From concept to practice: How agricultural and forestry living labs are implemented within European funded projects

IF 6.1 2区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
María Rivera, Catarina Esgalhado
{"title":"From concept to practice: How agricultural and forestry living labs are implemented within European funded projects","authors":"María Rivera,&nbsp;Catarina Esgalhado","doi":"10.1016/j.eist.2026.101178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Living Labs (LLs) have gained prominence in European research and innovation as mission-oriented, place-based approaches for jointly developing solutions to complex agricultural and forestry challenges. Despite this growing institutional momentum, the operational meaning of LLs remains fluid. This paper examines how LLs are operationalised in European agriculture and forestry research by analysing 36 Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe projects using data from a dedicated questionnaire distributed to project coordinators. Building on contemporary LL theory, we assess whether project-level LLs reflect four core dimensions of the LL approach: (i) aims, (ii) participants, (iii) activities, including co-creation, iteration, experimentation, and evaluation, and (iv) context.</div><div>Our findings show considerable variability in how LL principles are understood and applied. Most projects articulate innovation-driven aims and involve diverse stakeholders, yet co-creation often remains consultative rather than genuinely collaborative. Iteration is unevenly implemented, and evaluation practices are weak or fragmented. Although real-life experimentation is widely acknowledged, it is frequently delayed by ecological, organisational, or infrastructural constraints. Territorial embeddedness tends to be strong, but long-term sustainability is often not a main concern, with several established LLs lacking strategies for post-project continuity.</div><div>Overall, LLs appear constrained by structural features of EU research governance, which limit the openness, adaptability, and reflexive learning central to the LL ethos. By systematising current practices and identifying key gaps, this study provides an empirical basis to strengthen conceptual clarity, methodological coherence, and long-term sustainability in the design and implementation of LLs in future European research and innovation programmes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54294,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions","volume":"61 ","pages":"Article 101178"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422426000791","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Living Labs (LLs) have gained prominence in European research and innovation as mission-oriented, place-based approaches for jointly developing solutions to complex agricultural and forestry challenges. Despite this growing institutional momentum, the operational meaning of LLs remains fluid. This paper examines how LLs are operationalised in European agriculture and forestry research by analysing 36 Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe projects using data from a dedicated questionnaire distributed to project coordinators. Building on contemporary LL theory, we assess whether project-level LLs reflect four core dimensions of the LL approach: (i) aims, (ii) participants, (iii) activities, including co-creation, iteration, experimentation, and evaluation, and (iv) context.
Our findings show considerable variability in how LL principles are understood and applied. Most projects articulate innovation-driven aims and involve diverse stakeholders, yet co-creation often remains consultative rather than genuinely collaborative. Iteration is unevenly implemented, and evaluation practices are weak or fragmented. Although real-life experimentation is widely acknowledged, it is frequently delayed by ecological, organisational, or infrastructural constraints. Territorial embeddedness tends to be strong, but long-term sustainability is often not a main concern, with several established LLs lacking strategies for post-project continuity.
Overall, LLs appear constrained by structural features of EU research governance, which limit the openness, adaptability, and reflexive learning central to the LL ethos. By systematising current practices and identifying key gaps, this study provides an empirical basis to strengthen conceptual clarity, methodological coherence, and long-term sustainability in the design and implementation of LLs in future European research and innovation programmes.
从概念到实践:如何在欧洲资助项目中实施农业和林业生活实验室
生活实验室(Living Labs, LLs)作为一种以任务为导向、基于地点的方法,为共同开发复杂的农业和林业挑战的解决方案,在欧洲的研究和创新中获得了突出地位。尽管这种制度性势头不断增强,但法律责任的操作意义仍然不稳定。本文通过分析36个“地平线2020”和“地平线欧洲”项目,使用分发给项目协调员的专用问卷数据,研究了法律研究如何在欧洲农业和林业研究中实施。在当代LL理论的基础上,我们评估了项目级LL是否反映了LL方法的四个核心维度:(i)目标,(ii)参与者,(iii)活动,包括共同创造,迭代,实验和评估,以及(iv)背景。我们的研究结果表明,在如何理解和应用LL原则方面存在相当大的差异。大多数项目阐明了创新驱动的目标,并涉及不同的利益相关者,然而共同创造往往是协商而不是真正的合作。迭代的实现是不均匀的,并且评估实践是弱的或碎片化的。尽管现实生活中的实验得到了广泛的认可,但它经常被生态、组织或基础设施的限制所推迟。领土嵌入性往往很强,但长期可持续性往往不是主要考虑的问题,一些已建立的法律合作伙伴缺乏项目后连续性的战略。总体而言,法学研究似乎受到欧盟研究治理结构特征的制约,这限制了法学研究精神的开放性、适应性和反身性学习。通过将当前的实践系统化并确定关键差距,本研究为在未来的欧洲研究和创新项目中加强概念清晰度、方法一致性和长期可持续性提供了经验基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions Energy-Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
19.40%
发文量
90
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions serves as a platform for reporting studies on innovations and socio-economic transitions aimed at fostering an environmentally sustainable economy, thereby addressing structural resource scarcity and environmental challenges, particularly those associated with fossil energy use and climate change. The journal focuses on various forms of innovation, including technological, organizational, economic, institutional, and political, as well as economy-wide and sectoral changes in areas such as energy, transport, agriculture, and water management. It endeavors to tackle complex questions concerning social, economic, behavioral-psychological, and political barriers and opportunities, along with their intricate interactions. With a multidisciplinary approach and methodological openness, the journal welcomes contributions from a wide array of disciplines within the social, environmental, and innovation sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书