było pokazanie możliwości ponownego użycia odpadów elektronicznych. Od strony metodologicznej artykuł przygotowano w oparciu o własne doświadczenia związane z organizacją i prowadzeniem warsztatów oraz przegląd literatury, na podstawie której nakreślono teoretyczną podbudowę do podjętych działań praktycznych. W artykule omówiono też wyniki ankiet przeprowadzonych na zakończenie cyklu wspomnianych warsztatów, które wskazały, że takie przedsięwzięcia mają znaczący wpływ na budowanie i podnoszenie proekologicznej świadomości uczestników.

Podgląd pełnego artykułu jest możliwy wyłącznie na większych ekranach.

2021

2(66)

DOI: 10.37190/arc210208

Salih Ceylan*, Mehmet Emre Arslan**

Living Lab approach to community training for recycling.

A workshop experience

Introduction

Environmental problems have been on the world agen-

da for a long time. Population growth, rapid urbanization,

and increasing energy demand caused environmental

pro blems to become a global threat in the last decades.

En viron mental Resource Panel Report [1] states that

mate rial resource use expected in 2050 is going to be

around 180 billion tonnes, more than double the amount

from 2015. Ad di tionally, in its 2016 report, the World

Energy Council estimated that the global energy demand

will increase until 2030 [2]. These values mean that the

future does not promise a habitable environment for peo-

ple and hence strategies for energy and resource use must

change

urgently. Consequently, the United Nations started

the Sus tainable Development Goals Programme, a set of

17 in tegrated and indivisible goals and targets to guide go-

vernments and people towards a more sustainable future

[3]. Governments must revise their development strate-

gies accordingly to decrease energy and resource demand

in the future. However, governments are not the only ac-

tors that hold responsibility for a sustainable future. Peo-

ple gathered around non-government organizations may

play a role in creating a better future for the upcoming

generations. Environmental challenges involve multiple

groups of people with dierent needs and interests [4].

After all, energy and resource issues are environmental

problems that directly aect the everyday life of people, so

that they must recognize the importance of the indivi dual’s

role in the sustainability of society. Being aware of the

ecient use of energy and resources may have a signi-

cant impact on the life of future generations. Living labs

as non-governmental organizations have a user-centric

research methodology for searching solutions for certain

problems of societies. Therefore, they might be benecial

for practicing methods on the ecient use of resources

and energy and raising awareness of environmental prob-

lems among the members of society.

This article presents research conducted at the Başa

kşehir Living Lab on the role of society for eective use

of resources through a case study based on a workshop

series about the functional reuse of electronic waste. The

workshop series were repeated 3 times with dierent par-

ticipants and the outcomes of the workshops along with

a survey on user opinions were assessed within the scope

of this article. The experience provides an important in-

sight into the eective use of the living lab approach in

raising awareness of environmental problems among

society.

Aim of the study

Living labs have various aims and can be used with

dierent strategies. Their usercentric structure makes

them suitable tools for the examination of problems at

macro, as well as micro levels. The main aim of the study

is based on the micro level by examining the benets of

the living lab approach for the awareness among the so-

ciety about environmental problems with the example of

electronic waste. Additionally, it also aims to help people

understand the ways of design thinking and practice them

from the perspective of emerging global problems. In the

case study, the workshop was structured in a such way so

as to combine design thinking principles with recycling

processes.

* ORCID: 0000-0003-3808-7773. Faculty of Architecture and

Design, Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul, Turkey, email: salih.ceylan@

arc.bau.edu.tr

ORCID: 0000-0003-2268-5701. Istanbul Kültür University, Istan -

bul,

Turkey.

78 Salih Ceylan, Mehmet Emre Arslan

bility issues [7]. Many dierent organizations are trying

to come up with novel strategies and methods to develop

sustainability solutions; with precautions to decrease en-

ergy consumption levels and environmental pollution, by

presenting alternative energy sources, or regarding water

and resource management. In the light of the knowledge

gained from this large amount of experience, it is gen-

erally accepted that all the actors must play their part to

achieve an eective result for sustainable development.

Therefore, the term sustainability needs to be approached

in detail through its dierent aspects.

Sustainability is a broad theme with various aspects.

Dierent disciplines may handle sustainability from their

perspectives based on certain criteria. Sustainability was

called by many, with the term meaning something dier-

ent to everyone, the quest for sustainable development

was o to a cacophonous start [8]. Despite the endless

possibilities for approaching the issue, according to var-

ious researchers [9]–[11], sustainability is divided into

three main dimensions to provide wide descriptions and

relevant action plans for a sustainable world: environ-

mental, economic and social ones. All the three aspects

are interrelated. The economic growth of the society

makes it stronger and a stronger society is more sustain-

able where it also contributes to environmental sustaina-

bility. However, the social aspect of sustainability has not

been given enough importance until recently. There are

some possible reasons for that, one of them being the un-

clear denition of social sustainability, and the other one

being that it does not oer tangible results as the other

two aspects do. The results of environmental sustainabil-

ity can be seen in the growth of biodiversity or the en-

ergy eciency of a building, or economic sustainability

reects on the consistent growth of the economies, thus

the results of the social aspect of sustainability are only

to be observed in the structure of the societies. Especially

in the short term, the consequences of actions to provide

social sustainability are not visible. According to Sachs

[12], it is unclear whether social sustainability refers to

a need to sustain structures in societies and communities

or is considered a precondition for sustainable develop-

ment. Nevertheless, especially considering its long-term

results, the social aspect of sustainability is a signicant

and important one.

Community and sustainability

Individual’s role in sustainability is not upfront but im-

portant. It takes its strength from collectivity. The action

of one single individual may not be signicant, but when

the majority in the community repeats the same action, its

results and eects become visible. However, strategic ac-

tion is a collective property, not something undertaken by

persons in the collective [13]. Therefore, it is important

to create and execute strategic actions of the community

towards directions that have a positive impact on their en-

vironment and sustainability. Socially sustainable environ-

ments are the results of close relationship of communities

with the public and private sectors [14]. The relationship

between the community and sustainability is bipartite as

Methodology of the study

The methodology of the paper consists of a case study

following a literature review. The literature review pro-

vides a theoretical framework for the case study looking

into the existing environmental problems and their his-

torical background. Sustainability, its relationship with

society, together with the living lab approach and its ap-

plications form other sections of the theoretical back-

ground of the paper. The case study conducted in this pa-

per is a series of workshops where the attendees’ work

processes and products are assessed in the result section.

In addition, a survey on the attendees’ opinions has been

conducted to evaluate the relationship between the living

lab workshops and society’s awareness of environmental

problems and sustainability. The insight and projections

in the conclusion and discussion section are derived from

the results of the workshop experience and the survey.

Sustainability with various aspects

Sustainability is an important and urgent theme for hu -

manity. Through growing environmental problems, its im-

portance has started to be recognized by the global mass-

es in the recent years. With its eects having started to

be felt by the end users and governments, precautions to

maintain sustainability in dierent areas of life are being

taken by authorities. However, to achieve eective re-

sults, it is important to provide community awareness and

en gagement in this kind of operation. The community’s

role in sustainability and sustainable development is an

undeniable truth. Until recently, sustainability issues have

been a eld of interest for a group of scientists, academics,

and activists. Nowadays, with an increasing number and

level of environmental problems, communities started to

engage with environmental problems and sustainability

issues. The engagement of the community is important in

terms of creating mass awareness of sustainability and the

education of coming generations.

The term sustainability entered the world agenda in

the 2

half of the 20

century, following the increasing

problems with nature and environmental pollution. Hu-

mankind started to recognize that the energy and resourc-

es oered by the world are not innite, and measures need

to be taken to allow the world to regenerate itself for the

good of the next generations. In 1987, the World Com-

mission on Environment and Development published the

report Our Common Future, which denes sustainable

development as the development that meets the needs of

the present without compromising the ability of the future

ge nerations to meet their own needs [5]. This denition

was quoted many times in the following years in dier-

ent organizations like the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro,

which proposed Agenda 21, a global action plan for sus-

tainable development [6]. The Rio Summit was repeated

after 10 years with the name Rio+10, and in 2012 with the

name Rio+20 to follow up the workow of the action plan

introduced in 1992, and to bring forth new strategies and

requirements of the contemporary world as to sustaina-

Living Lab approach to community training for recycling. A workshop experience 79

its sustainability supports the community to be a stronger

and healthy one, and the community plays an important

role to maintain and develop sustainability. The commu-

nity’s role in the maintenance of sustainability occurs in

various ways.

Community’s role in sustainability

The community’s most important and predominant

role is generally creating awareness among people and

inuence authorities to take actions for public wellbe-

ing through participatory approaches. Participatory ap-

proaches provide opportunities for community members

to interact, develop leadership skills, improve a sense of

ecacy and build social capital [15]. In the scope of sus-

tainability, this role extends towards innovation and novel

applications to familiarize the members of the community

with the new denitions and methods to provide a more

sustainable structure of society. The engagement of the

community in design is seen as an opportunity to devel-

op a “local ownership” of the facilities, therefore ensur-

ing their long-term sustainability [16]. Additionally, the

community’s response to sustainability is also important

for the education of the new generations. Therefore, the

activities regarding sustainability in a community need

to be ground-breaking and raise awareness among peo-

ple. Although sustainability is a subject that has been

under consideration for a long time, the actions of the

community on sustainability is a recent eld of interest.

Israeli et al. [17] state that community-based participa-

tory interventions promote social sustainability by engag-

ing communities in improving their living environments.

Sometimes, sustainability can also be a secondary con-

cern regarding community actions, as one type of action

can be useful for several purposes at the same time. The

community has several strategies to deal with the issues

of sustainability:

– Use of energyecient products in the household,

– Change in the daily habits towards energy eciency,

– Broader use of public transportation,

– Alternative energy production,

– Social inclusion in decision-making processes,

– Recycling and upcycling of waste.

There are important principles like cogency, stability,

and consistency that need to be maintained in this kind

of social activities. The strategies can be employed in the

community either during daily life activities or various

occasions to engage people in these kinds of activities.

Living labs in this regard create some of the opportu-

nities.

The Living Lab Approach

Living Lab (LL) is dened as an innovation platform

where researchers, academics, innovators, citizens, and

users meet to perform an open, user-centred innovation

based on co-creation, participation, and user engagement.

Higgins and Klein state that LLs are both practice- driven

organizations that facilitate and foster open, collabora

tive innovation, as well as real-life environments or arenas

where both open innovation and user innovation pro cesses

can be studied and subject to experiments and where new

solutions are developed [18, p. 32]. Although each liv-

ing lab’s focus areas may vary, Living Labs share certain

common elements as follows.

1. Multi-Method Approaches: There is not a single

method that all living labs use. Instead, each living lab

uses dierent methods and technics according to the focus

areas and projects they are involved in.

2. User Engagement: Living Labs collaborate with real

users right from the beginning of the innovation process.

3. Multi-stakeholder Participation: More than one stake

holder is always involved in the LL project.

4. RealLife Setting: Living Labs do not simulate or

model the test environment. Instead, they use real-life set-

tings for testing the developed products and services.

5. Co-Creation: Living Labs rely on a participatory ap-

proach. This is systematic and productive participation.

Users in the co-creation process are not only factors but

they are important actors.

The term Living Lab refers to a living laboratory. As

each laboratory is a test environment, living labs im-

plement research and innovation activities into real-life

settings. The Living Lab concept originates from MIT,

Boston, Prof. William Mitchell, MediaLab and School

of Architecture and city planning. Living Labs represent

a user-centric research methodology for sensing, proto-

typing, validating and rening complex solutions in mul-

tiple and evolving real-life contexts [19]. First Living

Labs were established in MIT for a research project about

the home of the future. For observing the technologies in

reallife settings, a test environment reecting the future

challenges is created. A new live-in, apartment-scale re-

search facility called the PlaceLab was formed in MIT,

which opened in July of 2004 in an urban neighbourhood

in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Volunteer research partici-

pants individually live in the PlaceLab for days or weeks,

treating it as a temporary home. Meanwhile, a detailed

description of their activities is recorded by sensing de-

vices integrated into the fabric of the architecture [20].

PlaceLab’s primary vision is to provide a neutral atmos-

phere for users to get sensory feedback from real users for

developing the services or technologies used in the house.

It is most likely a 1/1 scale prototype of an architectural

element equipped with high technology. The European

version of living labs is larger in the scale of the test en-

vironments, as they are not focusing on only a specic

research project, instead they are most likely a platform

for innovators. Depending on the type of the research

project, testing capacities are adopted. Each living lab

constitutes a test area within the frame of the established

geography.

The European version of living labs carried the Liv-

ing Lab concept into a holistic approach aecting the

communities, cities and geographies on a larger scale.

For European Living Labs, test environments are cities,

neighbourhoods, campuses, or buildings depending on

the focused research area. From this point of view, Living

Labs in Europe is aecting the local development of its

region by all means.

80 Salih Ceylan, Mehmet Emre Arslan

Living Lab methodology

Living Labs may vary depending on its organization

level. Schuurmann [21] identied the dierent levels of

these organizations as follows:

1. The Macro or organizational level, where the Living

Lab is a set of actors and stakeholders organized to ena-

ble and foster innovation, typically in a certain domain or

area, often also with a territorial link or focus. These or-

ganizations tend to be Public-Private, People partnerships

(after: [21]).

2. The mezzo or project level, where Living Lab activ-

ities take place following a mostly organizationspecic

methodology to foster innovation.

3. The micro or user activity level, where the various

assets and capabilities of the Living Lab organization ma-

nifest themselves as separate activities where users and/or

stakeholders are involved.

Even though there are such scales at the organization

level, the LL methodology shares some common proper-

ties. LL methodology starts with exploration in order to

get to know the “current state” and to design the possi-

ble “future states”, continues with experimentation in re-

al-life settings and it is followed by an evaluation process

to assess the impact of the experiment with regard to the

“current state” to iterate the “future state” [21]. From the

point of its phases, LL methodology resonates with design

thinking. Design thinking is a human-centred approach to

innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to inte-

grate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology,

and the requirements for business success [22]. The pro-

cess of design thinking is as follows: Empathy – Dene

– Ideation – Prototyping – Testing – Evaluation – Imple-

mentation. Both LL methodology and Design Thinking

process share an experimental, continuous, and perpetual

learning process and a human-centred approach for fos-

tering innovation.

European Network

of Living Lab (ENOLL)

The emergence of Living Labs in Europe started after

the foundation of the European Network of Living Lab

(ENOLL) in 2006. Living Labs are connected by a net-

work called European Network of Living Labs (ENOLL).

ENOLL is a roof platform for all living labs, serves as

a facilitator, communicator, research and idea exchange

platform. After its foundation in November 2006, 20 liv-

ing labs in 15 EU countries were formed in the same year.

ENOLL expanded during the years and labelled 440+ Liv-

ing Labs until 2020. Living Labs are classied by ENOLL

under dierent categories like the established country,

type of membership and sectors. There are currently ac-

tive 19 full members, 149 adherent members labelled by

ENOLL. Living Labs operates in 9+ dierent sectors,

health & wellbeing, smart cities and regions, culture &

creativity, energy, mobility, social inclusion, social innova-

tion, government, education and others. A living lab may

be classied under more than one sector meaning that

they

operate in multiple sectors.

Başakşehir Living Lab

The Living Lab has aimed to increase the living stand-

ards of the local society, the quality of Başakşehir city and

consciousness of urbanization through consideration of

the desires of the local citizen and society by a set of high

and standardized innovative services for the local public

as well as private organizations. Başakşehir Municipality,

in accordance with these purposes regarding applying the

quality, provides unconditioned customer satisfaction, ed-

ucation and control to all of its citizen and employees, by

continuously improving and applying development facil-

ities. One of the near future objectives is also to replicate

similar Living Labs to other cities around Turkey [23].

Başakşehir Living Lab (BLL) was established in 2012

by the Municipality of Basaksehir to foster the innovation

based on ICT (Information and Communication Techno-

logies) (Fig. 1). BLL became a member of ENOLL in its

wave enlargement. The vision of the partners involved

in the establishment of BLL includes the following:

1) providing the environment for promoting the deve-

lopment of innovative ICT products and services,

2) establishing a modern, livable, ecient, and environ-

mentally friendly living place that is in line with its vision,

3) being a good example for replication of similar Liv-

ing Labs in other cities around Turkey [23].

Başakşehir region is situated on the northern side of

Istanbul surrounded by dierent municipal regions and

natural forests. The Municipality was established in 2008.

The area is situated close to the Istanbul Airport and beside

the central ring road which provides a suitable infrastruc-

ture for growth (economic, urban, population-wise, etc.).

Industrial centres and real estate are the driving force

of Başakşehir’s economic structure. One of the two big-

gest industrial zones of Turkey called the Ikitelli Industrial

Zone is in Başakşehir. Small and mediumsized enterpris-

es are the main actors in Ikitelli Industrial Zone. SME’s

had been active participants in Living Lab activities.

Başakşehir is a developing region with its population

increasing year by year, from 226,387 in 2009 to 460,259

in 2019. According to the Turkish Statistic Institute, work-

ing age population includes the population between the

ages of 15 and 65. The working-age population is 270,350

which means 68% of the total population according to

2017 calculations.

Given all of these, structuring a Living Lab focusing on

ICT applications, empowering smart city policies to make

the life of its citizens more comfortable while fostering

innovation and promoting entrepreneurship for its young

population may be considered as a benecial policy.

The organization scheme for the Başakşehir Living

Lab reects a collaboration of dierent organizations in

various elds. It consists of an experience centre, incuba-

tion centre, education centre, modelling studios and de-

sign factory that are connected.

Experience centre

BLL constitutes an experience centre aiming to present

the outcome of the LL projects to be used by the visitors

Living Lab approach to community training for recycling. A workshop experience 81

Fig. 1. Başakşehir Living Lab Building (photo by M.E. Arslan)

Il. 1. Budynek Başakşehir Living Lab (fot. M.E. Arslan)

and get feedback from them. As BLL is an ICT-based LL,

the majority of the works presented include computer tech-

nologies. These products are developed by entrepreneurs

or researchers supported by BLL. As education and design

is part of the BLL, the outcome of the design workshops

and education is presented in the experience centre as well.

Incubation centre

Incubation centre aims to nd talented entrepreneurs

and to support them in being successful in their projects.

Entrepreneurs may get support from BLL by applying

with a project to be evaluated by a committee. These sup-

ports include mentorship, oce facilities in incubation

oce of the BLL, test environment, design services and

education. BLL organizes start-up days twice a year for

gathering the angel investors and entrepreneurs together.

Education centre

BLL develops education content for multiple partici-

pant proles. The content of the education varies accord-

ing to the participants. Entrepreneurs, children, designers

are among the participants.

Modelling studio and design factory

As design is part of everything, BLL includes a design

oce for supplying design services for its entrepreneurs

and presenting design workshops for various groups. Mo-

delling studio is part of the design factory providing fast

prototyping equipment like 3d printers, workshop desks

and modelling tools (Fig. 2).

Living Lab Methodologies and participatory design

processes have similarities. Both of them consider the

user at the centre of the co-creation process. For that

reason, the design methodologies may be considered as

a useful tool for innovation processes. From this point of

view the existence of a design factory in Başakşehir Liv-

ing Lab plays an important role in Living Lab activities.

The activity of the design factory in BLL relies on

three responsibilities. To provide design services to the

entrepreneurs and startups in the BLL incubation oce,

to do design workshops to develop awareness in the near

environment of BLL and the city of Istanbul and to sup-

port BLL activities from the point of design. Within the

scope of this paper, the workshops organized by the de-

sign factory are going to be highlighted in the upcoming

chapters. The content of the workshops for non-designers

is going to be investigated in detail.

The case study:

Living Lab Approach to Sustainability

In 2018 and 2019, BLL organized several workshops

to raise awareness of the ecient use of resources and

sustainability throughout the community. The workshop

in the scope of this paper is a part of this workshop series,

with an emphasis on environmental problems like waste

management. As the eects of environmental problems

82 Salih Ceylan, Mehmet Emre Arslan

have become visible in the daily lives of people through

global climate change, air pollution, or deforestation, it

becomes an important responsibility of non-government

organizations like Living Labs to develop novel insights

and future projections on the issues of sustainability and

energy eciency. Therefore, the main objectives of the

organized workshops were to engage regular people in

design processes with various thematic foci, to support

them to become more conscious of the environmental

problems, and to make them understand that everyday ob-

jects and even waste could be utilized to create functional

products. Emphasizing these objectives, various work-

shops with the following titles were organized: “Recy-

cled playground design”, “Functional furniture design”,

“Digital design”, and “Automotive design”. Among the

others, the workshop with the title “From electronic waste

to design” was the most relevant event that contributed

to raising awareness among the society of sustainability,

recycling and ecient use of resources.

“From electronic waste to design” workshop

In contemporary society, the bond between people and

technological devices is indisputable. Using electronic de-

vices like personal computers, mobile phones, TV-sets,

cameras, or media players is currently a routine activity for

people. However, relatively short life cycles of the electron-

devices cause problems in the management of electron-

ic waste. Electronic waste is described as the electrical or

electronic devices that have reached the end of their life and

are discarded [24]. Even though the amount of electronic

waste produced globally is increasing day by day and there

is a big potential for reusing or recycling the products, their

management is not given enough importance by the gov-

ernments and the society. Therefore, BLL organized a se-

ries of workshops, aiming to raise awareness of electronic

waste among society, by creating an opportunity to use itas

resources for product or furniture design (Fig. 3). The main

keywords for the denition of the workshop were reuse,

recycle, and upcycle. Through the workshops, members of

the society had the opportunity to face the problems of elec-

tronic waste and have a deeper insight into using them as

valuable resources for recycling and upcycling, rather than

waste products. Consequently, society would become more

conscious of using electronic devices cautiously, and aware

of the recycling options of electronic waste. Additionally,

the essence of the workshop also included the idea of com-

bining recycling processes with design thinking principles.

Participants in the workshop were given a perspective of

design thinking throughout the process and tended to create

uniquely designed products from electronic waste.

Workshop schedule

From electronic waste to design workshop was organ-

ized through 3 repeated sessions with dierent attendees

between October, 26

and November 10

, 2019. Each

group worked for 2 days. A total of 48 people attended the

workshops. Therefore, each session had 15–16 attendees

split into 4 or 5 small collaborative groups. The rst day

consisted of informative sessions like the introduction

and various lectures by experts, which were followed by

initial design ideas and their evaluations, as the second

day included the design and production steps respectively.

First day sessions started with an introductory pres-

entation about BLL and its mission. The introduction was

followed by a lecture about Başakşehir Municipality’s

policies on waste management and recycling, including

alternative perspectives on recycled products. The next

lectures of the day were focused on electronic waste, its

recycling processes, and its current global and local sta-

tus. After those lectures, attendees of the workshop visited

an exhibition that was organized in coordination with the

schedule of the workshop, as the topic of the exhibition

focused on art pieces that were created using electronic

waste. The exhibition was aimed to be inspirational for

Fig. 2. Interior of Başakşehir

Living Lab Building

(photo by M.E. Arslan)

Il. 2. Wnętrze Başakşehir Living

Lab Building

(fot. M.E. Arslan)

Living Lab approach to community training for recycling. A workshop experience 83

attendees, the questionnaire revealed that 9 were between

15 and 19, 27 were between 20 and 29, and 2 were be-

tween 30 and 40 years old.

General satisfaction of the attendees was tested in the

second section of the questionnaire, and all the 48 attend-

ees stated that they would be interested in attending another

workshop if some activity with a similar focus was to be

the attendees by stimulating design ideas in their minds.

After the exhibition visit, attendees had some free time

to think and discuss their initial design proposals. At that

stage they were given some insight into design thinking

and its principles, including how it might aect a produc-

tion process that proceeds from wasted material to useful

products. The nal session of the day was a discussion on

the design ideas, considering their positive and negative

sides, and how the design proposals could be developed

and nalized the following day.

On the second day, the rst session was a presentation

on safety precautions about the treatment of electronic

waste and the introduction of tools and equipment for the

design and production phases. After the presentation, par-

ticipants of the workshop started to work on their design

proposals in groups which they formed the previous day.

Every group had 3 or 4 members to work collaborative-

ly. They had the chance to consult the organizers of the

workshop about the design ideas to develop their prod-

ucts. Eventually, every group produced a unique product

from the given electronic waste (Fig. 4). At the end of

each workshop session, the products or proposals were

monitored and discussed, and nally, after the end of all

repeated sessions, a common exhibition day was organ-

ized to give the attendees the chance to share their de-

signed products with each other and with visitors to BLL.

The questionnaire

BLL conducts questionnaires after every organization

it holds to understand the satisfaction of the attendees and

their opinions on how to develop those organizations in

the upcoming times. After “From electronic waste to de-

sign” workshop, a similar questionnaire was carried out to

nd out if the workshop was appreciated by the attendees

and how it served the purpose of raising awareness of re-

cycling and sustainability among the society.

The questionnaire was conducted right after the nal

discussions were over and printed questionnaire sheets

were distributed to the attendees for them to answer and re-

turn in about 10 minutes. It had 10 questions in 4 sections;

the rst one consisting of questions that required short an-

swers about the general information of the attendees such

as age, gender and education level. The second section

was about their general satisfaction level from the work-

shop, and the third section was about the contents and

planning of the workshop and it consisted of agreement

to statements on a 5 point Likert scale. The fourth section

consisted of open-ended questions about their opinions on

the workshop and how it served its purpose (Fig. 5). Re-

sults and outcomes of the questionnaire are presented in

the following chapters.

Results

The workshop series, as well as the questionnaire was

attended by a total of 48 people. According to the answers

of the rst section, 22 of the attendees were male, and 26

were female. 39 attendees were at undergraduate level, as

9 were high school graduates. Regarding the age of the

Fig. 3. The poster for the workshop announcement

(source: the authors’ archive)

Il. 3. Plakat informujący o warsztatach

(źródło: archiwum autorów)

Fig. 4. Some workshop participants and their products

(photo by M.E. Arslan)

Il. 4. Uczestnicy warsztatów i ich produkty

(photo by M.E. Arslan)

84 Salih Ceylan, Mehmet Emre Arslan

tral and 2 people were negative about it. Regarding the

methodology and communication techniques, only 1 per-

son was negative and 3 people were neutral, whereas the

rest (44 people) had positive opinions. 43 attendees had

a positive impression about the workshop contents and the

suitability to the given problem, while only 4 people were

neutral and 1 person was negative about them. The lowest

average result found in this section of the questionnaire was

the question about the duration of the workshop: 8 people

stated that it was insucient, and 6 people were neutral.

18 people thought the duration was enough and 16 people

mentioned that it was perfectly well. The diagram show-

ing the answers to section 3 of the questionnaire can be

seen in Figure 6.

organized. Another question in that section was asked in

order to understand if the attendees would recommend

this workshop to other people, and only 6 out of 48 people

were negative about it.

The third section of the questionnaire revealed some

detailed opinions of the attendees through questions re-

garding the contents and planning of the workshop. 39 out

of 48 attendees stated that the workshop contents perfectly

met their expectations, and only 2 attendees were neutral

about it. Only 2 attendees thought that the wisdom and

interest level of the instructors was insucient while 30

people mentioned that they were wise. 32 people had the

opinion that the tools, instruments, and documentation of

the workshop were totally sucient, while 9 were neu-

Fig. 5. A sample

questionnaire sheet

(source: the authors’ archive)

Il. 5. Przykładowy

formularz ankiety

(źródło: archiwum autorów)

Living Lab approach to community training for recycling. A workshop experience 85

In the fourth and last section of the questionnaire, at-

tendees were asked to shortly write about their opinions

on the experience they had with 2 open-ended questions.

One question focused on the concepts of sustainability

and energy eciency, and the other one was about elec-

tronic waste. Attendees’ answers hold useful information

regarding these subjects. Most common comment on

elec tronic waste has been that the attendees had become

more aware of the potentials and problems with the sub-

ject, and they mentioned that they would be more careful

when using their electronic devices. 8 attendees answered

that they would try to reuse and recycle electronic waste

from that day on.

Regarding the question about sustainability and ener gy

eciency, the attendees responded that especially some

lectures in the scope of the workshop helped them rec-

ognize the importance of the issue. Additionally, some

attendees stated that they understood the relationship be-

tween recycling and sustainability much better thanks to

the workshop. The analysis of the answers to these two

questions as well as further interpretation of the question-

naire results are presented in the next chapter of the article.

Outcomes

The questionnaire about the workshop From Electronic

Waste to Design revealed important outcomes. First of all,

it showed that the workshop was appreciated by the at-

tendees. All attendees stated that they would like to attend

a similar program, and most of them said that they would

recommend other people to join that workshop. Addition-

ally, contents and the methodology used in the workshop

were also approved. However, there are still some points

that need further attention.

Firstly, the duration of the workshop appears to be not

enough for the program. Some attendees complained about

the lectures that they were too many and too dense with-

in a day. Having fewer lectures, or shorter presentations

would be a way to solve the problem. On the other hand,

all the given information was important and benecial for

the attendees. Another idea would be having a longer to-

tal duration for the workshop, either having a three day

duration, or two longer days would be possible. It is also

possible to spread the lectures over time instead of con-

centrating all of them on the rst day one after the other.

Even though there were complaints about the lectures

that they were too many during one day, their contents

were appreciated. Attendees said they helped them a lot

to understand the severity of the situation through the lec-

tures. Therefore, it is important to have the right type of

lectures with right informative content in the workshop

program. At the same time they must be interesting and

attractive to catch the interest of the attendees which will

result in the rise of awareness among the society.

The results for the question about the tools, instruments

and documentation in the workshop were satisfactory.

Most of the attendees did not have any problem reaching

documents or tools for design. However, there is still room

for improvement such as the implementation of digital

tools for design and documentation into the workshop pro-

gram. For instance, if each group of attendees had one per-

son with digital design skills and knowledge about digital

design software, better design proposals would be created.

One important outcome of the questionnaire is the dis-

tribution of the attendees and working groups. The work-

shop was organized three repeated times, each one with

15–16 attendees and 1 main instructor. In every session,

4 groups were formed to work collaboratively. Conse-

Fig. 6. Distribution of answers for section 3 of the questionnaire

(elaborated by S. Ceylan)

Il. 6. Rozkład odpowiedzi dla sekcji 3 kwestionariusza ankiety

(oprac. S. Ceylan)

86 Salih Ceylan, Mehmet Emre Arslan

quently, the instructors had to split their time among the

working groups. That raised some complaints among the

attendees. Having one or two more instructors would help

them to spend longer times for each group so that they

could be more productive. Hence it would be benecial

for the workshop to have more impressive results. Addi-

tionally, the questionnaire revealed that the majority of

the attendees were between 20 and 30 years old. To reach

all the dierent layers of the society, a more balanced dis-

tribution regarding age groups can be considered. That

is an issue that needs attention during the announcement

and preliminary organization periods of the workshop.

Conclusion and discussion

From Electronic Waste to Design workshop has been

an indicator showing that Living Labs are important edu-

cational institutions for society. There is always room for

improvement in the workshops and other organizations,

but the main idea is to keep going with these occasions for

the development of society. Given the fact that consist-

ency and continuity are important factors for a sustaina-

ble society, this type of organization needs to be repeated

consistently, touching upon important and emerging prob-

lems of the society.

Living labs are great places to create knowledge, and

to spread it throughout society. They are places that can

directly reach out to people to nd out their problems,

and to make them more aware of the existing problems

of the world. Therefore, they are very benecial for form-

ing sustainable societies. Living Labs need to be used

more eectively to encourage social participation among

the members of society. Regardless of their age, gender,

education level, religious or ethnic background, income

level, etc., every member of the society must be invited to

participate in the organizations of the Living Labs. That is

one of the keys to social sustainability.

Two of the biggest global threads the world will face

in the upcoming decades are environmental problems

and global climate change as a result. The problems have

become very obvious in the contemporary world, so that

they can be felt even by the end-users. Therefore, in ad-

dition to governmental, commercial, and industrial organ-

izations, households and societies are the places to ght

the approaching problems. However, participation from

every member of the society is needed. Based on this fact,

raising awareness of environmental problems among the

society is a crucial necessity for the sustainability of the

societies. Living labs and their organizations are in this

regard very suitable for this purpose. They can help to

raise awareness among the society, and at the same time

they can also be informative about the problems the world

is facing.

Regarding the local aspects of living labs, the authors

of this article must discuss the context of BLL. Istanbul,

the city where BLL is located, is a huge metropolis with

a population of more than 18 million people. Therefore,

the city has big and various problems such as waste man-

agement, air pollution, trac density, deforestation, water

management, etc. Solutions to these problems need com-

prehensive approaches and design thinking. Living labs

are a great opportunity to develop design ideas and solu-

tions to various problems. BLL keeps doing and improv-

ing its workshop organizations with the same purpose, but

it is also important to create more Living Labs in the city

to come up with more and alternating solution proposals

to local, as well as global issues.

For future work at the BLL, design thinking will con-

tinue being an initial point of interest as it is one of the

important aspects of a living lab organization. Addition-

ally, current global issues like recycling and energy e-

ciency need to be approached frequently and thoroughly,

in order to contribute to the development of the society

regarding sustainability and connected themes.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend their sincere thanks to Başakşehir Liv-

ing Lab and Başakşehir Municipality for their support throughout the

workshop process.

References

[1] UNEP, International Resource Panel, Green Technology Choices:

The Environmental and Resource Implications of Low-Carbon Tech -

nologies – International Resource Panel Report 2017, https://wedocs.

unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/20761 [accessed: 28.05.2021].

[2] Davies R., Global demand for energy will peak in 2030, says World

Energy Council, “The Guardian” 2016, 10 Oct., https://www.

theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/10/global-demand-for-en-

ergy-will-peak-in-2030-says-world-energy-council [accessed:

28.12.2020].

[3] United Nations, The Sustainable Development Goals report 2017,

United Nations, New York, NY, 2017, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/

les/report/2017/TheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsReport2017.pdf

[accessed: 4.06.2021].

[4] Norström A.V., Cvitanovic C., Löf M.F. et al., Principles for know -

ledge co-production in sustainability research, “Nature Sustaina bi -

lity” 2020, 3, 182–190, doi: 10.1038/s4189301904482.

[5] United Nations, Report of the World Commission on Environment

and Development: Our Common Future, Oxford University Press,

Oxford 1987.

[6] United Nations, Agenda 21: United Nations Conference on Environ-

ment & Development, Rio de Janeiro 1992.

[7] United Nations, The Future We Want: United Nations Conference on

Sustainable Development, 20–22 June 2012, Rio de Janeiro 2012.

[8] Norgaard R.B., Sustainable development: a co-evolutionary view,

“Futures” 1988, Vol. 20, Iss. 6, 606–620, doi: 10.1016/0016-3287

(88)90003-1.

Living Lab approach to community training for recycling. A workshop experience 87

[9] Daly H., Filters against folly in environmental economics: the

impossible, the undesirable and the uneconomic, [in:] G. Pillet,

T. Mu rota (eds.), Environmental Economics – The Analysis of Ma-

jor Interface, R. Leimgruber, Geneva 1987, 1–11.

[10] Hansmann R., Mieg H.A., Frischknecht P., Principal sustainabil-

ity components: empirical analysis of synergies between the three

pillars of sustainability, “International Journal of Sustainable De-

velopment & World Ecology” 2012, Vol. 19, Iss. 5, 451–459, doi:

10.1080/13504509.2012.696220.

[11] Griessler E., Littig B., Social sustainability: a catchword between

political pragmatism and social theory, “International Journal for

Sustainable Development” 2005, Vol. 8, No. 1/2, 65–79, https://

nbnresolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168ssoar5491.

[12] Sachs I., Social sustainability and whole development: exploring

the dimensions of sustainable development, [in:] T. Jahn, E. Becker

(eds.), Sustainability and the Social Sciences: A Cross-Discipli-

nary Approach to Integrating Environmental Considerations into

Theoretical Reorientation, Zed Books, London 1999, 17–19.

[13] Callon M., Law J., After the Individual in Society: Lessons on Collec-

tivity from Science, Technology and Society, “The Canadian Journal of

Sociology” 1997, Vol. 22, No. 2, 165–182, doi: 10.2307/3341747.

[14] Pereira M., Townsend L., Case Studies of Architectural Institu-

tions, [in:] P. Jenkins, L. Forsyth (eds.), Architecture, Participation

and Society, Routledge, New York 2010, 116–129.

[15]

Carlson M.J., Everett M., Social Sustainability and the Social Deter-

minants of Health: Understanding the Connection, [in:] V. Dujon,

J. Dillard, E.M. Brennan (eds.), Social Sustainability: A Multilevel

Approach to Social Inclusion, Routledge, New York 2013, 103–125.

[16] Milner J., Pereira M., Townsend L., Appendix II: Institutional Re-

sources, [in:] P. Jenkins, L. Forsyth (eds.), Architecture, Participa-

tion and Society, Routledge, New York 2010, 174–193.

[17] Israel B.A., Schulz A.J., Parker E.A. et al., Critical issues in devel-

oping and following community-based participatory research prin-

ciples, [in:] M. Minkler, N. Wallerstein (eds.), Community-based

participatory research for health, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,

2008, 53–76.

[18] Higgins A., Klein S., Introduction to the Living Lab Approach,

[in:] Y.H. Tan, N. BjörnAndersen, S. Klein, B. Rukanova (eds.),

Accelerating Global Supply Chains with IT-Innovation, Springer-

-Verlag, Berlin 2011, 31–36.

[19] Erikksonn M., Niitamo V.-P., Kulkki S., State-of-the-art in utilizing

Living Labs approach to user- centric ICT innovation – a Euro-

pean approach. State-of-the-art in Utilizing Living Labs Approach

to User-centric ICT Innovation, 2005, retrieved from https://www.

academia.edu/2548057/State_of_the_art_in_utilizing_Living_

Labs_approach_to_user_centric_ICT_innovation_Automotive_

Rural_eEngineering_and_Renewable_Energy_LLs_in_Hungary

[accessed: 28.12.2020].

[20] Intille S.S., Larson K., Munguia Tapia E. et al., Using a Live-In

Laboratory for Ubiquitous Computing Research, [in:] K.P. Fish-

kin, B. Schiele, P. Nixon, A. Quigley (eds.), Pervasive Computing.

Pervasive 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3968,

Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg 2006, doi: 10.1007/11748625_22.

[21] Schuurmann D., Living Lab Methodologies, [in:] K. Malmberg,

I. Vaittinen (eds.), Living Lab Methodology. Handbook, 9 U4IoT,

2017, 12–16, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1146321.

[22] IDEO, Design Thinking, 2020, https://designthinking.ideo.com/

[accessed: 29.12.2020].

[23] ENoLL, Living Labs: European Network of Living Labs, 2020,

https://enoll.org/network/living-labs/?livinglab=basaksehir-liv-

ing-lab#description [accessed: 29.12.2020].

[24] Roebuck K., Electronic Waste: High-impact Strategies – What You

Need to Know: Denitions, Adoptions, Impact, Benets, Maturity,

Vendors, Emereo Publishing, Dayboro 2012.

Abstract

Living Lab approach to community training for recycling. A workshop experience

The subject of the article is Living Labs – innovative platforms for meetings and exchange of ideas between specialists and users in order to

develop and implement improvements oriented towards the needs of the latter. These modications may concern not only products and services, but

also, for example, the urban living environment. Living Labs are among those enterprises that approach sustainable development in a social context.

Living Labs’ practical activities relate directly to the everyday problems of local communities, and in the search for solutions, the opinions and ideas

of their members are taken into account, therefore these platforms are potentially an important place helping to shape sustainable societies.

The aim of this study was to present the benets of living laboratories. This was done on the basis of the case study of Başakşehir Living Lab, an

organization that conducts research on the ecient use of natural resources and the improvement of the quality of life in one of the districts of Istan-

bul, the city with the highest population in Turkey. The publication focused on the presentation of a series of workshops entitled “From electronic

waste to design”, the purpose of which was to show the possibility of reusing electronic waste. From the methodological point of view, the article

was prepared on the basis of the authors’ own experience related to the organization and conducting of workshops and a review of the literature, on

the basis of which the theoretical foundation for the undertaken practical activities was outlined.

The article also discusses the results of surveys which were carried out at the end of the series of workshops, which showed that such projects

have a signicant impact on building and raising the proecological awareness of participants.

Key words: Living Lab, sustainable societies, waste management, electronic waste

Streszczenie

Living Lab jako sposób kształcenia w zakresie recyklingu. Doświadczenia warsztatowe

Tematem artykułu są żyjące laboratoria (Living Labs) – innowacyjne platformy służące spotkaniom i wymianie myśli między specjalistami

i użytkownikami w celu wypracowania i wdrożenia ulepszeń zorientowanych na potrzeby tych ostatnich. Wspomniane modykacje mogą dotyczyć

nie tylko produktów i usług, ale też na przykład miejskiego środowiska życia. Living Labs należą do tych przedsięwzięć, które traktują zrównowa-

żony rozwój w kontekście społecznym. Działania praktyczne Living Labs dotyczą bezpośrednio codziennych problemów lokalnych społeczności,

a w poszukiwaniu rozwiązań bierze się pod uwagę opinie i pomysły ich członków, dlatego platformy te są potencjalnie ważnym miejscem wspoma-

gającym kształtowanie zrównoważonych społeczeństw.

Celem niniejszej pracy było przybliżenie korzyści płynących z istnienia żyjących laboratoriów. Uczyniono to na podstawie studium przypadku

Başakşehir Living Lab – organizacji prowadzącej badania nad efektywnym wykorzystaniem zasobów naturalnych i poprawą jakości życia w jednej

z dzielnic Stambułu, miasta z największą liczbą mieszkańców w Turcji. W publikacji skupiono się na przedstawieniu serii warsztatów zatytułowanych:

„Od odpadów elektronicznych do projektu”, których celem było pokazanie możliwości ponownego użycia odpadów elektronicznych. Od strony

88 Salih Ceylan, Mehmet Emre Arslan

metodologicznej artykuł przygotowano w oparciu o własne doświadczenia związane z organizacją i prowadzeniem warsztatów oraz przegląd literatu-

ry, na podstawie której nakreślono teoretyczną podbudowę do podjętych działań praktycznych.

W artykule omówiono też wyniki ankiet przeprowadzonych na zakończenie cyklu wspomnianych warsztatów, które wskazały, że takie przedsię-

wzięcia mają znaczący wpływ na budowanie i podnoszenie proekologicznej świadomości uczestników.

Słowa kluczowe: Living Lab, społeczeństwo, zrównoważenie, gospodarka odpadami, odpady elektroniczne