Next Article in Journal
Game Analysis of Green Technology Innovation Ecosystem Evolution at Carbon Peaking
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Chromium Remediation: Sorption of Chromium from Leaching Solutions of Refined
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/su17062727
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Application of Living Lab Concept: Where, How and for What Is Being Used in Europe to Support Energy, Social and Environmental Transition

by
Alba Arias
1,2,*,
Claudia Pennese
2,
Olatz Grijalba
2 and
Yousra Sidqi
1
1
Competence Center for Digital Energy and Electric Power, Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Technikumstrasse 21, 6048 Horw, Switzerland
2
CAVIAR Research Group, Department of Architecture, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Plaza Oñati 2, 20018 Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(6), 2727; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062727
Submission received: 24 February 2025 / Revised: 15 March 2025 / Accepted: 17 March 2025 / Published: 19 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Due to the current climate situation, it is necessary to apply new methods that support environmental, social, and energy challenges to respond to global emergencies. In this regard, Living Labs have increased their popularity as a strategic tool to promote innovation from the local level and proximity. This study aims to detect the patterns, trends, and coherence of the so-called Living Labs. For this purpose, a characterisation of Living Labs has been undertaken that focuses on energy, environmental, and social issues in Europe to support urban transition. It concludes that Living Labs do not have a single solution. They are highly influenced by the current European trends and promoted topics. They can be multi-dimensional (digital and physical), multi-scale (from small, such as the product, to large, such as the territory) and multi-purpose. It is determined that there is an absence of working in real-life environments and some of the Living Lab’s principles. Among the topics, the most common ones are social inclusion, environment, energy, health, and IoT. The implemented scale in a building and the product on the application scale are the most frequent ones. Urban Living Labs are identified as a niche opportunity because of their low current development.

1. Introduction

The climate-change crisis highlights the need for urgent and profound changes in our societies if detrimental impacts from severe climatic events, shortages, lack of social justice, and potential political instability are to be prevented [1]. In this regard, there are major environmental, social, and economic challenges to respond to this necessary transition and support global emergencies [2,3]. As scholars have shown, climate change has caused a significant impact on the human living environment [4,5]. Thus, it is sought to engage society towards a resilient, socio-ecologic, economic, and technical transformation solution which is action-oriented [6]. A majority of the challenges in tackling these issues have a substantial urban dimension; they appear mainly in and around cities, or seek their solutions in and through cities [7].
Due to this global emergency situation, over the last few years, at the discursive and strategic level, great strides have been made. Public institutions have tackled the problem through defining diverse programmes, strategies, agendas, and funds for finding sustainable approaches to address both environmental and social issues [8,9]. Notably, the Paris Agreement (2015) and the New Urban Agenda (NUA) in 2016 [10,11,12] can be highlighted. They focus on a legally binding international treaty on climate change, and a roadmap for future city growth, encouraging more socially inclusive, compact, and connected cities through city planning and design, governance, urban legislation, and financing [13]. European policymakers are also encouraged to promote sustainable, interdisciplinary, and hybridised approaches for innovation [14], driving towards more smart, sustainable, and efficient cities [15]. For example, EU’s Urban Agenda argues that an integrated and smart energy system is essential for climate-change mitigation, but also for the prosperity and liveability of Europe’s cities [16].
In addition, social innovation is becoming a priority on the political agenda, not only as a new way of addressing social problems, both in the public and private sectors, but also as an opportunity to respond to the multiple social, economic, and environmental crises faced by the current society [2,17]. To achieve a successful urban transformation towards more sustainable and resilient cities, potential future risks are reduced through the implementation of stakeholder engagement. Local stakeholders are key groups that should have the chance to express their opinion and to be empowered in order to contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of the project, product, or activity [18,19]. Even if the participative engagement of citizens and the different stakeholders present in cities is gaining importance as a step of the decision-making process, which is highlighted as fundamental for the development of successful projects [18], and the co-creation processes are progressively gaining significance, engagement activities are still a big challenge for the society as the 2019 SDG Report [20] comments. Two of the problems encountered when implementing engagement actions are: 1. The range of the actors involved is low due to the limited resources and the used methodology. 2. In many cases, the people involved in the processes are always the same, they are already interested and committed to, and, in many cases, they could not be considered as a representative sample of the society [21]. For these reasons, it is necessary to look for new ways to broaden the outreach, being able to engage a wider spectrum of people that, in addition, should be representative of the society in which the project is being implemented.
Furthermore, it has been detected that the actual transformation is not happening as fast as it should [22]. These strategies are hard to implement, and new governance, practical instruments and strategies [23], in which it is crucial to involve society in the change [24], have to be found. In this regard, scholars have seen that the Living Lab approach can be one of these strategies to implement and boost the expected urban transition [25]. Its concept has increased in popularity [26] and has gained momentum in recent years [27,28]. Living Labs have been created as a strategic tool, as user-centred spaces [29], to promote research, open innovation, co-creation, implementation, development, and testing of strategies, policies, and social inclusion activities from the local and proximity levels [30]. They are conducted in real communities and environments within a Public–Private–People Partnership (PPPP) through an iterative experiential design process [14], as a space for meetings and exchanges between plural stakeholders [31]. And, above all, oriented towards citizens, which have great potential as active agents and an essential role as actors of change [32]. Thus, Living Labs become a common space for experimentation in which new approaches to sustainable urban development are highly connected to support evidence-based policymaking [33,34]. Taking into account that the city can be considered as a system of systems [35], different scales could be addressed, such as products, technology, or solutions which are part of a building, urban and/or territorial environment scale and are tailored to citizen’s needs (human scale), their health, and comfort and, therefore, improving their quality of life [36]. Although the Living Lab concept was born two decades ago [37], its promotion was boosted in 2006 with the establishment of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) [38]. Nowadays, the definition most commonly accepted, which will be considered in this study, is the one proposed by the ENoLL, which defines the Living Labs as “user-centred open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings” [39]. This definition differs from other test-environment approaches such as test beds, hubs, and labs, where real-life settings and co-creation activities with a PPPP approach are mainly missing [40].
The nature of Living Labs depends on several variables, such as the objective, target group, context, etc. Similarly, they can have different scales of application (product, building, urban, etc.) and location (building, city, territory, etc.) and can be physical or virtual environments. They also deal with a range of topics and are applied in different fields [39,41]. Furthermore, multiple Living Labs are supporting the use of the process so-called Living Lab Integrative Process (LLIP), which is based on the principles of the design thinking approach, as a methodology used to develop projects in an iterative and participative way [42]. Thus, as ENoLL states, there is not a one-size-fits-all methodology for all Living Labs. Nevertheless, they all combine and tailor user-centric co-creation methodologies to best suit their purpose (multi-method approach) [43]. For example, the HSB Living Lab is located in a building where researchers and students live on a permanent basis, and is used for research and development in a real environment. It has PPPP collaboration and works on finding building solutions for the sustainable life of the future [44]. The Turin Living Lab, which is looking for a liveable and adaptive city, it is focused on the topics of the energy, mobility, water, and waste sectors. The city has established strategic partnerships between actors, shaping a dynamic network where they can research and innovate along with the civil society [45]. In the case of the Bristol Living Lab, which is a community-driven Living Lab, it is composed by citizens, artists, technologists, researchers, businesses, and public-sector organisations who come together to create and test new ideas, tools, and technologies to address the challenges faced both locally and globally such as damp homes, food waste, the quality of the air perceived by citizens, physical activity accessibility, or mental health issues. It is implemented in a range of environments such as homes, public spaces, and gardens [46]. Another example is Licalab, which is focused on medical care, (patient) rehabilitation, care technology, assisted living, active and healthy ageing, and preventative healthcare, and supports businesses and organisations by including end users (citizens, patients, care professionals, …) from the very beginning of the development process until market introduction [47].
Different studies have analysed the Living Lab approach as reviewed by Hossain et al. [39], from the point of view of (i) exploring the key paradigms of Living Labs with a specific focus on open and user innovation, as well as (ii) synthesising the characteristics of Living Labs, and (iii) pointing out future research avenues for Living Labs. In addition, Hossain et al. [39] highlight that the concept of the Living Lab is not yet well integrated, and even if a collaborative real-life environment with a PPPP engagement is a main requirement of Living Labs, there sometimes exists a discrepancy between this approach and the existing reality. A fact that may lead to confusion between the different lab terms discussed above.
This paper has the aim of bringing clarification to these issues. The present study will concentrate on the case of Europe, examining Living Labs that promote social, energy, and environmental issues at different levels of application and implementation. The most common objectives and addressed topics will be identified, as well as the patterns, trends, weaknesses, and coherence of the so-called Living Lab with respect to the current definition of Living Labs. Thus, the main objective of this research is to understand how the Living Lab method is being implemented, at which level, and for what, understanding what role they play in the urban transformation and detecting possible inconsistencies in their application.

2. Materials and Methods

This study has been carried out by analysing the available public documentation on Living Labs. A literature search has been undertaken through multiple sources such as shared data from Living Labs webpages, ENoLL website, proceedings, and scientific publications. Their characterisation has been conducted by means of a qualitative interpretation of the data and a further quantitative analysis. For the selection of the Living Labs to be studied, a series of filtering has been conducted: the research was narrowed down to European Living Labs and those Living Labs which have energy, environment, or social inclusion among their main topics. Topics which have been detected as trending topics and niches of opportunity at the European level to promote urban transition [2]. A total of 95 Living Labs implemented in different European countries have been assessed (see Figure 1). Most Living Labs are implemented in a single country, but there are some that operate in several countries.
The analysis consists of three main steps (see Figure 2). As a first step, a characterisation of the Living Labs has been conducted. This was followed by a second step focused on the assessment of the results of the characterisation. From this assessment, during the third step, the alignment of the Living Labs studied has been analysed, with the Living Lab definition and methodology.
Step 1, characterisation of the Living Labs: A series of features has been taken into account, as shown in Table 1. On the one hand, the geographical level is considered, with regard to related aspects in the implementation of the Living Lab such as application scale (scales on which it focuses its work), dimension (if the work is carried out virtually or physically in a space) or the location of implementation (where it is placed). In addition, the year of creation of the Living Labs is outlined to frame them within the timeline. On the other hand, in order to observe trends in the Living Labs, the main aims that each Living Lab promotes through its activity and the fields of application in which it is focused have also been detected.
Step 2, assessment of the results of the Living Lab characterisation. A thorough analysis was performed to detect possible patterns and trends. Different levels of evaluation were conducted. First, each characteristic or feature was analysed separately. Secondly, for a further understanding of Living Labs’ patterns and trends, and to detect if the results of each characteristic are correlated, several aspects were analysed at the same time (e.g., whether the location of implementation is related to the application scale and dimension of the Living Lab, the topics, or aims, whether the promotion of the different topics can be closely linked to the timeframe, etc.). Thirdly, the evolution of these characteristics has been assessed over time to detect possible trends and alignments with the EU strategies.
Step 3, alignment of the Living Labs studied with the Living Lab definition and methodology. It has been assessed whether the Living Labs studied fulfil the current most accepted definition of LL [39,53] (“Living Labs (LLs) are open innovation ecosystems in real-life environments using iterative feedback processes throughout a lifecycle approach of an innovation to create sustainable impact. They focus on co-creation, rapid prototyping & testing, and scaling-up innovations & businesses, providing (different types of) joint-value to the involved stakeholders. In this context, Living Labs operate as intermediaries/orchestrators among citizens, research organizations, companies and government agencies/levels”). Therefore, the problem encountered in the literature on the inconsistencies between the reality of Living Labs and the definition of Living Labs is analysed, detecting if it is still topical or, on the contrary, has been alleviated. In line with this, it has also been investigated whether the Living Labs analysed are integrating the concept of LLIP [52] and their approach or not. For this purpose, it has been considered that a Living Lab that contemplates the aims “train”, “co-create”, “engage”, “test”, “context analysis”, “knowledge exchange”, and “research” is potentially utilising the LLIP approach.

3. Results

This section presents the results obtained during the characterisation of the Living Labs (see Table 2). These will be exposed, taking into account the data assessment process explained in the methodology. The results presented in this section are presented primarily in percentages to facilitate interpretation.

3.1. Analysis of the Characterisation

Despite the Living Lab characterisation having been narrowed to the Living Labs that include at least energy, social inclusion, and/or environment as one of their main topics, only two of the studied Living Labs are mainly focused on only one theme [45,67]. It is more common to deal with different topics at the same time. The most common topics are “social inclusion” (84% of Living Labs studied), “IoT” (73% of Living Labs), “environment” (67% of Living Labs), “health and well-being” (62% of Living Labs), and “energy” (57% of Living Labs), as shown in Figure 3. Nevertheless, it was detected that 34% (32 Living Labs) encompassed at least these five topics. In addition, from these 32 Living Labs, regarding their application level, it was detected that 28 out of the 32 Living Labs deal with the product level of application, 11 with the territorial level, and 6 with the building level. All those that deal with territorial and building levels at the same time also deal with product. Furthermore, except for one of each, all those that handle the territorial or building scale also address the product scale.
In addition, when regarding all 72 possible combinations of topics detected, among the most frequent ones, within the top 10 out of the 72 possible combinations, the same 5 topics are repeated in almost all 10, as shown in Figure 4.
As represented in Figure 5, most of the Living Labs studied have a physical dimension (88 out of the 95 analysed or 93% of them), i.e., they take place in real physical spaces. A small percentage (7% of the Living Labs studied) have only a virtual dimension. It means the implementation and interaction with the different stakeholders are made at the digital level through websites, apps, etc. However, 36 of the physical Living Labs also use digital platforms as a space for experimentation and testing, which have been considered in this study as Living Labs having a physical + virtual dimension. Over half of the Living Labs with a physical dimension are implemented in a building (60% of Living Labs out of the total of Living Labs studied). However, not all of them operate on a building scale, only 12% do so. Most focus on product scale (86% of the Living Labs). In addition, 16% also deal with the territorial application scale, 19% with the human application scale, and only 18% with the city application scale. Regarding those implemented on platforms, most combine the virtual location with a physical one. In this case, the most frequent application scale is also product (85% of them). Territorial (30%) and the city application scale (23%) are also applied in the Living Labs implemented in platforms. Focusing on the purely virtual Living Labs (nine Living Labs out of the total), 67% of them deal with the product application scale, 11% also address the local scale, and 22% of the virtual Living Labs address the human scale. The rest of the application scales are not dealt with in the platform implementation scale.
The number of Living Labs implemented in districts and cities is similar (15% of the total of the Living Labs studied). Territory-scale implementation is slightly lower, reaching 8% of the total of Living Labs assessed. When analysing their scale of application, it is observed that, despite being located at the urban level, they have a high focus on the product scale of application: 62% in districts, 46% in cities, and 75% in territory. Concerning the district implementation scale, it can also be highlighted that 46% of the Living Labs address the product level, and 69% have an application scale that is the same one as its implementation scale (i.e., district–district). Furthermore, in the case of Living Labs implemented in cities, it is observed that 85% also address the city at application scale and 38% at territory scale. In the case of Living Labs implemented in the territory, as frequently as the product is the application scale of territory (75%), followed by city and regional applications’ scales (25%).
Without taking into account the implementation scale of the Living Labs, it can be observed that most of them work on the scale of the product (81%), followed by the city (24%) and the territorial scale (23%). The least-addressed scales are national, worldwide (1%), and local (4%) (Figure 6). Nevertheless, most of the Living Labs studied do not deal with a single application scale but with a combination of them. For this reason, it has been analysed which combinations are the most repeated ones. Regarding these three application scales that are separately the most frequent ones (product, city, and territorial), in Figure 6 it is observed that city and territory are commonly linked to product (74% and 91% out of the total Living Labs that contain these scales). These two are also combined 30% of the time (city + territory). However, in the case of the product application scale, it is combined with other scales such as human and local (16%), building (12%), or regional (13%).
In addition to these first findings, it has been observed that out of the Living Labs studied, there were 29 different possible combinations of application scales. Among these combinations, it also considers the option of Living Labs that only apply to a single scale. The 10 most repeated ones are shown in Figure 7, where it is observed that this top ten always includes the product application scale except for two cases (fifth and tenth place). The product application scale without combining it with any other scale is the most frequent one (22%), followed by combining it with the territorial (13%), city (11%), and human (7%) scales. The district and city scales by themselves are also frequent (5% and 4% of the Living Labs, respectively).
When focusing on the objectives of the Living Labs, the most common targets in the Living Labs in absolute numbers are “co-create” (88% of them), followed by “test” (79% of the Living Labs) and “research” (57%), as shown in Figure 8. As is the case of scales of application, it is rare for a Living Lab to have a single goal; they most commonly have a combination of several. Regarding the two goals that are more common among Living Labs in overall terms (co-create and test), when combined, 69% of the Living Labs include both. Considering the combination of the three most common ones (co-create, test, and research), 43% of the total of the Living Labs have them. In addition, 47% of Living Labs incorporate both “test” and “research”, while 53% incorporate “co-create” and “research”. When the focus is narrowed to Living Labs with an urban application scale, 82% have both “co-create” and “test goals” as aims, and almost two-thirds of them also include “research”.
Focusing on the main aims, 54 different possible combinations were detected. As before, in these combinations, the option of Living Labs having only one aim is also considered (see Figure 9). Focusing on the top 10 of these 54 combinations, it is highlighted that the aim “co-create” is always included. “test” also appears in 7 out of the top 10 combinations. The strict combination of the aims “co-create”, “test”, and “research” is repeated in 15% of Living Labs out of the total. Nevertheless, when looking at whether they have these three objectives but are not strictly limited to these, the percentage increases to 43% of Living Labs. The findings also reveal an integration of “co-create”, “test”, and “research” in conjunction with other objectives, including “train” (79% of them) and “share knowledge” (86% of them).

3.2. Evolution of the Living Labs over Time

Focusing on the timeline of the creation of the Living Labs studied, it can be seen that the concept started to gain importance in 2016, with a considerable increase in their creation in 2021. As shown in Figure 10, firstly, regarding the scale of application, it is observed that the “product” is promoted the most throughout the study period. Secondly, the “building” scale appears for the first time in 2000 and punctually over the rest of the period. A first push in 2016 and a more significant promotion in 2021 is noted. A similar development occurs with the “city” application scale. In the case of the “district”, it does not appear until 2016, and its major promotion is in 2021. At the ‘territorial’ level, it has several years in which different Living Labs included it, namely 2007, 2011, 2016, and 2021. In the case of the “human” scale, it emerges in the first decade of the 2000s and then disappears until 2019, returning with greater force in 2021 and 2022. Focusing on the topics in 1997, Living Labs were focused on “social innovation”, “entrepreneurship”, “educational”, and “IoT”. During the first decade of the 2000s, the rest of the topics began to be promoted, highlighting the “environment”, “energy”, “health and well-being”, “culture and creativity” and “food and agriculture”, in addition to the initial ones. These issues continue to grow in interest throughout the following decade and the early 2020s. It is worth noting that themes such as “public services” or “vitality” did not emerge until 2008 and 2016, respectively. Among the Living Labs studied, the first one that has a focus on mobility was created in 1999. Nevertheless, as in the case of “public services” and “vitality”, its promotion is, in general terms, very low. Regarding the significant peaks of Living Lab creation, i.e., 2016, 2021 and 2022, the five most promoted themes are “energy”, “environment”, “health and well-being”, “social inclusion”, and “IoT”.

3.3. Analysis of Fulfilment of the Current Most Accepted Definition of Living Lab and of Level of Integration of LLIP Concept

Finally, regarding the LLIP, it is observed that 1% of Living Labs out of the total are aligned with it. In the same way, reviewing the definition of Living Labs established by ENoLL, from which it has been extracted that the Living Labs should include at least the aims “co-create”, “engage”, “knowledge exchange”, and “research”, it is observed that 16% of Living Labs out of the total have this combination of objectives. Out of these, 27% of them have a scale of implementation in a building, but the scale of application is not the same, being on a bigger scale such as district, city, and local, or smaller scale such as product. In addition, out of the 62 Living Labs analysed that are certified by ENoLL, 9 (15% of ENoLL-certified Living Labs) would address all these aims. Furthermore, when regarding Living Labs with an urban application scale, it is detected that almost half (45%) of the Living Labs studied that have a district application scale meet the combination of the four goals mentioned for Living Lab definition. Similar results are observed for those Living Labs that apply at a local scale (50% of them include the four objectives). In the rest of the scales, the percentage is low, not achieving more than 17% in any case (see Figure 11).

4. Discussion

4.1. Overview of Living Labs Characteristics

Through the study, it has been observed that there are different types of Living Labs, usually addressing several topics, dimensions, and scales of implementation and application. Regarding the dimensions, although most of them have a physical dimension, which allows them to establish physical real-life settings, it is also observed that at least half of the Living Labs also include a digital dimension. This fits with the current accelerating process of digitalisation that is promoted by Europe, among others, by the European Green Deal [68]. These virtual Living Labs are linked to the virtual world (metaverse) [69], which enables one to interact with a wide number of people at a low cost and in a short time [70]. On the other hand, physical Living Labs allow for face-to-face interactions, which greatly stimulate engagement and facilitate co-creation processes and tacit knowledge sharing [71]. Thus, the fact of having both dimensions could help to increase the scope of the projects carried out in the Living Labs.
Concerning the topics on which the Living Labs are dedicated, despite having narrowed the Living Labs’ study to the topics of energy, environment, and social inclusion, it is noted that IoT and health and well-being are among the most promoted, even more than energy. Issues, along with digitalisation, were found to be aligned with the European Union strategy and 2030 Agenda [2,72]. Nevertheless, it is also highlighted that all the topics addressed by the Living Labs studied are related to the SDG as other studies have already detected [73]. Nevertheless, in addition to those already highlighted in [73], such as SDG 3 Good health and well-being, SGD 4 Quality education, SDG 7 Affordable and clean energy, SDG 10 Reduction inequalities, SDG 11 Sustainable cities and communities, SDG 12 Responsible consumption and production, and SDG 13 Climate action, it has been noted that other goals are currently also promoted by the Living Labs, as is the case of SDG 5 Gender equality, SDG 8 Decent work and economic growth or SDG 9 Industry, innovation, and infrastructure. Furthermore, it has been observed that the trans-disciplinary approach is among the main characteristics of SDG-focused research, which is also in line with the Living Lab methodology and its incorporation of the quadruple helix in the process [74].
In this study, two scales have been differentiated: the one in which the Living Lab is established (considered as the implementation scale) and the scale in which the Living Lab approach is applied for co-creating, testing, and experimenting with solutions, ideas, strategies, etc. (the so-called application scale). The results highlight that these scales do not always coincide. It is also common that a Living Lab deals with multiple scales in both cases. The most common ones are the building on the implementation scale, and the product on the application scale. This insight is aligned with the framework in which the Living Lab concept was born: the private company was looking for new strategies to increase the success of the developed innovations [37,41]. However, considering that Living Labs should be implemented in real-life environments, it is observed that, on occasion, the combination of implementation and application scale is not consistent with this definition. For example, it is observed that, despite being Living Labs implemented in a building, it is usual that one or more of their scales of application are urban (city, territorial, global, local, regional, or district), which indicates that they are not being carried out in real-life contexts, but in controlled environments. In this case, it would be more appropriate to utilise alternative terminology that does not imply real-life setting, such as “test beds”. Nevertheless, another interpretation of this result could be that these are Living Labs that focus on the initial phases of the Living Lab methodology, e.g., engagement, context analysis, training, and co-creation, but not in the testing phase. This is the case, for example, of EVCELL Living Lab [44], which deals with territorial scales of application but is implemented in a building. This situation may give rise to potential confusion regarding the full application of the Living Lab methodology. In this instance, the Living Lab is predominantly focused on the initial phases of the LLIP, including engagement and awareness-raising, training, and context analysis. The testing phase is approached as an extrapolation from the territorial scale, emphasising feasible issues within the museum context. For example, it may involve exploring incentive mechanisms to increase citizen participation.
It is also observed that urban scales of application are often accompanied by smaller scales such as product. This may indicate the intercorrelation between the scales that the authors of [35] explain in their study, considering a city as a system of systems. Moreover, system change can be considered as a multi-actor and multi-scale process [75]. This is the case of the Living Lab of Pamplona [76], which is focused on the transition of a district towards a Positive Energy District (PED). In it, the Living Lab is implemented at the district level and has different application levels, such as product (e.g., a product for renewable energy production or energy control at the building level), building (e.g., solutions to improve the energy efficiency and comfort of the building), and urban (co-creating and experimenting new urban spaces and mobility strategies for the district).
Focusing on the urban level per se, although there are Living Labs at the urban scale, mainly at the territorial (21% of Living Labs) and city (28% of Living Labs) levels, there is a clear difference with the product scale (82% of Living Labs). Notwithstanding the increase in Urban Living Labs in recent years and the high promotion of this approach by European countries [77], little implementation at these scales is detected in the current study, and occasionally, a lack of experimentation in real-life settings. It should be highlighted that working at the urban scale in real settings requires a greater integration and participation of local agents [45], as well as a high level of coordination between them [48]. The collaboration of public and private stakeholders, as well as citizens, is necessary for a more successful implementation [78]. Aims that are complicated to achieve, as the engagement and involvement of the community and the local stakeholders is one of the current issues that projects are facing [79]. All these issues can make the development of Living Labs with an urban or territorial scale of implementation and application more complicated than the product one. Being necessary to further analyse their usefulness and success on a large scale.

4.2. Living Labs’ Evolution over Time

By observing the evolution of Living Labs from 1997 to the present day (2023), three key dates have been identified on which Living Labs have been created. These dates are closely related in time to European events. In 2006, the creation of ENoLL [80] helped to promote the establishment of a Living Labs network and to give them visibility, both at the European and global levels. In 2015, the Paris Agreement took place [81] where the climate emergency was declared and plans were developed and established to improve the situation during the following years such as the Urban Agenda or New Urban Agenda (NUA) in 2016 [2]. In these years, the number of Living Labs concentrating on new products increased accordingly, but also those at the building and urban level (district, city and territory) became more popular. This makes sense since the new strategies look after innovative solutions to support urban transition but mainly focus on solutions to improve the energy efficiency of the buildings. In 2020, the New Research and Innovation Framework Programme Horizon Europe started [82,83], which has among its objectives open innovation, generating new knowledge and technologies, digitalisation, climate-neutral cities, well-being, social inclusion, and the promotion of collaborative projects where the quadruple helix is represented [84]. This corresponds not only to an increase in the creation of Living Labs that follow these goals but also in their development in general. Not just oriented on the product, but also on other urban scales and aims such as social issues and the health and well-being of the end-user as a result of a better and more efficient use of both natural and technological resources. In 2017, the European Pillar of Social Rights [85] was published, which considers between the 20 principles to be ensured, including gender equality. Living Labs that have a special focus on this issue were promoted during the same period. Nevertheless, despite the establishment of the Gender Equality strategy in 2020 [86], there are no Living Labs that have promoted this theme as a main priority from 2020 onwards.

4.3. Alignment with Living Lab Concepts: LLIP and LL Definition

Regarding LLIP, it is observed that almost no Living Lab have these objectives as the main ones. This may be due to several reasons. First, it could be that the LLIP is not considered as the main objective. Secondly, not all the steps of the LLIP, and only some, are being implemented, so the Living Labs are not completely fulfilling this process. Thirdly, it could also be possible that the concept of LLIP is not being taken into account in the Living Lab and other kinds of processes are being considered. Finally, related to the former, the LLIP concept was established as such by Mastelic in 2019 [87], a time when the growth of Living Labs was increasing (the analysis shows that 46% of the Living Labs studied were established between 2019 and 2023), and it may not yet be widespread enough to be integrated as such into the Living Labs studied. It may become more popular in the years to come, helping to standardise the process of Living Labs’ development and a common strategy, which so far seems to be so varied [43].
The objectives that have been considered in this study as the minimum to meet the most commonly accepted definition of Living Lab (co-create, test, knowledge exchange, and research), coincide with those that are the most repeated ones in terms of total numbers (when it is calculated as the number of times that each aim separately is repeated, without taking into account if the others are also addressed at the same time by the same Living Lab). However, when analysing the number of Living Labs that include all four at the same time, the number decreases drastically. This highlights that not all so-called Living Labs have among their main objectives as the Living Lab definition itself. Moreover, out of this percentage of Living Labs that do apply the Living Lab definition among their main objectives, almost half (45%) could be considered doubtful about their capacity to have real-life environments, because they are implemented in buildings and have the urban scales among their scales of application. All this could mean that Living Labs do not have among their main goals what defines them as Living Labs, or that they only meet the definition halfway, lacking bidirectionality, application in real-life settings, and research to support innovation in the process. These results may also mean a lack of knowledge of the Living Lab methodology [88,89] and what should be addressed to be considered as a Living Lab [39], facts that lead to using Living Lab terms without applying them correctly. This could also be related to a possible difficulty in differentiating between Living Labs, testbeds, and other types of labs [40]. Furthermore, to these insights, it is also detected that, despite the low level of Living Labs that include the above-mentioned goals at the same time, the Living Labs that address the district and local application have the highest rate of achievement of the Living Lab definition out of the total of Living Labs studied per application scale. In the case of the district level, this could be related to the period in which this type of Living Lab is gaining momentum (2021). In the case of the local level, due to the low level of Living Labs that apply at this scale, the results cannot be considered conclusive.
Additionally, the majority of the Living Labs studied, 69%, would include the objectives “co-create” and “test”, but only around two-thirds include “research”. Considering that all innovation begins with research [90], these results could indicate a lack of innovation in the process and the difficulty of including academia with a research and innovator role that is acknowledged by other stakeholders involved during the process. This is an issue detected along all scales of application, so it could be considered that is not linked to the scale of application. In the case of urban scale, some scholars comment that the lack of research activities could be related to the fact that the activities of the Living Lab are conducted to improve the quality of life of citizens [91].
Although the promotion of Living Labs is gaining momentum, these results affirm what other scholars have already pointed out. There is no Living Lab standardisation whatsoever [40,92]. There is a lack of a clear common methodology and knowledge of the Living Lab approach and the definition of Living Lab is left very open [40], and even if there is one definition that is more commonly accepted, there are multiple definitions of Living Lab, as other scholars have already highlighted [93]. This can lead to a ‘misuse’ of the term and consequent confusion among the actors involved.

5. Conclusions

In the present study, a characterisation study of 95 Living Labs has been carried out. A qualitative and quantitative analysis has been conducted to understand their role in the energy, social, and environmental issues within the urban transformation, detecting weaknesses and also the coherence of the so-called Living Lab concerning what is currently considered the definition and terminology of the Living Lab.
Living Labs do not have a single solution or way of doing things. In this manner, they can be multi-dimensional (digital and physical dimension), multi-scale (dealing with one or more scales ranging from small, such as the product, to large, such as the territory) and multi-purpose (joining different topics aligned with SDGs, United Nations and European Strategies). Among the topics, the most common ones are social inclusion, environment, energy, health, and IoT. Issues that are being promoted on the urban transition towards more sustainable cities at the European level. Considering that the city is a system of systems and is therefore made up of different scales; to carry out the urban transition, it is necessary to work on all of these scales. Thus, it can be considered that not only the Living Labs defined as “urban” are supporting the urban transition. In this regard, the results show that the most common application scale is the product, which is developed through a specific building (implementation scale).
In addition, it has also been detected that the Living Lab approach is often used without completely fulfilling the defining characteristics of its approach. In particular, the results show that the Living Labs scale of implementation (where the Living Lab is established) is often smaller than the scale of application scale (at what scale the activities of the Living Lab are carried out). This leads to the absence of working in real-life environments. An issue that can create confusion and misunderstanding of what a Living Lab is and a disparity between Living Lab theory and practice, especially concerning scales of application and implementation. In addition, it is also detected that the recently defined LLIP concept is still not commonly fully integrated by the Living Labs.

5.1. Future Directions and Opportunities

Regarding potential areas where Living Labs could be developed, it is noted that the urban and building transition level could have a great impact. It is an avenue still to be further developed and has a lot of potential, as it is currently actively supported and promoted by European strategies. Special attention has to be paid to the use of real-life settings for experimenting with co-created solutions, ideas, or strategies. Thus, the Living Lab methodology could become a key approach for the urban transition towards more sustainable and resilient cities. Regarding topics addressed by Living Labs, an emphasis can be placed on the creation of Living Labs that focus on topics that have been or are currently less developed through a Living Lab approach, but Europe is nowadays promoting, such as, for example, mobility and gender equality, which are topical but so far have taken a more secondary role. Due to the ease of scaling-up, because they can go beyond territorial barriers and apply to different contexts and realities, virtual Living Labs should be seen as a potential field to be further investigated and thoroughly explored for their applicability at other scales of application than only the product one. These types of Living Labs can deal with a currently promoted and trending topic, digitalisation, and the topics related to it (IoT, artificial intelligence, etc.).
Thus, it is considered that to avoid misinformation, misuse of terms, bad practices, incorrect development of the methodology, etc., the Living Lab community should work together in a standardisation of the basis to guide actors in the definition, development and implementation of Living Labs, helping them to achieve greater success in their objectives.

5.2. Limitations and Further Research

The present study is based on an interpretation of available public data on Living Labs. Additional studies are necessary to be able to accurately confirm the results and conclusions presented above. In particular, it is considered necessary to further assess the Living Labs that do not meet the definition of Living Lab and LLIP according to the analysis conducted. So, it can be studied if this generic analysis is, in fact, accurate or if, on the contrary, these results are constrained by the limited accessible data that are shared by the Living Labs with which the study has been performed. This thorough study would also allow us to understand how it is possible to have an implementation scale smaller than the application scale and, at the same time, follow the Living Lab methodology and, therefore, maintain the logic of working in real-life environments.
Regarding the Living Lab definition, this issue should be studied in more detail to define whether the definition should be adapted to include this whole range of different Living Labs or whether, on the contrary, an assessment should be carried out to define which are Living Labs and which are not, assigning to each one the type of lab that fits their characteristics. The implementation in real environments is one of Living Labs’ most powerful features. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of the problems encountered in achieving such implementation, as well as the solutions found to address them, should be carried out, analysing the possibility of creating general guidelines and the establishment of a process that supports Living Labs on the creation of an active and engaged stakeholder’s ecosystem.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A. and O.G.; methodology, A.A. and O.G.; software, A.A.; validation, A.A., O.G. and Y.S.; formal analysis, A.A. and C.P.; investigation, A.A.; resources, A.A.; data curation, A.A. and Y.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.; writing—review and editing, C.P., O.G. and Y.S.; visualisation, A.A.; supervision, O.G. and Y.S.; project administration, Y.S.; funding acquisition, Y.S. and A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research has been funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy SFOE under contract number SI/502566 and contract number SI/502694, by the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant number IZSEZ0_219008 and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme under Grant agreement No. 101037080 (oPEN Lab project). Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Eichhorn, J.; Molthof, L.; Nicke, S. From Climate Change Awareness to Climate Crisis Action: Public Perceptions in Europe and the United States; Open Society Foundations. European Polici Institute: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arias, A.; Otamendi-Irizar, I.; Grijalba, O.; Oregi, X.; Hernandez-Minguillon, R.J. Surveillance and Foresight Process of the Sustainable City Context: Innovation Potential Niches and Trends at the European Level. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ameen, R.; Mourshed, M. Environmental, Social and Economic Challenges for Urban Development: Stakeholder’s Perception in a Developing Economy. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering 2016, Osaka, Japan, 6–8 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  4. Yang, Y.; Xu, H.; Wang, J.; Liu, T.; Wang, H. Integrating climate change factor into strategic environmental assessment in China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 89, 106585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. European Parliament. European Parliament Resolution UN Climate Change Conference Madrid COP 25 (2019/2712(RSP). COP25 Climate Change Conference in Madrid, 2019. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2019-0079_EN.html (accessed on 12 October 2024).
  6. Perspectives on Transitions to Sustainability; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017.
  7. European Commission. The Urban Dimension of EU Policies—Key Features of an EU Urban Agenda. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information-sources/publications/communications/2014/the-urban-dimension-of-eu-policies-key-features-of-an-eu-urban-agenda_en (accessed on 15 February 2025).
  8. Elmqvist, T.; Andersson, E.; Frantzeskaki, N.; McPhearson, T.; Olsson, P.; Gaffney, O.; Takeuchi, K.; Folke, C. Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chelleri, L.; Baravikova, A. Understandings of urban resilience meanings and principles across Europe. Cities 2021, 108, 102985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. United Nations. The Paris Agreement. What is the Paris Agreement? Available online: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement (accessed on 12 September 2024).
  11. Las Casas, G.; Scorza, F.; Murgante, B. New Urban Agenda and Open Challenges for Urban and Regional Planning. In New Metropolitan Perspectives; Calabrò, F., Della Spina, L., Bevilacqua, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 282–288. ISBN 978-3-319-92098-6. [Google Scholar]
  12. Göswein, V.; Silvestre, J.D.; Sousa Monteiro, C.; Habert, G.; Freire, F.; Pittau, F. Influence of material choice, renovation rate, and electricity grid to achieve a Paris Agreement-compatible building stock: A Portuguese case study. Build. Environ. 2021, 195, 107773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Caprotti, F.; Cowley, R.; Datta, A.; Broto, V.C.; Gao, E.; Georgeson, L.; Herrick, C.; Odendaal, N.; Joss, S. The New Urban Agenda: Key opportunities and challenges for policy and practice. Urban Res. Pract. 2017, 10, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Compagnucci, L.; Spigarelli, F.; Coelho, J.; Duarte, C. Living Labs and user engagement for innovation and sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jacques, E.d.A.; Júnior, A.N.; de Paris, S.; Francescatto, M.B.; Nunes, R.F.B. Smart City Actions Integrated into Urban Planning: Management of Urban Environments by Thematic Areas. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Energy Transition Partnership. Urban Agenda for the EU. Action Plan, 2019. Available online: https://www.urbanagenda.urban-initiative.eu/sites/default/files/2023-03/Action%20Plan_Energy%20Transition.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2025).
  17. Grimm, R.; Fox, C.; Baines, S.; Albertson, K. Social innovation, an answer to contemporary societal challenges? Locating the concept in theory and practice. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2013, 26, 436–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kyriakopoulos, G.L.; Sebos, I. Enhancing Climate Neutrality and Resilience through Coordinated Climate Action: Review of the Synergies between Mitigation and Adaptation Actions. Climate 2023, 11, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. European Commission: Bureau of European Policy Advisers. Social Innovation—A Decade of Changes—A BEPA Report, 2014. Available online: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2796/27161 (accessed on 12 September 2024).
  20. Hák, T.; Janoušková, S.; Moldan, B. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lang, D.J.; Wiek, A.; Bergmann, M.; Stauffacher, M.; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M.; Thomas, C.J. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Valencia, S.C.; Simon, D.; Croese, S.; Nordqvist, J.; Oloko, M.; Sharma, T.; Taylor Buck, N.; Versace, I. Adapting the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda to the city level: Initial reflections from a comparative research project. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2019, 11, 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  24. Huttunen, S.; Ojanen, M.; Ott, A.; Saarikoski, H. What about citizens? A literature review of citizen engagement in sustainability transitions research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 91, 102714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Florez Ayala, D.H.; Alberton, A.; Ersoy, A. Urban Living Labs: Pathways of Sustainability Transitions towards Innovative City Systems from a Circular Economy Perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Paskaleva, K.; Cooper, I. Are living labs effective? Exploring the evidence. Technovation 2021, 106, 102311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vicari Haddock, S.; Mingione, E. Innovazione sociale e città. Sociol. Urbana Rural. 2017, 2017, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Magalhães, T.; Andion, C.; Alperstedt, G.D. Social innovation living labs and public action: An analytical framework and a methodological route based on pragmatism. Cad. EBAPE BR 2020, 18, 680–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Puerari, E.; de Koning, J.I.J.C.; von Wirth, T.; Karré, P.M.; Mulder, I.J.; Loorbach, D.A. Co-Creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Niitamo, V.-P.; Kulkki, S.; Eriksson, M.; Hribernik, K.A. State-of-the-art and good practice in the field of living labs. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE), Milan, Italy, 26–28 June 2006; pp. 1–8, ISBN 978-1-5090-0599-4. [Google Scholar]
  31. Schuurman, D.; Baccarne, B.; de Marez, L.; Veeckman, C.; Ballon, P. Living Labs as open innovation systems for knowledge exchange: Solutions for sustainable innovation development. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2016, 10, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Razzoli, D.; Montanari, F.; Di Paola, G. Identità Territoriale e Senso del Luogo nei Processi di Innovazione Sociale e Rigenerazione Urbana: Il Caso Sassari Living Lab; Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Nesti, G. Living Labs: A New Tool for Co-production? In Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions; Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Stephens, R., Elisei, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 267–281. ISBN 978-3-319-44898-5. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tuttoggi. Urban Center Anche a Spoleto, per Progettare la Città del Futuro. Available online: https://tuttoggi.info/urban-center-anche-a-spoleto-per-progettare-la-citta-del-futuro/320408/ (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  35. Bi, C.; Little, J.C. Integrated assessment across building and urban scales: A review and proposal for a more holistic, multi-scale, system-of-systems approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 82, 103915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ponce, P.; Rojas, M.; Mendez, J.I.; Anthony, B.; Bradley, R.; Fayek, A.R. Smart City Products and Their Materials Assessment Using the Pentagon Framework. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2025, 9, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ceseracciu, C.; Branca, G.; Deriu, R.; Roggero, P.P. Using the right words or using the words right? Re-conceptualising living labs for systemic innovation in socio-ecological systems. J. Rural Stud. 2023, 104, 103154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bhatta, A.; Vreugdenhil, H.; Slinger, J. Characterizing nature-based living labs from their seeds in the past. Environ. Dev. 2024, 49, 100959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hossain, M.; Leminen, S.; Westerlund, M. A systematic review of living lab literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 976–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ballon, P.; Schuurman, D. Living labs: Concepts, tools and cases. info 2015, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Leminen, S.; Westerlund, M. Living labs: From scattered initiatives to a global movement. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2019, 28, 250–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zimmermann, F.; Ponomareva, A.; Spagnoli, F.; White, M.D.L.R. Capacity Building Handbook and Mentoring Report for the Set Up and Implementation of Positive Energy Neighbourhoods Through a Living Lab Approach, 2023. Available online: https://openlab-project.eu/app/uploads/D1-4_Capacity-Building-Handbook-Mentoring-report-89.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  43. van den Heuvel, R.H.R.; Braun, S.; de Bruin, M.; Daniëls, R. A Closer Look at the Role of Higher Education in Living Labs: A scoping review. TIM Rev. 2021, 11, 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sasic Kalagasidis, A.; Hagy, S.; Marx, C. El cubo de armonización HSB Living Lab. Inf. Constr. 2017, 69, e224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ascione, G.S.; Cuomo, F.; Mariotti, N.; Corazza, L. Urban Living Labs, Circular Economy and Nature-Based Solutions: Ideation and Testing of a New Soil in the City of Turin Using a Multi-stakeholder Perspective. Circ. Econ. Sust. 2021, 1, 545–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Eaton, E.; Hunt, A.; Di Leo, A.; Black, D.; Frost, G.; Hargreaves, S. What Are the Environmental Benefits and Costs of Reducing Food Waste? Bristol as a Case Study in the WASTE FEW Urban Living Lab Project. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vandenhoudt, H.; Adriaensen, I.; de Witte, N.; Broeckx, L.; Vermeylen, S.; Helsen, K.; Weyers, G.; van der Auwera, V. Including citizens in collaborative projects in integrated health care through the living lab approach: How to attract participants, build a panel database, engage with end users, and keep them motivated. Int. J. Integr. Care 2023, 23, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Amenta, L.; Attademo, A.; Remøy, H.; Berruti, G.; Cerreta, M.; Formato, E.; Palestino, M.F.; Russo, M. Managing the Transition towards Circular Metabolism: Living Labs as a Co-Creation Approach. UP 2019, 4, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mbatha, S.P.; Musango, J.K. A Systematic Review on the Application of the Living Lab Concept and Role of Stakeholders in the Energy Sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pande, M.; Bharathi, S.V. Theoretical foundations of design thinking—A constructivism learning approach to design thinking. Think. Ski. Creat. 2020, 36, 100637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sanders, E.B.-N.; Stappers, P.J. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 2008, 4, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Living Lab Integrative Process. Available online: https://energylivinglab.com/toolbox/ (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  53. ENoLL. Living Labs. Available online: https://enoll.org/about-us/what-are-living-lab (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  54. ENoLL Living Labs. Available online: https://enoll.org/our-members/ (accessed on 15 February 2025).
  55. Ogonowski, C.; Jakobi, T.; Müller, C.; Hess, J. Praxlabs: A Sustainable Framework for User-Centered Information and Communication Technology Development—Cultivating Research Experiences from Living Labs in the Home. In Socio-Informatics: A Practice-Based Perspective on the Design and Use of IT Artifacts; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pertry, I.; Bleyaert, P.; Demyttenaere, P.; Demeulemeester, M. Agrotopia, a living lab for high-tech urban horticulture within Europe. Acta Hortic. 2018, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Guidat, C.; Dupont, L.; Skiba, N.; Bretagne, V.; Camargo, M. Lorraine Smart Cities Living Lab: White Paper on Living Labs. Doctoral Dissertation, Université de Lorraine, Lorraine, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  58. Raza, S.S.; Reeves, E. Starting from Scratch: The Articulated Development of a Smart City in Limerick, Ireland. Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vicini, S.; Bellini, S.; Sanna, A. The City of the Future Living Lab. AUSMT 2012, 2, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kemeç, A. Living labs experiences in Turkey: Examples of Başakşehir and Bodrum. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilim. Fakültesi Derg. 2023, 14, 320–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liddle, J.; Ireland, D.; Krysinska, K.; Harrison, F.; Lamont, R.; Karunanithi, M.; Kang, K.; Reppermund, S.; Sachdev, P.S.; Gustafsson, L.; et al. Lifespace metrics of older adults with mild cognitive impairment and dementia recorded via geolocation data. Australas. J. Ageing 2021, 40, e341–e346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Wilde, D.; Karyda, M. Fostering Education of Environmental Citizenship through Food Living Labs. In The 2nd International Conference of International Researchers of the Education for Environmental Citizenship 2022; International Conference of International Researchers of the Education for Environmental Citizenship; MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, 2022; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
  63. Leminen, S.; Westerlund, M.; Sánchez, L.; Serra, A. Users as content creators, aggregators and distributors at Citilab Living Lab. In International Perspectives on Business Innovation and Disruption in the Creative Industries; DeFillippi, R., Wikström, P., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2014; ISBN 9781783475346. [Google Scholar]
  64. Blezer, S.; Abujidi, N.; Sap, H. Urban living labs as innovation infrastructure for local urban intervention acceleration and student social learning: The impacts on community wellbeing in Heerlen. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1242151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kalms, A.; Cornago, I.; Ezquer, M.; Diaz de Garayo, S.; Arias, A.; Torres, L.; San Emeterio, D.; Irulegi, O.; Bouchotrouch, F.; de Groote, M. “oPEN Lab” project as an underpin innovation for Positive Energy District solutions in Pamplona. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2023, 2600, 82029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. The city as a Lab, but now for real!: Re-working open innovation environments for inclusive, green and digital transition through emerging technologies. In Proceedings of the OpenLivingLab Days Conference 2022, Turin, Italy, 20–23 September 2022.
  67. European Network of Living Labs (Ed.) Multi Agent System to Design Permeable Cities for Butterflies; OpenLivingLab Days: Turin, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  68. Dekeyrel, S.; Fessler, M. Digitalisation: An enabler for the clean energy transition. J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 2024, 42, 185–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bibri, S.E.; Allam, Z. The Metaverse as a virtual form of data-driven smart cities: The ethics of the hyper-connectivity, datafication, algorithmization, and platformization of urban society. Comput. Urban Sci. 2022, 2, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bainbridge, W.S. The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science 2007, 317, 472–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Capdevila, I. How Can Living Labs Enhance the Participantss Motivation in Different Types of Innovation Activities? SSRN J. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Clerici Maestosi, P.; Andreucci, M.B.; Civiero, P. Sustainable Urban Areas for 2030 in a Post-COVID-19 Scenario: Focus on Innovative Research and Funding Frameworks to Boost Transition towards 100 Positive Energy Districts and 100 Climate-Neutral Cities. Energies 2021, 14, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Leal Filho, W.; Ozuyar, P.G.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Azul, A.M.; Alvarez, M.G.; Da Silva Neiva, S.; Salvia, A.L.; Borsari, B.; Danila, A.; Vasconcelos, C.R. Living labs in the context of the UN sustainable development goals: State of the art. Sustain. Sci. 2023, 18, 1163–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Alfirević, N.; Malešević Perović, L.; Mihaljević Kosor, M. Productivity and Impact of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-Related Academic Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Meyer, S.; Hawlik, R. City Engagement in the Joint Programming Initiative Urban Europe and the Role of Intermediary Organizations in R&I Policies for Urban Transition. In Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions; Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Ludlow, D., Baranzelli, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 291–307. ISBN 978-3-030-57763-6. [Google Scholar]
  76. Living Lab of Rochapea—Pamplona. Available online: https://rochapealivinglab.com/ (accessed on 25 September 2024).
  77. Urban Living Labs in JPI Urban Europe. Available online: https://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/urbanlivinglabs/ (accessed on 15 February 2025).
  78. Soma, K.; Dijkshoorn-Dekker, M.; Polman, N. Stakeholder contributions through transitions towards urban sustainability. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 37, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Paskaleva, K.; Cooper, I.; Linde, P.; Peterson, B.; Götz, C. Stakeholder Engagement in the Smart City: Making Living Labs Work. In Transforming City Governments for Successful Smart Cities; Rodríguez-Bolívar, M.P., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 115–145. ISBN 978-3-319-03166-8. [Google Scholar]
  80. Schuurman, D.; Mahr, D.; De Marez, L.; Ballon, P. A Fourfold Typology of Living Labs: An Empirical Investigation Amongst the ENoLL Community. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE) & IEEE International Technology Management Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 24–26 June 2013. [Google Scholar]
  81. Seo, S.N. Beyond the Paris Agreement: Climate change policy negotiations and future directions. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 2017, 9, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Amoroso, S.; Coad, A.; Grassano, N. European R&D networks: A snapshot from the 7th EU Framework Programme. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2018, 27, 404–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tenhunen-Lunkka, A.; Honkanen, R. Project coordination success factors in European Union-funded research, development and innovation projects under the Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe programmes. J. Innov. Entrep. 2024, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. European Commission. Horizon Europe. Available online: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/9224c3b4-f529-4b48-b21b-879c442002a2_en?filename=ec_rtd_he-investing-to-shape-our-future.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2024).
  85. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights, 2017. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52017DC0250 (accessed on 20 February 2025).
  86. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions. A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025, 2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0152 (accessed on 18 February 2025).
  87. Mastelic, J. Stakeholders’ Engagement in the Co-Design of Energy Conservation Interventions: The Case of the Energy Living Lab. Doctoral Thesis, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  88. Awwal, S.; Soliman-Junior, J.; Ayo-Adejuyigbe, M.; Tzortzopoulos, P.; Kagioglou, M. Social Housing Retrofit Living Lab: Methodological Approach. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1101, 52020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Higgins, A.; Klein, S. Introduction to the Living Lab Approach. In Accelerating Global Supply Chains with IT-Innovation; Tan, Y.-H., Björn-Andersen, N., Klein, S., Rukanova, B., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 31–36. ISBN 978-3-642-15668-7. [Google Scholar]
  90. Pohlmann, S. Metrics and methods for moving from research to innovation in energy storage. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Chronéer, D.; Ståhlbröst, A.; Habibipour, A. Urban Living Labs: Towards an Integrated Understanding of their Key Components. TIM Rev. 2019, 9, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wehrmann, C.; Pentzold, C.; Rothe, I.; Bischof, A. Special Issue: Living labs under construction: Paradigms, practices, and perspectives of public science communication and participatory science. J. Sci. Commun. 2023, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bouwma, I.; Wigboldus, S.; Potters, J.; Selnes, T.; van Rooij, S.; Westerink, J. Sustainability Transitions and the Contribution of Living Labs: A Framework to Assess Collective Capabilities and Contextual Performance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 02727 g001
Figure 1. Countries in which the Living Labs studied are implemented. Image created with Bing technology.
Figure 1. Countries in which the Living Labs studied are implemented. Image created with Bing technology.
Sustainability 17 02727 g001
Sustainability 17 02727 g002
Figure 2. The steps of the study.
Figure 2. The steps of the study.
Sustainability 17 02727 g002
Sustainability 17 02727 g003
Figure 3. Percentage of Living Labs per topic (grey bars) and by the combination of the five most common topics (black dashed line).
Figure 3. Percentage of Living Labs per topic (grey bars) and by the combination of the five most common topics (black dashed line).
Sustainability 17 02727 g003
Sustainability 17 02727 g004
Figure 4. The most frequent topic combinations (top 10). Percentage of Living Labs of the total per type of combination.
Figure 4. The most frequent topic combinations (top 10). Percentage of Living Labs of the total per type of combination.
Sustainability 17 02727 g004
Sustainability 17 02727 g005
Figure 5. The results of the characterisation of Living Labs. The blue line indicates the total number of Living Labs (taking into account the physical, physical + virtual, and virtual ones) by the type of implementation scale. Vertical bars indicate the number of Living Labs by the combination of implementation and application scale and dimension (black is physical, dark grey is physical + virtual, and light grey is virtual). The bars on the grey dots indicate the percentage of Living Labs of each application scale out of the total Living Labs of each implementation scale.
Figure 5. The results of the characterisation of Living Labs. The blue line indicates the total number of Living Labs (taking into account the physical, physical + virtual, and virtual ones) by the type of implementation scale. Vertical bars indicate the number of Living Labs by the combination of implementation and application scale and dimension (black is physical, dark grey is physical + virtual, and light grey is virtual). The bars on the grey dots indicate the percentage of Living Labs of each application scale out of the total Living Labs of each implementation scale.
Sustainability 17 02727 g005
Sustainability 17 02727 g006
Figure 6. The percentage of Living Labs per application scale out of the total Living Labs studied (horizontal bars in dark grey) and percentage of Living Labs per combination of the three most frequent application scales (product, city, and territory) with the other scales out of the total of Living Labs (light-grey bars).
Figure 6. The percentage of Living Labs per application scale out of the total Living Labs studied (horizontal bars in dark grey) and percentage of Living Labs per combination of the three most frequent application scales (product, city, and territory) with the other scales out of the total of Living Labs (light-grey bars).
Sustainability 17 02727 g006
Sustainability 17 02727 g007
Figure 7. The most frequent combinations of application scales (top 10). Percentage of Living Labs per type of combination out of the total of Living Labs studied.
Figure 7. The most frequent combinations of application scales (top 10). Percentage of Living Labs per type of combination out of the total of Living Labs studied.
Sustainability 17 02727 g007
Sustainability 17 02727 g008
Figure 8. Percentage of Living Labs per combination of the most usual aims (not restricted, may include other goals) out of the total of Living Labs (light-grey bars) and per each aim (horizontal dark-grey bars).
Figure 8. Percentage of Living Labs per combination of the most usual aims (not restricted, may include other goals) out of the total of Living Labs (light-grey bars) and per each aim (horizontal dark-grey bars).
Sustainability 17 02727 g008
Sustainability 17 02727 g009
Figure 9. Most frequent aim combinations (top 10). Percentage of Living Labs out of the total per type of combination.
Figure 9. Most frequent aim combinations (top 10). Percentage of Living Labs out of the total per type of combination.
Sustainability 17 02727 g009
Sustainability 17 02727 g010
Figure 10. Number of Living Labs created per year, topic, aim, and application scale.
Figure 10. Number of Living Labs created per year, topic, aim, and application scale.
Sustainability 17 02727 g010
Sustainability 17 02727 g011
Figure 11. The left side of the “x” axis shows the number of Living Labs studied per each application scale (black bars). The number of Living Labs that include among their main objectives the four objectives (“co-create”, “engage”, “knowledge exchange” and “research”) to meet the Living Lab definition are shown with grey bars. The right sight of the “x” axis shows the percentage of Living Labs that meet the Living Lab definition out of the total of Living Labs studied that apply to the application scale (bars in blue dots).
Figure 11. The left side of the “x” axis shows the number of Living Labs studied per each application scale (black bars). The number of Living Labs that include among their main objectives the four objectives (“co-create”, “engage”, “knowledge exchange” and “research”) to meet the Living Lab definition are shown with grey bars. The right sight of the “x” axis shows the percentage of Living Labs that meet the Living Lab definition out of the total of Living Labs studied that apply to the application scale (bars in blue dots).
Sustainability 17 02727 g011
Table 1. Features taken into account in the characterisation of the Living Labs studied.
Table 1. Features taken into account in the characterisation of the Living Labs studied.
DimensionFeaturesDefinition
GeographicalLocation of implementation of the LLSpace in which the Living Lab activities are executed (platform, building, district, city, territory, or a combination of them).
Country and name of the specific place where it is implemented.
Dimension Two different dimensions of spaces are defined in Living Labs: physical and virtual [48,49]. In this study, it is considered physical when it is conducted in a real place and virtual when it is undertaken through digital tools, apps, or websites.
Application scaleThe scale at which the Living Lab activities are expected to be implemented. The following scales have been identified: product/technology/service (hereafter referred to as “product” for the sake of simplicity), human, building, district, city, territory, worldwide, local, regional, national, or a combination of them.
TimeframeYear of establishmentWhen the Living Lab was created.
ObjectivesMain aimsThey have been classified by taking into account the Living Lab Integrative Process (LLIP) definition, developed at the Energy Living Lab Sion and based on the design thinking process [50,51,52]. So, eight goals have been considered for this characterisation. In the first phase of the LLIP, “empathise”, three main aims can be highlighted: engage and raise awareness to be able to integrate stakeholders (aim 1: engage); context analysis in order to observe users’ behaviour and experiences (aim 2: context analysis); and training the stakeholders in order to understand and be able to be involved (aim 3: train). The second phase, “define”, is focused on creating a space of knowledge exchange in order to compel needs and insights, and scope a specific and meaningful challenge, developing a deep understanding of users and the design space (aim 4: knowledge exchange). The third phase, “ideate”, is centred on generating radical design alternatives and exploring a wide solution space—large quantity and diversity (aim 5: co-create). The fourth phase, “prototype”, where through research and open innovation, ideas and explorations are taken out of your head and placed into the physical world (aim 6: innovation). Finally, the sixth phase, “test”, aims to refine the solutions and make them better (aim 7: test). In addition, during the literature analysis, an additional aim that is not included in those presented above was detected, the creation of a network of Living Labs (aim 8: network).
Fields of applicationMain topicsThe classification of the topics is based on a mix of sources; on one hand, the one proposed by ENoLL was taken into account [53]. From the other side, the main topics promoted by the UE and United Nations were also considered [2]. As a result, the list of topics considered in the current study was: (1) energy, (2) environment, (3) health and well-being, (4) social inclusion, (5) entrepreneurship, (6) mobility, (7) governance, (8) IoT, (9) public services, (10) culture and creativity, (11) education, (12) gender, (13) agriculture and agri-food and (14) vitality.
Table 2. A characterisation of the Living Labs studied [44,45,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66].
Table 2. A characterisation of the Living Labs studied [44,45,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66].
YearImplementation ScaleDimensionAplication ScaleAimsTopics
NameEnoll certificateYearTerritoyBuildingPlatformCityDistrictVirtualPhysicalHumanProductBuildingDistrictCityLocalRegionalTerritorialNationalWordwideNetworkTrainCo-CreateEngageTestContext AnalysisKnowledge ExchangeInnovationEnergyEnvironmentHealth and Well-BeingSocial InclusionEntrepreneurshipMobilityGovernanceIoTPublic ServicesCulture and CreativityEducationalGenderAgriculture and Agri-FoodVitality
LLI 2022
PRAXLABS 2009
SENSO2ME 2010
AGROTOPIA 2020
ZorgLab 2021
In4Care. Happy Aging 2021
Rijeka iLivingLab 2022
UJI>Lab. ESPAITEC Living Lab 2019
MediaLab UGR 2015
Neurolab ADACEN Living Lab 2019
MIND Lab 2012
E2L 2010
Lorraine Smart Cities 2008
ROSA Lab. Smart City Living Lab 2007
Universcience Living Lab 2009
GNA 2022
Limerick’s Citizen Innovation Lab 2021
HSB Living Lab 2016
Krakow Living Lab 2013
CODER Lab 2017
TAMK Living Lab 2021
City of the Future Living Lab 2012
Lunigiana Amica 2007
MEDIL 2022
Santa Chiara Lab 2022
Smart Rural Living Lab 2007
SocInnoLAB 2019
Food&HealthLAB 2003
SMART DUBLIN 2016
NLAB4CIT 2021
SMARTDEST CityLabs 2020
Basaksehir Living Lab 2011
Stadslab Eindhoven 2021
MyDigitalCity 2021
Energy Living Lab 2013
MOEEBIUS Living Lab 2015
proGIreg Living Lab 2018
easyRights Living Lab 2020
LifeSpace 2009
LAAAB 2019
Open Lab Athens 2019
TinnGO Living Labs 2018
FUSILLI Living Labs 2021
ULL Kerkrade-West 2016
CDKM>Maastricht 2019
ULL Heerlen-Noord 2021
Pollinators’ Diversity 2018
Bird Living Lab 2011
Citilab 1997
CFR 2008
Epica 2017
HCLLC 2021
i2Cat 2003
Idea Living Lab 2022
Andorra Living Lab i 2016
Atlantic Innovation Region 2021
BellaB 2020
Bodrum Living Lab 2020
Bristol Living Lab 2017
ENERGY & WATER 1999
iHomeLab 2000
Innovate Dementia 2012
Manchester University Living Lab 2013
Mezopotamya Living Lab 2021
NEST 2016
Blauwe Hotspot Dordrecht 2022
Botnia Living Lab 2000
Brie’Nov 2011
Prijedor Circle Hub 2020
Smart Living Lab 2014
Seed Living Lab No info
SoLL No info
Textile & Clothing Living Lab No info
WinLab 2018
IB energy lab 2022
CELL 2022
Qube 2022
Mobility Lab 2016
L*3 2018
Interior Living Lab 2019
Green Energy Lab 2019
EIT mobility 2020
CityLAB Berlin 2021
POLE TES 2007
La Fabrique du Futur 2006
SofiaLab 2010
Green Point Living Lab 2014
Smart City Lab 2014
MIMMALAB 2021
Taidehalli Museum 2005
ULLG 2021
ULLT 2021
ULLP 2021
LLL 2023
EVCELL 2021
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arias, A.; Pennese, C.; Grijalba, O.; Sidqi, Y. Application of Living Lab Concept: Where, How and for What Is Being Used in Europe to Support Energy, Social and Environmental Transition. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2727. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062727

AMA Style

Arias A, Pennese C, Grijalba O, Sidqi Y. Application of Living Lab Concept: Where, How and for What Is Being Used in Europe to Support Energy, Social and Environmental Transition. Sustainability. 2025; 17(6):2727. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062727

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arias, Alba, Claudia Pennese, Olatz Grijalba, and Yousra Sidqi. 2025. "Application of Living Lab Concept: Where, How and for What Is Being Used in Europe to Support Energy, Social and Environmental Transition" Sustainability 17, no. 6: 2727. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062727

APA Style

Arias, A., Pennese, C., Grijalba, O., & Sidqi, Y. (2025). Application of Living Lab Concept: Where, How and for What Is Being Used in Europe to Support Energy, Social and Environmental Transition. Sustainability, 17(6), 2727. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062727

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop