What Drives Successful Campus Living Labs? The Case of Utrecht University

Abstract

Campus living labs (CLLs) foster sustainability within higher education institutions (HEIs), yet their institutional embedding remains challenging. Relying on the idea of strategic niche management (SNM), this paper examines three processes key to protected space development: vision articulation, social network building, and learning. This research explores the factors that enable the development of protected spaces for successful CLLs. Using an embedded case study approach, seven sustainability initiatives were analysed at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. We found that the perceived success in CLLs is related to sustainability outcomes, scaling pathways, and process outcomes. In addition, different groups of factors driving the development of protected spaces were identified: broad factors that contribute to all or multiple key processes, specific factors that support only one process, and peripheral factors that were less frequently mentioned. ‘Organisational culture’ appeared to be an important broad factor contributing to all key processes. ‘Resources’ and ‘Coordination’ were also important, specifically for social network building, but also mentioned as currently being absent by many. Finally, this paper contributes by incorporating a new factor, ‘Orchestration’, a subtle yet strategic form of coordination. It offers insights for HEIs aiming to develop CLLs as part of their sustainability strategy.

1. Introduction

A grand societal challenge can be understood as a major issue that impacts society at large. Environmental problems are recognised as grand challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss and resource depletion, arising from unsustainable consumption and production patterns [1]. These challenges cannot be solved through incremental improvements or technological fixes alone; they require radical shifts toward new systems, known as sustainability transitions [2].

One widely used framework to understand such transitions is the multi-level perspective (MLP). This analytical approach views socio-technical transitions as dynamic processes occurring within and between three analytical levels: niches, regimes, and landscapes [1]. The regime represents the dominant structures, encompassing stable rules and norms where, typically, only incremental changes occur. The landscape consists of broader external forces that shape and influence the entire system while also being affected by it. The niche level refers to protected spaces where radical innovations can emerge, allowing experimentation with new technologies, behaviours, and regulatory frameworks [3]. Sustainable innovations often originate in niches and, through strategic development and alignment with a broader system dynamics, can challenge and eventually replace established less sustainable regimes.

The Strategic Niche Management (SNM) theory further elaborates on how such niche development can be supported [3]. Originally developed to guide the promotion of socially desirable innovations, SNM emphasises the active creation and nurturing of niches to achieve long-term sustainability goals. According to Schot and Geels (2008), successful niche development depends on three internal processes: articulation of vision, social network building, and learning processes [3]. Articulation of vision provides direction for learning, attracts attention, and legitimises ongoing support. Social network building fosters a supportive community around emerging technology, facilitates interactions among relevant stakeholders, and secures essential financial, human, intellectual, and physical resources. Learning processes enable knowledge exchange and development, with effective learning extending beyond first-order learning (i.e., acquiring facts and data) to include second-order learning, which involves shifts in cognitive frames and underlying assumptions [3].

1.1. Higher Education System: HEI as Regime

Although initially developed to understand technological transitions, SNM and MLP have been successfully applied to other types of transitions, including higher education systems transitioning towards sustainability. While these frameworks were initially formulated at different scales, selectively borrowing and adapting their concepts can be valuable for analysing the complex dynamics within higher education institutions (HEIs).

The literature presents contrasting interpretations of how HEIs relate to these frameworks. Some studies conceptualise HEIs as niche actors that catalyse broader sustainability transitions. From this perspective, the campus is seen as a microcosm of society, an ideal setting to test and replicate sustainable innovations [4,5]. In this role, universities have been positioned as niches within broader systems, such as energy [6] and food [7].

However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no real-world examples of HEIs functioning entirely as a niche. More often, these initiatives appear as pockets of innovation embedded within the rigid and path-dependent structures of the institution. While the university as a whole may often align with regime-level characteristics, the relative autonomy of students and faculty allows for the emergence of niche-level activities that challenge the status quo and reshape institutional practices from within [8]. Initiatives such as integrating education with societal challenges [9], developing transdisciplinary research hubs [10], and establishing sustainability centres and green offices [11] and campus living labs (CLLs) [12] illustrate how niche-level efforts can drive transformation.

1.2. CLLs as a Protected Space for Sustainability at HEIs

In this research, we are interested in studying CLLs as a protected space because of their capacity to bridge silos between faculties and departments and engage transdisciplinary stakeholders in addressing educational, research, and operational challenges [13]. They are “systems for innovation and learning” that have three layers: (i) place, corresponding to the campus where the campusian studies, works, lives and operates, experiencing complex problems; thus, here is where experimentation in real-life occurs; (ii) network, the group of transdisciplinary stakeholders interested in solving the complex problem; and (iii) approach, combining research and innovation methodologies within the following modes: co-production, educational, test-bed, strategic and grassroots [12].

Despite their potential, CLLs face significant challenges in integrating within the traditional structures of universities, which can hinder their success [14]. Establishing protected spaces or niche-like environments such as CLLs could support innovation, shielding them from rigid institutional norms. This protection could enhance their ability to advance sustainability initiatives and achieve success. Drawing on SNM, developing these protected spaces relies on the effective functioning of three key processes: articulating a vision, building social networks, and facilitating learning.

1.3. Research Gap and Question

The process through which CLLs become successful remains underexplored in current literature. While HEIs have traditionally been seen as places of study, they are increasingly recognised as active agents in sustainability transitions, making them not only settings for research but also valuable objects of study [15]. Unlocking their potential requires a deeper understanding of the critical factors influencing the success of CLLs [16]. Although prior research has begun to identify these factors, including a systematic literature review that proposed and validated a set of key success elements with expert input, further work is needed to understand how these factors operate within and beyond the CLL setting [17,18,19]. We use this proposed list of factors for CLLs’ success as a starting point to understand how innovations developed within CLLs can diffuse into the broader HEI system. Since CLLs operate as niche-level activities, we examine factors that support the three key processes necessary for successful protected space development: articulation of vision, social network building, and learning processes. Identifying these factors is essential to enhance the development of protected spaces within HEIs, ensuring that CLLs can thrive and contribute to sustainability transitions. Given the limited research on the development of such protected spaces in the HEI context, this research aims to fill that gap. Specifically, we explore what constitutes a successful CLL and the factors that contribute to it. We aim to answer the following question:

What factors influence the development of successful campus living labs as protected spaces for sustainability innovation?

We aim to support the institutional embedding of CLLs in HEIs by addressing this question. To do so, we conducted a qualitative embedded case study at Utrecht University (UU), analysing various CLLs and sustainability initiatives through semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and observations.

Next, we present the empirical context of the sustainability efforts at Utrecht University and the Centre for Living Labs (CLU) that foster CLLs. We then outline our research methods, after which we present the results. The paper concludes by discussing our findings, limitations, and future research directions.

2. Empirical Context

2.1. Sustainability at Utrecht University

Utrecht University (UU) is one of the oldest HEIs in the Netherlands, with a history dating back to 1470 and its official Dies Natalis on 26 March 1636. As of 2023, UU has over 35,000 students and 8700 employees, including 700 professors. Located in the city of Utrecht, the university operates across three campuses: Utrecht Science Park (formerly De Uithof), the Binnenstadscampus Universiteitskwartier (City centre), and International Campus Utrecht. It encompasses seven faculties: ‘Veterinary Medicine’, ‘Medicine’, ‘Science’, ‘Geosciences’, ‘Social and Behavioural Sciences’, ‘Humanities’, and ‘Law, Economics and Governance’.

In its current Strategic Plan 2025, UU outlines its mission as to “create a better world” underpinned by five guiding principles: (i) Collaboration Across Borders, (ii) Future-Proof Teaching Culture, (iii) Close-Knit Community, (iv) Sustainable Development, and (v) Open Science. This plan explicitly highlights living labs as platforms for testing, collaboration, and connecting the campus with its surroundings [20]. The University Corporate Offices also develop a yearly sustainability plan to implement the executive agenda. The 2024 edition defines five lines of action: (i) net CO₂ neutral by 2030, (ii) zero waste by 2030, (iii) strengthen biodiversity, (iv) equality, diversity and inclusion, and (v) healthy work and study environment [21]. Living labs are positioned as key instruments to integrate research, education, management, and operations, driving sustainable transitions within both the university campus and the Utrecht region.

The Sustainability Office is responsible for advancing the university’s sustainability goals. It is structured into three units: (i) The Green Office, (ii) The Program Bureau, and (iii) The Center for Living Labs (CLU). Together, these units work to integrate sustainability into Utrecht University’s operations, education, and community engagement. Given CLU’s role in facilitating the creation and development of CLLs, we will provide a more detailed explanation.

2.2. Center for Living Labs at Utrecht University

The Center for Living Labs at Utrecht University (CLU) builds on earlier projects and initiatives that have experienced significant evolution over time. It began in 2014 with the launch of the Green Office Living Labs (GOLL) project. This initiative connected students with operational campus challenges, creating a win–win situation where students gained practical learning opportunities and operational staff received data-driven recommendations. However, GOLL’s unidirectional approach was limited to student research and lacked broader stakeholder integration.

Recognising the need for a more collaborative and integrative model, UU initiated the development of a new framework in 2021. Six co-creation sessions were held between March 2021 and April 2022 to shape the concept of UULabs. Drawing inspiration from the “campus as a living lab” framework advanced by John Robinson, Leendert Verhoef and Michael Bossert, these sessions established the new initiative’s strategic direction, mission, and activities [4,13,22]. UULabs was designed to act as a bridge between operational units and faculties, enhancing the university’s sustainability efforts. In 2022, the project secured its initial four-year funding, solidifying its operational foundation. Each year, different student cohorts participate in CLL activity through internships, developing their theses, and as part of their courses.

In June 2024, a Deep Dive session was held, resulting in the rebranding of UULabs into the Center for Living Labs at Utrecht University (CLU). This change was intended to eliminate confusion with traditional laboratories and better reflect the centre’s role as a central hub for CLLs. Today, the CLU serves as a boundary-spanning entity, fostering collaboration among researchers, teachers, students, and operational staff. They also manage a new funding instrument called the “Campus Sustainability Grant”, which provides financial and operational support to CLLs.

3. Methods

This research aimed to identify the key factors that facilitate the development of protected spaces within HEIs to enhance the success of CLLs.

3.1. Research Design

A qualitative case study research design was adopted to capture stakeholder experiences and gain in-depth insights into the real-world dynamics shaping protected spaces for successful CLLs. Utrecht University (UU) was selected as the primary case, with multiple sustainability initiatives as embedded analysis sub-units. This design enabled the exploration of diverse stakeholder roles, governance structures, and contextual factors influencing the formation and functioning of CLLs within a single institutional setting.

3.2. Sampling

Five initiatives were initially selected from the CLU website, as they are recognised as CLLs: PFAs, Remediation, Healthy Heidelberglaan, Zero Waste, Greening the UBB Square, and Bio Receptivity. Through consultations with stakeholders involved at CLU, we identified three additional initiatives: Sustainable Laboratories, Circular Pavilion, and Energy. While not explicitly labelled as CLLs, they exhibited characteristics aligning with the CLL definition. Participant selection began with the leaders of each initiative, followed by a snowball sampling approach to include other relevant stakeholders.

We applied the Campus Living Lab Model to assess the extent to which these initiatives could be classified as CLLs [12]. This model conceptualises CLLs as a three-layered system with the purpose of innovation for the sustainability transition. The inclusion criteria were based on the presence of elements from each of the model’s three layers. The ‘place’ layer represents the campus. The ‘network’ layer corresponds to the transdisciplinary stakeholder network. The ‘approach’ layer corresponds to four modes: Educational, Test-bed, Strategic, and Grassroots. Each initiative was assessed according to the extent to which it included and demonstrated alignment with these layers and their corresponding criteria. A summary of the inclusion assessment is presented in

Table 1. Assessment of initiatives using the Campus Living Lab Model [12].

Name Initiative	Purpose: Innovation for Sustainability Transition	Place: Real-Life Campus Experimentation	Network: Transdisciplinary	Approach: Mode of Co-Production
PFAs Remediation	Research and test sustainable soil remediation techniques, moving away from traditional “dig and dump” methods.	Contaminated field at UU campus, formerly a fire response training site, used by the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine.	Internal: Researchers and Operations External	Test-bed: Research-focused, starting with an explorative MSc thesis, followed by hiring PhD candidates.
Healthy Heidelberglaan	Provide data and tested innovations for local climate adaptation to guide sustainable redevelopment of Heidelberglaan.	Heidelberglaan at UU campus: a busy central hub with mobility, food, and library services for Campusians.	Internal: Operations, researchers, teachers and students External	Strategic/Educational: Sensors and the digital twin, developed with external stakeholders, features innovations tested by students.
Zero Waste	Support UU’s zero-waste transformation by developing and testing circular waste management strategies and innovations.	UU campus, including diverse facilities, such as laboratories, restaurants, classrooms, and offices. Campusians generate waste.	Internal: Operations, researchers, teachers and students External	Strategic: Part of the Zero Waste Program aligned with the strategic plan.
Greening the UBB square	Transform the University Library courtyard into a green oasis for sustainability, biodiversity, cultural expression, and educational experimentation.	Inner courtyard of Utrecht’s University Library: historically significant, underutilised, and overly paved, mainly used by students.	Internal: Operations, teachers and students External	Grassroots: Initiated by students and then, transformed into an experimental space for a minor program.
Bio-receptivity	Test and promote bio-receptive materials to boost biodiversity, blend buildings into the landscape, and capture fine dust.	P-Olympos parking lot at UU campus with gabions of recycled debris and grass verges as experimental spaces for teaching and learning.	Internal: Operations, teachers and students	Educational: Educational, as part of a course.
Biodiversity	Monitoring system using citizen science (BioBlitz) to increase the effectiveness of biodiversity restoration measures.	UU campus green areas. It involves Campusians.	Internal: Operations, researchers, teachers and students External	Strategic: Part of the Biodiversity Program aligned with the strategic plan.
Sustainable Laboratories	Exchange best practices to implement sustainability practices.	UU Laboratories. It involves the users of the laboratories, such as technicians and researchers.	Internal: Operations and researchers (faculties)	Grassroots: Working group
Circular Pavilion	Future meeting point at the heart of the campus, showcasing UU’s commitment to a sustainable society.	New entrance of the Botanical Gardens.	Internal: Operations and researchers	Co-design
Energy	There is no clear aim to innovate.	LL Solar Ecology Meadow.		Commission

.

We found that the Circular Pavilion and Energy initiatives exhibit minimal characteristics of CLLs. The only CLL characteristic observed in the Circular Pavilion was a co-design process that included user perspectives through consultations. As for the Energy initiative, no ongoing activities are aligned with CLL principles. While initial ideation for one initiative and another attempt failed to progress, neither effort materialised into a sustained CLL project. Consequently, we classified both as non-CLLs and excluded them from the analysis.

We conducted 17 interviews but excluded 2 as these were exclusively linked to these 2 excluded initiatives. The final list and its frequency and features are shown in

Table 2. Frequency of features of interviewees.

Sample Features	Options	Frequency	Proportion *
Initiative	PFAs Remediation	2	13%
	Healthy Heidelberglaan	2	13%
	Zero Waste	2	13%
	Greening the UBB square	2	13%
	Bio-receptivity	2	13%
	Biodiversity	1	7%
	Sustainable Laboratories	3	20%
	Several initiatives	1	7%
Role	Enabler	4	27%
	Leader	7	47%
	Researcher	4	27%
Position	(Assistant/Associate) Professor	2	13%
	Campus operations	7	47%
	Faculty operations	3	20%
	Student	3	20%

* Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.

.

3.3. Data Collection

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted between July and September 2024. An interview guide was used, allowing flexibility for participants to elaborate on their perspectives. It was developed based on Calvo et al. (2018) as they elaborate on SNM in HEI (see Appendix A) [23]. The interview guide included questions about success in CLLs and the factors enabling the three key processes: vision articulation, social network building and learning processes. The guide was pilot-tested with three participants to ensure clarity and relevance; their data were not included in the final analysis. As a result of the testing, some initial questions were modified for better understanding and suggested follow-up questions were added. Interviews were held via Microsoft Teams and video-recorded with participant consent, lasting between 45 and 90 min. The interviews were subsequently transcribed using the same program and then manually checked. Interviews were anonymised, and random identifiers were assigned based on the participant’s role, such as Enabler 1–4, Leader 1–7, and Researcher 1–4.

To complement and triangulate interview data, we used documents and observations. We included publicly available documents from the UU website and internal documents shared by interviewees to understand the respective initiatives and write the empirical context. In addition, observations helped contextualise data and results, as the main researcher participates in the CLU’s weekly coordination meetings and the Sustainability Office’s monthly meetings.

3.4. Data Analysis

Table 3. Summary of the analysis phases.

Data Analysis Phase	Task	Outcome
(1) Data familiarisation	Organise the data according to the topics outlined in the interview guide.	Identification of two main topics: Perceived success and factors.
(2) Coding	(a) Perceived success: Apply an inductive approach to identify emerging categories.	Identification of three dimensions of success.
	(b) Enabling factors: Apply a deductive approach [19], allowing factors to emerge.	Frequency of present/absent enabling factors per role.
(3) Theorising the codes	Synthesise previous phases and compare data to existing theory.	Insights on success and key factors for protected space development.

shows a summary of the analysis process. In the first phase, the data were organised based on the two main topics outlined in the interview guide: perceived success and factors enabling the three key processes for protected space development. In the second phase, we coded each main topic separately [24]. We coded the data using MAXQDA Analytics Pro without the AI tool. For perceived success, an inductive approach was used to identify emerging categories that describe success in CLLs, identifying three key dimensions of success. For the enabling factors, a deductive approach was applied based on the framework developed by Herth et al. (2025), allowing emerging categories as well as subcodes [19]. This resulted in a final list of 17 factors, of which 1 was completely new and 4 were reformulated. The coding scheme (see

Table A1. Factor and subfactors.

Factor	Subfactor
Bridging	connect faculty with the operational department
	connect the operational department with the faculty
Collaboration and Co-creation	building a strong community feeling
	collaboration across boundaries
	focusing on a common and interesting purpose and vision
Competencies anbd Skills	action-oriented experimentation
	active listening and empathise
	aligning motivations and capabilities
	incremental, iterative and agile process
	mapping (stakeholders, process, infrastructure)
	open and effective communication
	outside-the-box and transdisciplinary thinking
	professional skills for students
	reporting
	understanding of the governance and structure of the university
	understanding of the living lab concept
Coordination	dedicated central roles
	embedding living labs into the university with clearly defined roles
	incentive creation and holistic recognition and rewards systems
	streamlining operations by capacity matching, thematic clustering and efficient budget allocation
Environment and Challenge **	focusing on an ambitious and trendy societal problem
	focusing on an iconic location with a widely shared problem
Evaluation	adjusting scope and goals to reality
	feasibility
	incorporate cradle-to-grave perspective
	initial intake
	opportune communication about restrictions
Internal management	adjusting scope and goals to reality
	differentiate theme using different tracks
	identifying and sharing everyone’s expectations and needs
	improving communication among stakeholders
	keeping all parties informed about processes and key decisions
	managing processes to achieve desired outcomes
	Prioritisation of goals and activities
	student supervision
Knowledge Exchange **	enhancing students’ creative and innovative real-world experiential learning experiences
	gathering stakeholder input
	institutional/organisational learning
	involving skilled users
	promoting inter-organisational learning
	provide periodic spaces for reflection
Leadership	intrapreneurship
	recognising bottom-up contributions
	recognising leadership contributions from students and stakeholders
	support from high-level directors
Methods and Practices	effective meetings
	experimenting
	program management approach
	structured frameworks and guidelines
	visual representations
Orchestration *	bridging and intermediary
	build network
	building spaces to learn
	communication
	creating structured opportunities to meet
	empower others to act
	evaluation
	leadership
	mediation
	mental support
	provide seed funds
	setting goals and strategy
	supervision and mentoring students
	support
	teaching the living lab concept
	thinking along
Resources **	dedicated budget from the university
	dedicated time and managerial support
	flexible budget
	integrating financing stakeholder into the network
	leverage internal knowledge
	sustained funding
Shared understanding	commonly owned living lab vision
	flexibility while keeping the focus
	flexible budget
	iterative refinement and perspectives integration
	operationalisation
	overarching theme
	shaping the narrative and identifying themes
	shared interests and values
	stakeholders use consistent language
Stakeholders and Network	encouraging serendipitous connections
	engaging relevant and diverse expertise
	excluding misaligned stakeholders
	involving users perspectives
	leveraging existing relationships and networks
Strategic alignment	embracing third mission
	empower others to help reach institutional goals
	goal in the strategic plan
	high university sustainability ambition
	operations anchor to reality
Transferability and Scaling	implementing systems for structured data collection and internal sharing
	reporting and communication
	sharing knowledge and inspiration
Organisational culture **	academic freedom
	alignment with personal and professional values
	failure as a learning opportunity
	high sustainability awareness
	open communication, honesty and transparency
	openness to new approaches
	positive mindset
	support from top management
	transdisciplinary

* New factor; ** Reformulated factor.

, Appendix B) was used for all interviews, referred to as being a present (i.e., present factor) or as a currently missing (i.e., absent factor). Next, a Microsoft Excel database with all the codes was created to analyse frequencies and obtain the respondents’ insights per role (i.e., enabler, leader, and researcher) to see if differences were observed. In the third phase, we synthesised the findings from the previous phases during the theorising stage and compared the results with the existing theory.

4. Results

First, we explore how participants perceive success in CLLs, considering sustainability and process outcomes, as well as broader impacts, such as scaling pathways. Secondly, we examine the enabling factors (present or absent) that support the key processes for protected space development.

4.1. Perceived Success in Campus Living Labs

The majority of interviewees considered their CLLs successful, with only one interviewee expressing a contrary view. This interviewee perceived that working with CLLs was unsuccessful, primarily due to tensions between the flexible, experimental approach of CLLs and the traditional, rigid processes of the university. Most people who said that CLLs are successful also highlighted that success is more than just achieving intended goals; it comprises different dimensions.

We revealed three dimensions of perceived success in CLLs: sustainability outcomes, scaling pathways, and process outcomes. More than half of the interviewees defined success as achieving specific sustainability goals. However, many also recognised the difficulty of reaching these goals due to the complexity of sustainability challenges. They acknowledged that the problems they addressed were often more intricate than anticipated, making the initial goals seem unrealistic. Consequently, even when targets were not fully met, they still perceived their efforts as successful because they were making progress towards them.

Many interviewees identified a desire for the initiatives to grow and evolve through various strategies. This evolution of the initiatives can be thought of as a scaling pathway. The analysis revealed that the different pathways used can be linked to the five scaling pathways as defined by Plassnig et al. (2022) [25]. Scaling-deep focuses on enhancing existing activities for established target groups; interviewees emphasised structural change, continuous improvement, and evolution beyond one-time efforts. Scaling-up involves reaching more people with the same activities, as reflected in remarks about fostering more connections and “infecting as many colleagues as possible” (Leader 7). Scaling-soft encompasses dissemination, knowledge sharing, and enhanced collaboration, facilitating learning and expertise sharing across different groups. Scaling-wide refers to replicating activities in new geographic areas, aiming to apply successful initiatives in broader contexts. Scaling-across involves initiating activities in new domains, including connecting diverse groups across organisational boundaries, such as researchers, students, and internal stakeholders.

The final dimension of success is linked to process outcomes, particularly networking and learning. For networking, they emphasised that: “keeping the collaborative work active” (Researcher 4) or “staying connected” (Leader 6) is already considered a success. Additionally, the sense of “community and people working together” (Leader 4) was highlighted as a valuable outcome. Collaboration was also viewed as crucial to bridge the gap between the academic and operational worlds, with respondents emphasising the importance of “using the expertise… around on campus” (Leader 2) and “getting better from both sides” (Enabler 3). As another process outcome, a few interviewees emphasised that, even if the initial goals are not fully achieved, the learning gained throughout the process is valuable and contributes to the success of CLLs. For example, one participant noted, “You can still learn from the total process” (Enabler 4), emphasising the importance of reflection. Another interviewee shared that “during this process, you learn quite a bit” (Researcher 1), showing the experiential learning embedded in the CLL journey. It is important to note that learning was primarily viewed as a desired outcome for students; in contrast, no one recognised it as important for employees.

These last two process outcomes, network and learning, are closely linked to two key processes for protected space development: social network building and learning processes. Their recognition as signs of success suggests that a well-functioning CLL is not solely defined by achieving sustainability goals but also by how effectively it cultivates these key processes. This reframes success in CLLs as inherently process-oriented, where enabling and sustaining networking and learning are seen as crucial outcomes in themselves. Next, we explore what drives the processes of vision articulation and social network building, as well as learning processes.

4.2. Enabling Factors for Protected Space Development

Based on the analysis, we obtained the frequency with which each factor was mentioned as either present or absent for the three key processes involved in developing protected spaces: articulation of vision, social network building and learning process (

Table A2. Factor definitions and frequency of mentions. Present factors are shown in green and absent factors in red. The darker the tone, the more mentions it has.

Factor	Definition	Present				Absent
		Learning	Network	Vision	Total	Learning	Network	Vision	Total
Bridging	connecting the two internal worlds of the HEI: faculty and operational departments.	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Collaboration and Co-creation	the action of working together in a CLL.	4	3	2	9	0	1	1	2
Competencies and Skills	the individual abilities required to develop and participate in CLLs.	5	2	4	11	1	2	1	4
Coordination	the HEI-wide organisation of different units, faculties, teams, and groups.	1	3	1	5	0	6	2	8
Environment and challenge	selecting locations where real societal problems occur.	0	1	2	3	0	0	0	0
Evaluation	assessing CLLs at the start, throughout, and at the conclusion to determine their feasibility, effectiveness, impact, and progress.	0	1	1	2	0	0	0	0
Internal management	how people and processes are coordinated within a CLL.	3	1	3	7	1	0	0	1
Knowledge exchange	the process of sharing and acquiring information, insights, and skills.	7	0	0	7	1	0	0	1
Leadership	the ability of an individual or group to influence, guide, and inspire others.	1	3	0	4	0	1	0	1
Methods and Practices	the structured approaches and tools used to address problems within a CLL.	0	0	3	3	0	0	0	0
Orchestration	a subtle yet strategic form of coordination in CLLs, typically carried out by a central unit.	3	2	2	7	1	0	0	1
Resources	the financial, human, knowledge, and institutional assets necessary for CLLs.	0	8	0	8	0	7	0	7
Shared understanding	a mutual awareness of each other’s interests and purpose.	0	1	10	11	0	0	0	0
Stakeholders and network	who should be involved in a CLL, when to engage them, and how to manage participation.	2	5	3	10	0	2	0	2
Strategic alignment	how CLLs activities contribute to the broader sustainability goals of the HEI.	0	0	4	4	0	2	0	2
Transferability and Scaling	the ability of CLLs to replicate and expand their impact.	8	2	0	10	1	0	0	1
Organisational culture	the overall environment, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours that shape ways of working, researching, teaching and studying within CLLs.	5	4	5	14	0	1	0	1

, Appendix C). The aim is not to stress the absolute numbers but rather to use the frequency to indicate the importance of revealing important patterns and using in-depth qualitative knowledge to support the patterns observed.

Figure 1 presents Sankey diagrams that illustrate how frequently the enabling factors were mentioned in relation to the key processes of protected space development. The left side depicts enabling factors that are absent, and the right side depicts enabling factors that are present. The mentions linked to vision articulation are shown in yellow hues, those related to social network building in pink hues, and those associated with learning processes in blue hues. In both diagrams, the thickness of the lines corresponds to the number of mentions; the thicker the line, the more frequently the factor was mentioned. The Sankey format is particularly effective in visualising complex, many-to-many relationships and revealing the relative contribution of each factor across different processes.

Figure 2 presents the factors as stacked bars for each process, either present (right-side bars) or absent (left-side bars), as mentioned by the different types of stakeholders in a CLL. The rows list the factors alphabetically, while each column represents a different stakeholder role. Since the number of interviewees varied across roles, we normalised the data by dividing the frequency of mentions by the total number of interviewees in each role. For example, in the case of ‘Resources’, enablers mentioned it as absent three times and as present once. With four enablers, this results in a normalised frequency of 0.75 for ‘absent’ (3/4) and 0.25 for ‘present’ (1/4).

We grouped the factors into six different groups depending on which processes they contributed, in order to give a more detailed explanation.

4.2.1. Broad Three-Process Factors

This first group includes factors that contribute to all three key processes, thereby supporting the overall development of protected spaces. These factors can be considered broad because they create enabling conditions that influence the general functioning of CLLs. Factors in this group are as follows: ‘Organisational culture’, ‘Orchestration’, ‘Collaboration and Co-creation’, ‘Competencies and Skills’, and ‘Stakeholders and Network’.

The factor ‘Organisational culture’ refers to the overall environment, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours that shape ways of working, researching, teaching and studying within CLLs. This factor was (overall) most frequently mentioned and linked to all three key processes: learning, vision articulation, and network building, in that order of importance (Figure 1). ‘Organisational culture’ was crucial for enablers and researchers, while leaders mentioned it less frequently (Figure 2).

Several specific features stood out across the interviews, referring to the overall environment that shapes ways of working. For instance, interviewees emphasised that a strong sustainability awareness within the university made discussions more effective, as sustainability was already understood as a priority rather than something requiring justification. This normative framing helped to align perspectives better, helping to articulate an ambitious vision. A positive mindset and the ability to frame narratives in an engaging way were also seen as essential for articulating the vision.

For social network building, interviewees highlighted that individuals were more likely to engage in CLLs when the work aligned with their personal values. Since participation often required extra effort and was not always formally recognised, personal motivation and joy played a crucial role in sustaining involvement. Open communication, honesty, and transparency were key cultural elements that helped build strong networks within the university. A culture of trans-disciplinarity was also actively encouraged, with various groups working across units and faculties to foster collaboration. This transdisciplinary environment allowed individuals to gain new insights and learn from different faculties and operational units. Particularly, academics reported learning about university structures and governance, while operational staff gained deeper knowledge of sustainability topics and were surprised by the complexity of sustainability challenges. A culture of openness to new approaches and tolerance for failure further supported learning, as it encouraged innovation and experimentation without fear of setbacks. Strong support from the university board reinforced this learning culture, ensuring that failures were seen as opportunities for growth rather than as obstacles.

The factor ‘Orchestration’ refers to a subtle yet strategic form of coordination in CLLs, typically carried out by a central unit, such as, in this case, the Sustainability Office or CLU. It was moderately mentioned for vision and learning and occasionally for network building; it was also mentioned as important but currently absent for learning (Figure 1). Enablers emphasised this factor the most, mentioning it equally as present and absent, while leaders saw it solely as present, and researchers mentioned it rarely (Figure 2).

Interviewees stood out in several specific roles regarding the central coordination unit. They described orchestration as playing a critical role by providing support and thinking to articulate a vision. It was also seen as essential for network building, as it facilitates connections by offering seed funding and mediating relationships among stakeholders. For learning, orchestration was crucial in bridging disciplines, fostering safe spaces for experimentation, and providing mental support. Interviewees stressed the need to communicate about CLLs and actively teach the CLL concept, yet these responsibilities were largely absent, limiting structured learning opportunities.

The factor ‘Collaboration and Co-creation’ refers to the action of working together in a CLL. It was widely recognised as important across all three key processes, with the most mentions for learning, followed by vision and network building (Figure 1). Researchers consistently emphasised the value of collaboration and co-creation across all three processes, whereas enablers focused most on their contribution to learning. While leaders acknowledged its importance, they also pointed out its occasional absence, particularly concerning vision articulation and network building (Figure 2).

Different aspects stood out in the action of working together. For instance, interviewees shared that working together around an innovative idea is key to articulating a vision, as it strengthens motivation. Creating a strong sense of community was considered essential in terms of network building. Collaboration was not just about working together but also about forming meaningful connections and mutual trust. For the learning process, cross-boundary collaboration was seen as a crucial aspect.

The factor ‘Competencies and Skills’ refers to the individual abilities required to develop and participate in CLLs. While this factor was only moderately mentioned in relation to vision articulation and learning and less so for network building, it was also perceived as important but somewhat absent across all three key processes (Figure 1). It was considered important for leaders, while enablers and researchers mentioned it moderately. Particularly, researchers more often noted them as absent (Figure 2).

Several specific abilities stood out in the interviews. For instance, the ability to navigate incremental, iterative, and agile processes was frequently emphasised for vision articulation, alongside the need for open and effective communication. In the context of social network building, understanding the university’s governance structures and operational logic was considered a critical skill. However, many participants pointed to a general lack of knowledge about what living labs are, how they operate, and how to participate in them, highlighting a key competency gap that hinders network building.

This gap was especially pronounced among students, who often struggled with networking due to insufficient skills to prepare for meetings, understand project scopes, and engage confidently with external stakeholders. The ability to map stakeholders, processes, and institutional infrastructure was frequently mentioned as essential for learning processes. In addition, an action-oriented mindset and a willingness to experiment were seen as vital competencies that support meaningful learning within the CLL environment.

The factor ‘Stakeholders and Network’ refers to who should be involved in a CLL, when to engage them, and how to manage participation. It contributed to all three processes, yet was more important for network building and less for vision articulation and learning (Figure 1). Researchers emphasised this most, followed by leaders and enablers (Figure 2).

Various aspects related to engaging and managing stakeholders in CLLs were mentioned. For instance, interviewees mentioned that involving user perspectives and engaging relevant and diverse expertise were essential for vision articulation. Leveraging existing relationships, particularly by connecting with trusted high-influence individuals, was highlighted in order to build networks quickly. Interviewees stressed that an aligned network and a strong sense of community were crucial. However, they acknowledged a tension between incorporating diverse perspectives and ensuring effective decision-making. A balance helps to maintain alignment among stakeholders, which is key to social network building. Serendipitous encounters played a notable role, as unexpected meetings often sparked new collaborations, though they are hard to plan and create. For learning, interviewees emphasised that engaging with relevant and varied experts facilitated knowledge exchange and skill-building, further strengthening the CLL’s capacity.

4.2.2. Two-Process Factors

This group consist of factors that contributed mainly to two processes. This group includes the factors: ‘Internal management’ and ‘Strategic alignment’.

The factor ‘Internal management’ refers to how people and processes are coordinated within a CLL. It was mentioned mainly in relation to vision articulation and learning (Figure 1). In some instances, it was also noted as absent, particularly regarding supporting learning processes (Figure 1). While leaders considered this factor important for articulating a vision and learning, they also acknowledged that it was absent for learning. In contrast, enablers and researchers mentioned it only infrequently in the context of learning (Figure 2).

Different aspects of the internal management of CLLs stood out. A recurring aspect across interviews was the importance of keeping all participants informed about key developments and decisions for articulating a vision and learning. A particularly effective strategy for improving vision articulation involved structuring activities into clear, thematic tracks. This approach not only helped participants communicate more effectively but also created a coherent narrative to guide ongoing efforts. As one leader explained:

“I do think what has worked is like having three different tracks... This is a good narrative to explain to people and also fits with what we are actually doing. It’s also helpful for our focus, and if there are any other opportunities that come around, we can always be open to those. But I would say that almost everything we do can be connected to one of those three things”.

(Leader 2)

Additionally, interviewees emphasised that improving communication among stakeholders strengthened learning processes as, in this way, there is the possibility to increase the chances of learning from others.

The factor ‘Strategic alignment’ refers to how CLL activities contribute to the broader sustainability goals of the HEI. It was occasionally mentioned as a contributor to vision articulation and several times as an important but absent factor for social network building (Figure 1). Enablers mentioned it slightly more than leaders, followed by researchers (Figure 2). Interviewees emphasised that embedding sustainability goals within the university’s strategic plan is essential for vision articulation. A high sustainability ambition established by board directors was also seen as beneficial, as it motivates action.

4.2.3. Vision-Specific Factors

Two factors contribute mostly to the process of articulating a vision. These are ‘Shared understanding’ and ‘Methods and Practices’.

The factor ‘Shared understanding’ refers to a mutual recognition of each other’s interests and purpose. This factor is that which most supported vision articulation, particularly among leaders and, to a lesser extent, among enablers and researchers. It was rarely linked to social network building and never to learning processes (Figure 1).

A key element to achieving mutual recognition of each other’s interests and purpose is having an overarching term or umbrella concept that is collectively recognised. To determine this concept, integrating different perspectives while maintaining flexibility and focus was crucial. As one leader explained:

“At some point, we just thought, well, [theme] is the right word to connect it all. So that people can connect their own work to that vision, because it’s easy to explain to others what you’re doing. It also helps with focus, which only strengthens itself because if the focus is right, you also know what things you might be doing or not”.

(Leader 2)

This example illustrates how a shared term provides clarity, aligns diverse efforts, and reinforces a common direction because stakeholders can understand each other, which supports vision articulation. Interviewees emphasised that shared understanding is an iterative process that evolves through continuous refinement.

The factor ‘Methods and Practices’ refers to the structured approaches and tools used to address problems within a CLL. It was mentioned by all three roles (Figure 2).

Different characteristics were mentioned regarding approaches and tools to address CLL’s challenges. Enablers highlighted that a program management approach provided an effective overarching method to articulate the vision, while leaders emphasised that structured frameworks and guidelines were instrumental. Researchers noted that visual tools like mood boards also helped to articulate the vision.

4.2.4. Network-Specific Factors

This group includes the factors that mainly contribute to the process of social network building: ‘Resources’, ‘Leadership’ and ‘Coordination’.

The factor ‘Resources’ refers to the financial, human, knowledge, and institutional assets necessary for CLLs. It was the most frequently mentioned factor for social network building (Figure 1), though perceptions varied: researchers saw ‘Resources’ as present, leaders were divided, and enablers largely found them relevant but absent (Figure 2).

Interviewees frequently mentioned different forms of assets, as well as approaches to acquiring and efficiently using them. Given that most resources come from within the university, institutional support, particularly approved work time, was crucial for network building. When individuals had formal permission to dedicate part of their workload to a CLL, they participated more actively. However, such recognition was rare, leaving many overworked and limiting involvement. Surprisingly, financial resources were not widely cited as lacking; CLLs within structured programs had sufficient funding, whereas bottom-up initiatives struggled more. The primary concern was long-term sustained funding, with uncertainty about the future. As one leader warned,

“If you don’t have enough money, then eventually, all the living labs will stop”.

(Leader 1)

Budget flexibility also played a key role in network building, allowing savings from improved practices to be reinvested. Beyond funding, leveraging internal knowledge by connecting departments and faculties fostered building networks. Finally, dedicated funding for innovation and sustainability was considered a university’s responsibility. As one enabler stated,

“If you have a great idea and you’re the first in the world to do it, of course, you need a lot of money. An organisation like this has an obligation to support the development of new things. If you always say that if it costs more, it’s impossible, then we never move forward. You have to make space for innovation”.

(Enabler 3)

Different resources play a pivotal role in building networks. While financial support is a necessary condition, institutional backing, workload recognition, and budget flexibility are strategies to use resources more effectively.

The factor ‘Leadership’ refers to the ability of an individual or group to influence, guide, and inspire others. This factor was primarily mentioned by leaders (Figure 2).

Interviewees mentioned various elements regarding influencing, guiding and inspiring others. Leaders emphasised that having the support from high-level directors and the board is an important element in building the network. Additionally, recognising and valuing leadership contributions from students and stakeholders was essential for building the network.

The factor ‘Coordination’ refers to the HEI-wide organisation of different units, faculties, teams, and groups. Enablers consistently described ‘Coordination’ as absent, whereas leaders and researchers offered a more mixed view, recognising it as both present and absent (Figure 2).

Different aspects stood out in this HEI-wide coordination. For instance, many interviewees underscored the need for a formalised organisational structure that embeds CLLs within the broader university system. Such a structure was seen as essential for building robust networks. However, most participants noted its absence. Some isolated success stories existed, such as cases where CLLs were integrated informally as small “pockets” within existing structures or where their outputs were used in ongoing institutional processes. Still, these were the exception rather than the rule, highlighting the lack of a coherent, system-wide approach.

The importance of dedicated coordination roles also emerged strongly. Participants emphasised the value of having clearly defined responsibilities and a key contact person who could connect stakeholders and act as a boundary-spanner across departments and initiatives. Yet these roles were largely missing at the university. As one enabler pointed out, this absence is partly due to the unpredictable and emergent nature of CLLs:

“A lot of our work is planned in long-term cycles, and living labs pop up out of nowhere. We don’t see them coming, so the only work you can prepare for is what you already anticipate. If you hire someone dedicated to living labs, there’s a chance they’ll have nothing to do for a month.”.

(Enabler 2)

Ultimately, while ‘Coordination’ is critical for enabling collaboration and building strong networks, its absence remains a major barrier. Participants suggested that a structured yet adaptive approach to coordination could offer a way forward, one that supports CLLs as they emerge while fostering long-term institutional engagement.

4.2.5. Learning-Specific Factors

This group includes two factors that mainly contribute to the process of social network building: ‘Knowledge exchange’ and ‘Transferability and Scaling’.

The factor ‘Knowledge exchange’ refers to the process of sharing and acquiring information, insights, and skills. Among the different interviewees’ roles, enablers highlighted this factor most prominently, while leaders and researchers referred to it only occasionally. Particularly, researchers had a mixed perspective, noting both its presence and absence in learning processes (Figure 2).

The interviewees mentioned different ways of sharing and acquiring knowledge. They emphasised the importance of regular reflection spaces and periodic meetings, where updates could be shared effortlessly, fostering low-effort yet valuable learning opportunities. Many noted the benefit of interacting with knowledgeable participants from different disciplines and sectors, gaining insights simply through engagement. Additionally, meeting with experts and gathering their input was seen as a direct source of learning. Experiential learning through real-world projects was particularly impactful for students, helping them develop soft and professional skills essential for their future careers.

The factor ‘Transferability and Scaling’ refers to the ability of CLLs to replicate and expand their impact. Researchers discussed this the most, with some noting its absence, followed by leaders and enablers (Figure 2).

Different strategies related to the replication and expansion of CLLs were mentioned. For instance, interviewees emphasised that continuous monitoring and data collection are essential for learning, providing insights into what works and can be improved. They highlighted the importance of platforms or dashboards to facilitate knowledge sharing, enabling stakeholders to access and apply lessons learned across different initiatives. Formal reporting was a key tool for structured reflection and learning, whether through periodic updates or end-of-project reviews. Additionally, events, such as symposiums and festivals, involving more participants were identified as catalysts for learning, as they exposed stakeholders to diverse experiences, inspiring innovation and triggering new ideas.

4.2.6. Peripheral Factors

This group includes factors that only had a few mentions, indicating that they are minor contributors to the key process for protected space development. This group includes the factors ‘Evaluation’, ‘Environment and Challenge’ and ‘Bridging’.

The factor ‘Environment and Challenge’ refers to selecting locations where real societal problems occur. For researchers, anchoring a CLL in an ambitious, real-world issue was seen as a way to deepen the lab’s vision and strengthen its network. Leaders, on the other hand, emphasised that choosing an iconic location with a widely shared problem helped to articulate a vision.

The factor ‘Evaluation’ refers to assessing CLLs at the start, throughout, and at the conclusion to determine their feasibility, effectiveness, impact, and progress. This factor was rarely mentioned and only by enablers (Figure 2). They noted that evaluating feasibility and adjusting the scope and goals according to the realities of CLLs is crucial for articulating a vision. They also stressed that clear communication about limitations and possibilities helps to build the network by aligning expectations.

The factor ‘Bridging’ refers to connecting the two internal worlds of the HEI: faculty and operational departments. Unexpectedly, it was barely mentioned (Figure 1); a leader only mentioned it once as contributing to network building (Figure 2).

These findings underscore the nuanced and multifaceted nature of CLL success and the essential factors for fostering protected spaces for CLLs to thrive. The discussion section will further examine these findings in relation to existing literature, analysing how factors shape the development of protected spaces in CLLs and their role in advancing sustainability transitions within HEIs.

5. Discussion

Our research aimed to understand the factors that enable CLLs as a protected space to thrive within the traditional structure of universities, where they often struggle to develop and diffuse. According to SNM theory, three key processes support the development of these protected spaces: articulation of visions, social network building, and learning. We have explored how different factors contribute to each of these processes. We conducted semi-structured interviews using an embedded case study approach and analysed seven CLLs at UU to investigate this. Our analysis identified two central topics: how success is perceived in CLLs and the factors that influence the three key processes.

5.1. Perceived Success

While CLLs are increasingly recognised as instruments to advance sustainability transitions in HEIs, their success remains contested [26]. Our findings show that most stakeholders perceive their initiatives as successful, yet their definitions of success go beyond meeting predefined (sustainability) targets. Success is associated with progress toward long-term goals, and the ability to scale, facilitate learning, and sustain stakeholder networks. These outcomes are rarely articulated as formal objectives. Instead, they remain implicit, emergent, or considered “nice-to-have” achievements. Making such hidden outcomes explicit could help bridge differing perspectives and clarify what constitutes success for CLLs.

Viewing CLLs as experiments with open-ended outcomes and possibilities to fail and adopting an action research approach are factors in closer alignment with them than traditional project management with rigid objectives. Such a flexible approach is ideal to tackle the evolving and complex nature of sustainability challenges. Stakeholders initially approach problems only with their own individual knowledge, seeing only fragments of the complex issues they aim to address. This bounded knowledge reflects the broader challenge of sustainability transitions, where goals evolve as new insights emerge [27].

Sustainability transition research highlights the importance of experimental interventions, even if they do not immediately achieve their intended goals. The role of CLLs in this context can be assessed along two dimensions [28]: (i) Short-term success, meeting immediate objectives and learning from experimentation, and (ii) Long-term success, contributing to upscaling and systemic change. Interviewees also identified scaling as a crucial measure of success for CLLs. We identified different scaling pathways based on Plassnig et al. (2022): scaling-deep, scaling-up, scaling-soft, scaling-wide, and scaling-across [25]. Effective scaling depends on context-specific adaptation rather than direct replication, balancing similarities for expansion with site-specific differences.

Beyond sustainability outcomes, two key processes emerged as fundamental to CLL success: learning and networking, indicating that success is more than merely achieving (tangible) outcomes. The process itself is also part of its success. Given the significance of social learning in sustainability transitions [29], CLLs hold the potential for fostering collective knowledge exchange. Learning pathways offer a structured approach to guide individuals and organisations in acquiring and applying knowledge, translating learning into tangible sustainability outcomes [30]. Networking and sustaining collaboration were perceived as measures of success, although time-consuming and difficult.

5.2. Enabling Factors

We identified broad factors contributing to all or multiple key processes, specific factors supporting only one process, and peripheral factors less frequently mentioned. Broad factors play an underlying basis in enabling protected spaces, while specific ones target distinct processes. Peripheral factors were less frequently mentioned and appeared less critical overall.

Our findings identify ‘Organisational culture’ as the most frequently mentioned present factor contributing to all three processes for protected spaces where CLL innovations can thrive. Literature and expert insights also highlight its critical role in the early stages of CLL development, where goals are defined, roles assigned, and infrastructure established [19]. However, the collaborative culture needed for sustainability transitions conflicts with the traditional characteristics of HEIs, which tend to be risk-averse, resistant to change, and bound by rigid structures [15,31]. Integrating academic and operational sustainability can catalyse cultural transformation, with CLLs serving as key mechanisms [4]. Change efforts are most effective when aligned with institutional values and embedded in incentive systems [32]. A supportive Organisational culture can reduce reliance on formal protected spaces by normalising innovation within everyday practices [15]. These spaces should be seen as transitional, fostering a cultural shift that embeds innovation into the mainstream operations of HEIs [3]. Thus, a dual approach is needed: short-term protection for CLLs and long-term strategies to embed innovation institutionally.

We distinguish between present and absent factors, as absences often explain why some CLLs struggle. For instance, ‘Resources’ and ‘Coordination’ were frequently noted as absent, suggesting structural weaknesses that hinder success. Our findings expand the definition of the ‘Resources’ factor, which Herth et al. (2025) primarily framed in terms of financial funding [19]. We propose a broader understanding that includes human resources, infrastructure, and access to knowledge as equally critical components. While all CLLs had secured initial funding to carry out their planned activities, many expressed concerns about the lack of resources to ensure continuity. This issue reflects a common structural challenge: funding sources are often external, short-term, and project-based, leaving future financing uncertain and making self-sustained CLLs difficult to achieve [33]. To address this, integrating CLL funding into institutional planning processes and establishing dedicated grants could strengthen long-term viability and help build more stable CLL networks [34].

The importance, yet absence, of the factor ‘Coordination’ highlights a lack of university-wide oversight and integration. This gap was reflected in participants’ struggles to identify collaborators, often relying solely on their personal relationships to build networks [35]. In the literature, ‘Coordination’ encompasses mechanisms such as multi-stakeholder committees, thematic clustering, and strategic planning [19]. However, these structures are frequently inconsistently applied or reductionist in scope, resulting in fragmented, one-off projects. This issue led us to identify a related but distinct new factor: ‘Orchestration’, which refers to an institutionalised centralised coordination function. It does not impose mandates but supports all three processes of articulating a vision, building a network and learning. It assumes an agnostic steering role, helping stakeholders identify shared interests, facilitating matchmaking, and enhancing collaboration without directing agendas. In the living lab literature, orchestration is recognised as a critical function that distinguishes living labs from informal or self-organising networks [36]. While it overlaps with concepts such as intermediation, boundary spanning, and bridging, orchestration uniquely includes a strategic steering dimension [19,37,38,39]. Despite its importance, orchestration in CLLs is often weak or absent, leading to isolated efforts and missed opportunities for institutional learning. Although a central unit within a university could perform this role, it must be carefully designed to avoid adding bureaucratic complexity and operate as an invisible force [14,15].

Our findings also highlight the importance of recognising diverse stakeholder roles within CLLs. Without including perspectives beyond leaders, such as those of enablers and researchers, critical insights into CLL processes would have been missed. For example, the factor ‘Evaluation’ was primarily emphasised by enablers, while ‘Collaboration and Co-creation’ was particularly valued by researchers. This role-based differentiation is essential to avoid a narrow, leadership-centric lens that risks overlooking how other stakeholders experience and shape the processes underpinning successful CLLs. Enablers pointed to the importance of the factor ‘Evaluation’, yet leaders failed to acknowledge it. Leaders would benefit from structured tools to evaluate CLL processes, such as risk assessment frameworks, technical and feasibility guidelines, and a guide to asking the right questions in order to articulate realistic and achievable visions [40]. ‘Evaluation’ plays a crucial role in generating value and ensuring the scaling of CLLs [19]. Regarding ‘Collaboration and Co-creation’, leaders often view collaboration primarily as a means of network building, while researchers highlighted its broader value across all three key processes. Researchers emphasised the need to build communities grounded in mutual trust, cautioning against opportunistic approaches where leaders only ask without giving in return [17]. A co-created vision developed collaboratively and shared across stakeholders is more likely to be commonly owned [33].

Our approach complements the previous literature by applying and extending the earlier developed list of factors. In doing this, we not only identified broad and specific factors, but we also specified the presence and absence of factors, and who mainly perceived these factors as being relevant.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

This research focuses on a single HEI, limiting its generalizability. However, our findings are supported by the existing literature, suggesting that they likely apply to similar HEI contexts, i.e., they are research-intensive, sustainability-focused, and with institutional support for CLLs. Additionally, as the case study is set in a high-income Western European country, where much of the existing research on CLLs is concentrated [41], our conclusions are probably mostly relevant to universities within similar settings. Future research could explore to what extent our findings are context-specific and focus on CLLs in diverse HEIs, considering variations in national contexts (e.g., non-European countries), income levels (e.g., middle and low income), institutional structures (e.g., technical, teaching-oriented, liberal arts) and disciplinary compositions (e.g., more specialised universities or universities of applied sciences), as these factors shape cultural influences and alternative worldviews.

Our analysis was qualitative, and while efforts were made to mitigate bias through internal discussions and multiple coding iterations, subjectivity remains. We provided category descriptions to enhance clarity. Furthermore, empirical and complementary studies (e.g., mixed methods, longitudinal studies) using the same factor categories are encouraged to enhance comparability and build towards cumulative knowledge in the field. This approach can help avoid the continuous reinvention of the “living lab wheel,” a known challenge in living lab research [14].

Additionally, even though we used frequency of mentions to reveal the patterns, given the qualitative nature of the study, it is not the aim of the paper to focus on exact numbers as quantitative indicators (or measurable outcomes). Future research could explore the development of such indicators to strengthen comparability across studies and provide a more systematic basis for evaluation.

Another potential limitation lies in the proximity of the principal researcher to the institution under study, including participation in CLU meetings. While this close engagement enabled in-depth access and contextual understanding, it may also introduce a risk of bias, particularly in interpreting participant perspectives or institutional dynamics. To address this, reflexive practices were adopted throughout the research process, and findings were discussed collaboratively within the research team to critically reflect on assumptions and interpretations.

The dimensions of perceived success in CLLs emerged inductively, making them more exploratory than prescriptive. While supported in the literature, their generalizability to different HEI settings remains uncertain. Nonetheless, this exploration underscores the need for CLLs to embrace diverse success criteria, allocate resources accordingly, and distinguish themselves from traditional projects. Furthermore, acknowledging failure as a possible outcome and turning it into a success by openly communicating and learning from it would help avoid repeating past errors [42]. Future research could investigate how success is defined across various HEIs and explore the factors shaping it. Comparative studies across different geographic and cultural contexts could provide insights into context-specific and more universally applicable success factors.

Finally, future research should explore the most influential factors identified in this study in greater depth. Particularly regarding ‘Orchestration’, a new factor important for HEIs, a central unit responsible for orchestration appears essential given the challenges of coordination in loosely coupled governance structures. Previous research has often conceptualised orchestration as an actor role in living labs [43]. However, the orchestration mechanisms at different levels are understudied and deserve more attention [44]. In HEI contexts where multiple living labs coexist, concentrating this responsibility on one person is often unrealistic and unsustainable. Instead, orchestration can be distributed across several individuals, a dedicated team, or a central unit to ensure continuity, capacity, and institutional anchoring. Such a unit should be discipline-agnostic, fostering transdisciplinary collaboration across faculties without privileging one discipline. It should also maintain direct communication with institutional leadership to support strategic decision-making and contribute to developing HEI-wide goals. A more detailed investigation into the governance structures underpinning orchestration, clarifying its functions, would offer valuable guidance for practitioners aiming to establish effective, supportive coordination mechanisms within HEIs.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, this research advances the understanding of protected space development for CLLs within HEIs, offering new insights into the factors that enable their emergence and growth. It uses SNM theory beyond its traditional application in sectoral transitions, demonstrating its value in understanding the dynamics of CLL innovations within HEI. Focusing on the three key processes of vision articulation, social network building, and learning, we show how these can be facilitated within HEIs.

We contribute to the CLL literature by identifying the favourable conditions for them to thrive in HEI. Additionally, we provide a better understanding of the meaning of success, and we make explicit the hidden outcomes of CLLs

Ultimately, by uncovering the diverse factors that shape protected space development, this research offers insights for facilitating successful CLLs, moving from isolated initiatives to embedded innovation for the sustainability transition within HEI.