Living Labs and Lighthouses for all land uses

The article very well describes a practical approach for the Living Labs and Lighthouses concept of the Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” (EC, 2021) on agricultural soils. The “Soil Mission” however has the ambition to cover all land uses to support Europe’s transition towards healthier soils. The discussions and literature on Soil health Living Labs (LL) and Lighthouses (LH) focus until now on agricultural settings, and although the proportion of urban and industrial soils within Europe is much lower than agricultural (forestry, and natural) land, a lot of “soil health benefits” can be achieved here. As stated in the Soil Mission Implementation plan “A Soil Deal for Europe” there are: 2.8 million potentially contaminated sites, but only 24% of the sites are inventoried and by 2018 only 65.500 have been remediated; only 13% of urban development takes place development on recycled urban land; and next to that urban and industrial soils can contribute with their ecosystem services to many challenges such as climate change, water regulation, biodiversity etc. (Van der Meulen & Maring, 2018)

To be able to cover all land uses in the 100 by the Soil Mission proposed LL (EC, 2021), it would be good to broaden the discussion on Soil Health LL and LH to urban and industrial land. There are several points, addressed in the article, that should be further discussed or elaborated to be able to also setup promising, practical and viable Soil Health LL and LH in urban and industrial settings.

1: scale and the regional / landscape multi-site criterion

Although not highlighted in the article, the Soil Mission Implementation Plan “A Soil Deal for Europe" indicates that living labs are collaborations between multiple partners that operate at regional or sub-regional level and coordinate experiments on several sites within a regional or sub-regional area (or working landscapes) The “multiple site demand” is logic for an agricultural LL with several agricultural sites in a specific soil-water-system. However, the demand to involve multiple sites within a region as a strict precondition for setting up a LL can hamper possibilities for industrial and urban sites. Because industrial and urban land use do not (in most cases) have such a direct link to soils as agriculture, the collation of sites in an industrial or urban LL could therefore better depend on the problem you want to solve or objectives you want to contribute to (such as contamination or land subsidence or climate change adaptation). While there will not always be multiple (industrial/urban) sites with the same challenge within the same region available, a LL setup in which a collection of individual single sites in different regions/countries working together on a common challenge could be more promising. And at the same time, such a LL would still be effective to explore, develop and implement soil health improvements, under different circumstances.  

For industrial sites it can be even more challenging to setup soil health LL, because soil health is not the primary issue for many industrial actors. Solving contaminated soils to comply to regulation is. And emerging contamination would be a very interesting starting point because they occur everywhere, regulatory frameworks within the different member states are in most cases not yet in place, techniques and management practices are still under development. The successful practices can become lighthouses that can be applied elsewhere.

Of course, one can think of successful LL in a regional setting in urban or industrial land. E.g. a transformation site, where underused sites are being regenerated and transformed to different kinds of beneficial (soft or hard) land use; or industrial / urban areas where circular economy approaches are being applied and soil/sand could be reused within the region, etc. However, these are timely processes. To set up a LL here, the time should already be right, and actors should be already engaged.

2: soil health for urban and industrial sites

Soil health is defined as “the continued capacity of soils to support ecosystem services” and is assessed through a set of proposed, measurable indicators (A Soil Deal for Europe). In Veerman et al, 2020), quoted by Bouma et al, 2022, underlying the commented article:  soil health indicators are linked to the “needs of growing roots”: (i) lack of pollutants; (ii) good soil structure; (iii) relatively high organic matter contents; (iv) high soil biodiversity; (v) favorable soil moisture regimes (newly added); and (vi) favorable soil fertility.

These soil health indicators are practical and completely logical for agricultural use. However, for industrial and urban land (that is not likely going to transform to other land use in the near future), and where the biomass production is not the primary function, it would be good to assess if all these indicators should be equally important, or if we should develop another practical set of indicators linked to a specific land use and that take into account the for that land use important ecosystem services and objectives. When looking at the current soil health indicators, lack of pollutants remains a strong and valuable indicator, while we can relate it to human and ecological health. Structure and carbon content and soil moisture can be linked to climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives. These can be of importance, mainly in urban areas, but also industrial areas can benefit. Biodiversity can obviously be linked to biodiversity objectives that most urban areas will endorse. For industrial areas this is likely a more secondary objective (“nice to have”). Soil fertility could also be related to climate adaptation in terms of being the basis for green areas, but is probably not so relevant, also because urban and industrial greens will be chosen on other criteria than biomass production (biodiversity, attractiveness, resilience & robustness, native species, etc.). At this point it would be interesting to think if other soil health indicators could be of relevance for these land uses.

3: SDGs and ecosystem services as central concepts to a LL

For Living Labs, one could take the Soil Mission’s objectives (six “soil threaths”, and 2 more general objectives: increase soil literacy and; Reduce the EU global footprint on soils) as starting point. The article proposes SDGs and/or Ecosystem Services (ESS) delivery. SDGs can a good starting point for urban and industrial land use, because they are adopted by all member states and are recognizable for municipalities, companies/industries. SDG allow better insight in the multifunctionality of land and the different tradeoffs and synergies (in a broader sense than soil) than when we focus on battling soil threats. As stated in the article, the SDG targets can remain rather vague when applied on a (series of) sites. The ESS concept can help making the objectives more measurable. But: when using multiple concepts, which need to be communicated to a broader audience, it would be good to use a conceptual model (CM) at the start of a LL, to describe the relations between SDGs – ESS - soil health – land use. The CM can support the narrative, show how they interact, how ESS can strengthen or weaken each other and how land management practices can be of influence. This should go beyond the LL scale itself, adverse effects on soil health elsewhere, as a result of the LL practice should be noted and avoided. This also relates with the Soil Mission Objective “Reduce the EU global footprint on soils”.

4: Thresholds to determine whether a LL becomes a LH

In the article, the SDGs are translated to measurable ESS (production of healthy food, water quality (link to Water Framework Directive, Nitrate directive) Energy, in terms of emission of greenhouse gases and carbon capture, biodiversity preservation and soil health (Life on land, SDG15)). Thresholds are being proposed for assessing whether a LL is a success and becomes a LH (When the soil is healthy and all ESS reach the threshold). For agricultural soils, there is quite some data on what a “normal” yield is on a specific soil. A threshold can be derived from this. For energy use and biodiversity this is already more difficult as shown in the article. For ecosystem services performance on urban and industrial sites (this can be the same set of ESS as used in the article, or an adapted set for the specific land use) data of what a normal performance of ESS is on a specific soil at a specific land use are not so easy to retrieve or lacking. When setting up urban and industrial LL, the indicators and thresholds should be carefully considered and, as is suggested in the article, practical cost and effort efficient measuring / monitoring methods should be developed / used.

Another consideration is if it is enough to comply with (upcoming) legislation / regulation (as the example in the article of water quality, which is very practical to choose as a threshold) or if we want to actually increase the performance of a certain ESS. For agricultural use, the primary ESS is retaining or improving yield while improving long term soil health, water quality, biodiversity, energy use, can be seen here as important, but are described more as boundary conditions. For other land uses, other ESS (biodiversity, energy) can be more important. It is therefore advisable when setting up a LL to think about the level of ambition for each of the chosen ESS and allow for a different order of importance and therefor for different thresholds.

Finally, some food for thought on Lighthouses: A Living Lab site becomes according to the article a Lighthouse when all set thresholds for soil health / ESS performance are reached. But is such a strict definition for a Soil Health Lighthouse needed or can we also define other “Lighthouses” that can emerge from the LL. Can a LH also showcase a cheap / easy / effective monitoring method for ESS performance? Can a lighthouse show 1 specific management practice that promotes just one or a few instead of all ESS in the LL? Or can a Lighthouse showcase good and effective soil literacy / education examples without yet reaching all soil health targets? So: can we set different “success criteria” within a LL (next to reaching thresholds for soil health / ESS delivery) and if we reach them, does that site than qualify as a LH on that specific objective?

5: Business models for the LL

The Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe” mentions thanew (policy) incentives and business models are needed to reward soil beneficial practices by land managers, agri-food system players and other actors across value chains. An important part when designing a LL is to consider the business model during the LL lifespan but also afterwards (Lighthouse, and when it becomes “business as usual”).

Subsidies can be a tool to change our way of working, and support soil health. The article mentions potential targeted subsidies (from the CAP) to improve ecosystem performance, which is a very nice example. For urban and industrial soils possibilities for subsidies and rewarding mechanisms for improving soil health and ESS should also be further investigated. Also avoided costs and a rewarding system for solving problems (such as contamination) could be part of a business model. As mentioned in some examples in the article also the phase after the LL should also be further investigated for industrial and urban LL.

A good business model can contribute to the uptake of good practices by others and therefor to the upscaling from LL/LH experimenting to “the real world”.

6: actor involvement for the LL

As a final point: in Living Labs cocreation with multiple actors is a criterion. Ideally land users, scientists, policy makers and citizens collaborate within the LL setting.  The article mentions the collaboration between government, people and science. It would be interesting to further elaborate the argumentation why the involvement of citizens on the topic of soil health – a specific land use is needed. "Because LL need to have the involvement of citizens" is not a good reason, nor for agricultural, nor for other soils.  Also, without citizens the land use management can change by land owners in collaboration with policy makers and/or scientists. But, citizen awareness contributing to the willingness to pay more for sustainable products, change in consumption patterns or demands to trade systems is a more valid reason that can strengthen the business model. For other land uses than agricultural, especially urban, the citizen is a primary actor while the citizen is a land user and, in many cases, also owner. For industrial soils, the citizen stands further away and would not necessarily need to be involved in the LL setting, while land user, scientist and policy maker could be a strong coalition here. Again here, the link to and benefit from healthy soils need to be made clear when involving the citizen in a LL. So, for each setting the actor engagement and “what’s in it for them”, what are common grounds and shared objectives should be determined to ensure effective actor engagement.

EC, 2021 A Soil Deal for Europe. 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition towards healthy soils by 2030. Implementation plan. DG Research and Innovation https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/research_and_innovation/funding/documents/soil_mission_implementation_plan_final_for_publication.pdf

Bouma, J. de Haan, J.J. and Dekkers, M.S. 2022 Exploring Operational Procedures to Assess Ecosystem Services on Farm Level, including the Role of Soil Health. Soil Systems, 6,34. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems6020034

Van der Meulen, S.M., Maring, L., 2018 Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services- Soil ecosystems. SOILS4EU report. http://www.worldsoilday2017.eu/pdfs/Soils4EU_D1.2_ecosystemservices_MAES.pdf

Veerman, C.; Pinto Correia, T.; Bastioli, C.; Biro, B.; Bouma, J.; Cienciala, E.; Emmett, B.; Frison, E.A.; Grand, A.; Hristov, L.; et al. 2020. Caring for Soil Is Caring for Life—Ensure 75% of Soils Are Healthy by 2030 for Food, People, Nature and Climate, Independent Expert Report; European Commission (EC): Luxembourg.

The manuscript discusses a roadmap for “Living labs” from the Mission “A Soil Deal for Europe”, which can then become “Lighthouses” when thresholds are met. Thresholds are based on SDG, which are translated to measurable ecosystem services. Bouma advocates Living Labs as a way to engage various participants in a bottom-up approach that will eventually improve communication between local and regional stakeholders, farmers, the general public and the policy makers. When a Living lab satisfies the target and indicators of the SDG, a Lighthouse is established. The lighthouse then constitutes a local example from which a number of actors will get information and from which future regulations can be thought.

The main idea of Living labs and Lighthouse discussed in this paper is essential to address the rather abstract debates about SGD and to realize the goals or the EU Green Deal. There are to my opinion two problems to realize the goals of the SDG: i) some goals are expressed in terms of means (to reach the goals) instead of a regulation specifying thresholds values (as explained clearly by Bouma in the Introduction ), and ii) we lack a framework to assess soil contributions to realizing the SDG, so that it is still difficult to insert soil effectively in the societal and political discourse (Wadoux et al. 2021, Challenge 10).   

My main comments are about the joint learning approaches that are the core of the Living labs and Lighthouses and which I think deserve more attention. While most of my comments below are about Section 4 (Public engagement) they also relate to the other sections because the degree and quality of participation is expected to impact the outcomes of Living labs as a whole.  

Overall, I think this paper is a useful contribution to the debate and to the pressing issues of realizing the SDG and the EU Green Deal.

Should we abandon the term of citizen science?

As a personal note, I do not like the term citizen science. First, should one be a citizen to participate? The obvious answer is no. Citizen is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “a legally recognized subject or national of a state […] having certain rights”. I would rather prefer the general term of public participation or that of non-expert individual/participant. Second, citizen science is also difficult to clearly define and usually has two meanings. It originally comes from Irwin’s (1995) and was articulated around two points: i) “Science should address the needs and concerns of citizens, and seek to meet those needs” and ii) “The process of producing reliable knowledge could be developed and enacted by citizens themselves. People bring into science such things as local contextual knowledge and real-world geographic, political, and moral constraints generated outside of formal scientific institutions”. Another meaning comes from the well-known work of Bonney (see the report of Bonney et al. 2009) and is perhaps the most popular today.  Bonney describes citizen science as non-scientists participating by contributing to scientific data. The definition of Irwin is about democratizing science, whereas that of Bonney is about public contribution to a very narrow part of the science (data collection). To my understanding this manuscript refers to the first definition of citizen science but surprisingly in his answer to the first CC (Comment 6), Bouma refers to projects where citizens (non-experts) contribute data, which then refers to the second definition above (that of Bonney). It would be useful to the reader to clarify this point and how citizen science is defined and articulated in this manuscript.

Balancing the different expectations and outcomes

Joint learning between various participants is, in my opinion, the right way to go to address complex or “wicked” situations. It is well described in the manuscript and is essential for Living labs. The main problem with joint learning, however, is to strive the right balance between the different outcomes and expectations of the participants. In a synthesis of public participation in scientific research, Shirk et al., (2012) concluded that for addressing complex problems in environment and society, projects should generally include outcomes for science, outcomes for individuals and outcomes for socio-ecological systems. In this manuscript it is clear how the outcomes for the socio-ecological system will address the expectations (i.e. address the SDG, better policy development), but I am not so clear from reading Sections 4 and 6 about the outcomes for research and for individuals. Simply said: why would the public and scientists like to engage in living labs? What’s in there for them? How to manage their expectations with respect to the potential outcomes of the Living labs?

Degree of participation

Citizen science and participation of non-experts to Living labs could describe a wide spectrum of approaches. How much power can and should the public have in the outcome? I imagine that the degree of involvement (not only of the public, but also of the scientists and farmers) will determine the expectation on the outcomes. The degree of participation is often evaluated in terms of power (see, for example, the ladder of participation) over the project in which people engage. At this point it would be interesting to define the expected degree of engagement in the joint learning phase. This would be of relevance for later assessing whether the joint learning is a success or not.

Quality of participation

The need for a bottom-up approach is acknowledged early in the manuscript (at line 94), and should be emphasized. But is it really a bottom-up approach if the participants i) do not initiate the project (Living labs) and ii) do not define themselves what are the targets and indicators to evaluate the threshold values? To my understanding a bottom-up approach means that the Livings labs are a co-creation of the farmers/public/scientists while in fact it comes from the initiative of the EU Soil Mission. Innovations in Livings labs will occur within the boundaries of a somewhat top-down approach. Shouldn’t we acknowledge that?  

Further, bottom-up will also be dependent of context-relevant information and of the quality of participation: credibility of the participants and trust among participants, among others. How to ensure high-quality participation? How to ensure that the participants get their interests served, while maintaining the desired outcomes? Ample attention should be paid to the quality of participation in Living labs because this will determine many of the outcomes: such as social learning and for retaining the participants and public interest in the long term.

Policy development  

I fully agree with Bouma at lines 301-304: innovative management practices are potentially more successful when environment-oriented organization are trusted. I also agree that policies are successful when the majority of people feel that the policy is right. This is in fact the basis for modern democratic systems where the majority decide. But how to deal with the various and sometimes conflicting opinions of what is right for the majority? In Section 4 the various steps of dialogue and convergence do not include any citizen until the “WE” where groups of interested citizen can come in, but only when the Living lab resulted in a Lighthouse. Isn’t a bit late? So citizen can come in only at the end of the project, that is, when a Living lab is already a Lighthouse. This relates to the degree of participation that I mentioned above and the definition of citizen science. What’s in there for the public?

Should we also ignore the group that does not agree no matter what is being proposed? Bouma has a strong claim on it at line 307, but to me many of the farming styles that are currently proposed originally come from agricultural styles that were for long considered as utopic, alternative, and, in any cases, very minor compared to the mainstream agricultural styles. Take the example of agroecology in France, now institutionalized and conventional but considered until the 2000s relatively restricted to few farms. See Bellon and Ollivier (2012, in French).

References

Bellon, S., & Ollivier, G. (2012). L’agroécologie en France: l’institutionnalisation d’utopies. L’agroécologie en Argentine et en France. Regards croisés, Paris, l’Harmattan, 55-90.   

Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T. Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. C. (2009). Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education CAISE Inquiry Group Reports. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.

Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development. New York, NY: Routledge.

Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L., Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., ... & Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and society, 17(2).

Wadoux, A. M. C., Heuvelink, G. B., Lark, R. M., Lagacherie, P., Bouma, J., Mulder, V. L., ... & McBratney, A. B. (2021). Ten challenges for the future of pedometrics. Geoderma, 401, 115155.

This paper proposes the Living Labs as sites which can help European societies achieve Sustainable Development Goals. Bouma suggests that LL can address the issue of a ‘lack of clarity’ around SDGs, and that this can be done by 1. developing locally specific measurements of environmental thresholds, specifically ecosystem services, and 2. developing locally specific practices for staying within those thresholds. This is underpinned by the LL process of bringing land owners, scientists, and the broader public together in a learning process. The LLs thus present a key site in which to develop best-practice examples of practices which would enable societies to meet the ‘lofty goals’ (Bouma’s term) expressed by the SDGs.

LLs are thus imagined as places in which practices are developed to fit land use activities (e.g. agriculture) within ‘threshold values’, and which on achieving such practices are transformed into a site of education and communication – a Lighthouse (LH).

I am very supportive of the importance granted in this paper to LLs a key sites for shared learning between different societal groups, including between scientists, land owners, local inhabitants, agri-food system actors, and policymakers at different levels. However, I urge the author, and indeed the wider LL literature. to expand their thinking about the ambition of the LLs to the composition of issues themselves, not only to their resolution. Wicked problems, such as soil health, can only be addressed through collaboration on the problem framing. This is well established in social science literature.

LLs: who determines the framing?

The contribution of the scientific community imagined in the paper is focused on the interdisciplinary modelling of ecosystem services in specific LLs. It is hoped that by defining ecosystem services the research community can ‘tame the wicked problems’ (231-235) related to land use change. In other words, it seems that Bouma is proposing that the solution to resolving the conflicts around land use change is ensuring that (trusted) scientists define the nature and extent of the problem, and so set a frame within which solutions can be found.

This assumption is problematic in that it does not address the foundation of wicked problems – i.e. the conflict around the nature of the issue. Bouma seems to suggest that it is groups of scientists should who should be assigned the authority to define the nature of the problem across different LLs (the performance of a given site in relation to SDGs as assessed through environmental services modelling), and that this definition should then be accepted by the land owners and indeed the wider community gathered around a specific Living Lab. In other words, Bouma seems to argue that scientists somehow have the power and authority to cut the Gordian knot of wicked problems to the satisfaction of all parties.

However, the nature of wicked problems is precisely that the scientific framing of issues is only one the competing problem definitions. There is no reason to believe that a scientific definition of a LL as a set of ecosystem services to be satisfied within the thresholds linked to SDGs will be seen as a legitimate framing of the issue by land owners or other LL-related groups. Indeed, experience suggests that scientists will not have the authority to impose such a framing on the situation, and that their attempts to do so will be contested.

While the section 4 on engaging the public stresses the importance of joint learning to the proposed LL process, it is not clear what the extent of this joint learning is, and most importantly whether this joint learning is focused on the framing of the situation (what is the nature of the problem), or only on its resolution (how to solve the problem) – it seems to me to be the latter.

Refocusing LLs on finding shared problem frames

In line with much of the existing literature on public participation in science, I instead draw attention to the importance of focusing on the problem definition itself as a the key space of knowledge co-production around environmental or land use controversies (see e.g. Turnhout et al 2019, Tsouvalis and Waterton 2012). For a wicked problem to be ‘tamed’, the co-creation of innovation process must start at the problem definition itself.

I appreciate that my comment goes to the very heart of the issue of the design of a Living Lab, and specifically the question of framing or problem definition. Living Labs were originally created within the industrial sector in order to bring users into contact with innovations in a pre-market space. These original LLs therefore had a very strong ownership of the issue at hand – the scope of the LL was determined by the LL creators (e.g. a company) (see Puerari et al 2018). A pre-existing shared definition of the problem between different groups in the LL seems to be a persistent element of the LL design, as suggested by this definition from 2011:  Living Labs are “multi-stakeholder platform as a (voluntary or statutory) body, comprising different stakeholders, who perceive the same problem, realize their own respective interdependencies, and come together to agree on the best action strategies for solving it” (Molinari et al 2011: 133). Indeed, in keeping with this pre-determined framing approach, the LL process proposed by Bouma can be seen to fall into the ‘trial’ typology of LLs discussed in Bulkley et al’s (2019) study of Urban Living Labs, in that it ‘seeks to limit the indeterminate conditions that it encounters, often confining the ULL in both space and time. It is at heart a form of disciplinary power. (…) this is a form of laboratory that is concerned with securing particular outcomes’.

However, more authors are now calling for a widening of the LL remit to the co-creation of values and issue frames themselves (e.g. Puerari et al 2018), for example by starting the co-creation process by exploring potential desirable futures (Hajer and Vertsteeg 2019), and by recognising the importance of rooting the LL process in a shared narrative of place and a sense of belonging (Frantzeskaki et al 2019). In a paper which will be especially relevant to Bouma, Zivkovic (2018) indeed argues that LLs are better at addressing complex rather than wicked problems, which require a system perspective and focus on creating a shared framing.

Towards an ecosystem of LL as experiments in problem framing

What would collaboration on problem framings look like in practice? The model proposed by Bouma in this paper would ideally be only one of many approaches trialled within the LL landscape on how to successfully achieve SDGs (or other objectives). The success of such a model should not be presumed, but rather the uptake, use and varied implementation of such a framework as a way of organising a LL should be studied.

The example cited in section 6 case study can be used to illustrate this. In Bouma’s proposal, one of the environmental services modelled is ‘yield’, for which the acceptable threshold is set to be 80%. This presupposes that there is an agreement between different members of the LL on what kind of crop should be grown, and what constitutes a desirable yield level. However, as academic and public debates on the futures of agri-food systems show, what crops are desirable for the future of eating and land use, and what a desirable yield looks like, are highly contested, and open to change.

Instead of pre-framing achieving 80% of yield of an existing crop as the conditions of success for this LL, a more participatory approach is needed. This approach would try to resolve the ’wickedness’ of the problem of land use by creating a conversation between the LL stakeholders (including eaters) about what kind of land use and crop type would be desirable and feasible in the LL. This should include a conversation about what kind of market structures would be needed to support land use change (in contrast to Bouma’s assumption that market structures are outside the scope of the LL, lines 185-189). Once a desirable land use and crop change has been identified which responds to the needs and ambitions of the LL stakeholders, the LL experiments with the new land use, farming, and market model. The success of the model is similarly evaluated by the LL stakeholders (including scientists and researchers), and the potential passing to a Lightouse stage is similarly decided by the LL group. Existing social-ecological groups, such as agroecological community supported agriculture initiatives, can be seen as examples of such a process – the LL model enriches them through a greater collaboration with the sciences.

In this way, LL move from being experiments in the solution of pre-defined problems, to experiments in the joint understanding of and resolution of issues. In my view, and in line with the public participation scholarship in the social sciences, the definition of the LLs proposed should recognise both the frameworks for the definition of problems, and the practices for their resolution, as objects of LL experimentation

References

Bulkeley, Harriet, et al. "Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability transitions." Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22 (2016): 13-17.

Frantzeskaki, Niki, Frank Van Steenbergen, and Richard C. Stedman. "Sense of place and experimentation in urban sustainability transitions: The Resilience Lab in Carnisse, Rotterdam, The Netherlands." Sustainability science 13.4 (2018): 1045-1059.

Hajer, Maarten, and Wytske Versteeg. "Imagining the post-fossil city: why is it so difficult to think of new possible worlds?." Territory, Politics, Governance 7.2 (2019): 122-134.

Molinari, F. Living Labs as Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for the eGovernance of Innovation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Tallinn, Estonia, 26–29 September 2011; Estevez, E., Janssen, M., Eds.; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 131–140. [Google Scholar]

Puerari, Emma, et al. "Co-creation dynamics in urban living labs." Sustainability 10.6 (2018): 1893.

Tsouvalis, Judith, and Claire Waterton. "Building ‘participation’upon critique: The Loweswater care project, Cumbria, UK." Environmental Modelling & Software 36 (2012): 111-121.

Turnhout, Esther, Willemijn Tuinstra, and Willem Halffman. Environmental expertise: connecting science, policy and society. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Zivkovic, Sharon. "Systemic innovation labs: a lab for wicked problems." Social Enterprise Journal (2018).