Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Next Article in Journal
Trends of Climate Extremes and Their Relationships with Tropical Ocean Temperatures in South America
Previous Article in Journal
Landslide Studies in the Context of Disaster Management in Bangladesh—A Systematic Literature Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Logical OperatorOperator
Search Text
Search Type
 
add_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
 
 
Journals
Earth
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/earth5040042
first_page
Download PDF
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
ArialGeorgiaVerdana
Font Size:
AaAaAa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Systematic Review of Living Labs in the Context of Sustainable Development with a Focus on Bioeconomy

by
Elena Simina Lakatos
 1,2,*,
Roxana Lavinia Pacurariu
1,
Andreea Loredana Bîrgovan
1,
Lucian Ionel Cioca
1,3,
Andrea Szilagy
1,
Alina Moldovan
1 and
Elena Cristina Rada
4
1
Institute for Research in Circular Economy and Environment “Ernest Lupan”, 400689 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Faculty of Industrial Engineering, Robotics and Product Management, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, 400641 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Faculty of Engineering, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550024 Sibiu, Romania
4
Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, University of Insubria, 46 Via G.B. Vico, 21100 Varese, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Earth2024,5(4), 812-843;https://doi.org/10.3390/earth5040042
Submission received: 18 September 2024 /Revised: 22 October 2024 /Accepted: 27 October 2024 /Published: 8 November 2024

Abstract

:
The living lab (LL) concept has a significant potential to drive sustainable development, particularly in the bioeconomy sector, by assisting communities in improving their quality of life whilst also considering the environmental impact. In this context, the main research question was the following: is there any specific mechanism through which living labs operate under the sustainable development concept? We reviewed 120 papers addressing this topic and performed a bibliometric analysis on the linkage between sustainability and living labs by applying the methodology of a systematic review. We concluded that living labs can drive innovation and experimentation in sustainability, which can be transposed into tangible solutions to economic, environmental, and social problems. The role of living labs in the transition to a bioeconomy is discussed and further research directions are presented.

    1. Introduction

    Across the globe, humankind is constantly seeking new resources at a rapidly growing pace. As a result, a tremendous amount of strain is put on the climate, ecosystems, and biodiversity. The notion of sustainable development was proposed in the late 1980s in the Brundtland Report on Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety, also known as the Brundtland Report, as “development that meets the needs of the present without jeopardizing future generations’ ability to meet their own needs” [1]. Since then, the notion of sustainable development has grown in popularity, becoming the focus of numerous papers. The implementation of the Global Framework and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals has resulted in a shift away from an economic model based on linear growth, which has been sustained by a change in national strategies to achieve this transition [2]. On the other side, understanding the social, economic, and political environments remains an ongoing challenge for researchers. Many drivers of sustainable development have been identified so far, such as technology readiness, multi-actor collaborations, and science-based policies [3].
    In this article, the living lab (LL) concept is depicted as one strong driver of sustainable development, particularly in the bioeconomy sector, with the main role of assisting communities in identifying and implementing ways to enhance the quality of life in different aspects, whilst also considering the environmental impact. Also, in the context of this paper, we refer to living labs as an open innovation ecosystem that is user focused, and grounded on a methodical approach to user co-creation that integrates research and innovation processes in realistic settings and communities [4].
    During the past 20 years, the LL concept has been used and researched in various fields, including public health sciences, environmental engineering, and urban planning [5,6]. The idea has influenced peri-urban, urban, and rural environments as well. Specifically, living labs, embedded in the territorial structure, boost the possibilities for technological advancements and the propagation of a digital culture by bringing together stakeholders from many facets of the community [7].
    Moreover, living labs proved to be effective in encouraging inclusive community development, including all stakeholders, in addition to technology benefits through group learning, innovative co-creation, and information sharing [8]. However, the specific mechanisms through which living labs can spur sustainable development remain under-explored, although there is evident synergy between these two concepts. Therefore, the objectives of this article are as it follows:
    • To systematically review the literature addressing the linkage between living labs and sustainability;
    • To analyze to what extent LLs have been a basis for innovation;
    • To perform a bibliometric analysis on the link between living labs and sustainability;
    • To synthesize living labs contributions to sustainability with a particular focus on the bioeconomy sector.

    1.1. Sustainability and Bioeconomy—Two Synergic Concepts

    Sustainability is defined as “a characteristic or state in which current needs can be met without jeopardizing future generations’ or populations’ ability to meet their own needs” [9]. As efforts to harness biodiversity continue, a variety of economic models have been proposed to increase and improve sustainability. Some of these economic models are represented by the bioeconomy and the circular economy, which have become in recent years important means to improve sustainability. A growing number of governments, businesses, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and civil society organizations (CSOs) are incorporating them into their operations. They all have the same goal of increasing access to resources while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
    A bioeconomy is considered to be a subsection of economics that is based on biology and bioscience, with activities in the environmental, social, political, and economic spheres [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Some authors, however, argue that the bioeconomy does not separate technological progress from societal progress [20]. Bugge, Hansen, and Klitkou’s approach proposed three dimensions of bioeconomy: (i) biotechnology—highlighting the role of biotechnology in several economic sectors; (ii) bioresources—emphasizing the processing and valorization of raw materials; and last, (iii) bioecology—emphasizing environmental sustainability, biodiversity promotion, and environmental protection [17,21,22,23,24]
    The core of the bioeconomy is the idea that economic activities must be based on renewable resources. This means that the products and services of the economy should be produced from renewable resources, in a manner that does not harm the environment. This contradicts the traditional economy, which relies on the exploitation of finite resources that cause pollution and harm to the environment. The ultimate goal of bioeconomy is to create a more sustainable, efficient, and responsible way of producing and providing goods and services with minimal environmental harm [25,26,27,28,29,30].
    The implementation of the bioeconomy requires an effective legal framework, as well as financial incentives to support the transition to the new system. The European Commission’s Circular Bio-Economy Action Plan [31] outlines a set of policy-related instruments that can be adopted to incentivize the transition to a circular bioeconomy. This includes measures for creating a more vibrant market for bio-based products, such as creating regulatory and fiscal incentives for the production and use of bio-based products, reducing administrative burdens and improving market access, as well as raising public awareness and driving public–private collaboration. The European Commission is also committed to enhancing its collaboration with Member States to unlock the potential of the circular bioeconomy. This includes developing common strategies for biomass production and processing, as well as investing in research and innovation [31]. Additionally, a shift in public attitudes and behaviors towards more sustainable practices is needed to facilitate a successful transition to the bioeconomy.

    1.2. The Living Lab Concept

    When living labs made their appearance in Europe in the early 2000s, it was visible that the European living lab concept, which was built on earlier experiences with participatory design, significantly reinterpreted the US-originated home labs. The user began to be studied in his or her usual environment, rather than in a laboratory setting, which was a significant difference [32], that employed delivering the testing facilities to the users [33]. Recently, a new concept (the “agro living labs” or ALLs) emerged, due to climate change, war conflicts in Europe, and the COVID-19 health crisis [34].
    A living lab is a real-world environment for innovative co-creation concerning knowledge, products, or services, where the term ”user” implies those living in the lab, if any, but also the stakeholders from business, society, and academia [35]. The user-centric approach used by the LL methodology, which involves all relevant actors and end users, is a key component. All the actors can be categorized using the quadruple helix Model, an extension of the conventional Public–Private Partnership, even though the specific actors will vary depending on the LL emphasis, objective, and context [36,37].
    Participants in the quadruple helix model include individuals from every sector of society. Universities or research institutes are two examples of academia stakeholders. The public sector might include regional and local governments, as well as the public sector in general (such as formal health care providers in some countries). Industry may also include organizations and clusters of businesses of all sizes. Citizens and civil society, which encompass all end users like customers and their associations, are the fourth actor in the quadruple helix [19]. As a general principle, users who are willing to participate in the innovation processes should be easily accessible in a living lab setting.Table 1 summarizes the essential principles of a usual living laboratory.

    1.3. Living Labs as Catalysts for Sustainable Development

    The living lab concept is used all over the world to drive innovation that is suitable for and based on real-world issues and situations [38]. Despite the LL approach’s potential for tackling difficult problems, like socio-ecological transformation, there are questions that remain regarding its contribution to sustainable development [39].
    Until now, LLs have been used to develop new insights and tools in a variety of industries such as urban planning, application design, or information management and technology. Moreover, specific living lab studies have utilized the approach to climate change mitigation and sustainable natural resource management in terms of environmental and agricultural sustainability [34,40,41,42].
    Considering the features discussed in the previous section, living labs have the potential to be a strategic research tool for science in sustainability and bioeconomy. This can enable the generation of competitive advantages by bringing together sustainable requirements and contributions. A living lab may also serve as a platform to test newly developed product–service systems, as well as to support the research agendas by analyzing processes of current production and consumption patterns [16,43]. A particular kind of living lab that emerges frequently when sustainability issues are discussed in the literature is the urban living lab (ULL) [44].
    Both concepts have many similarities and we presume that the usual features of LLs, as well as the guidelines for their design and operation, apply the majority of the time to urban living labs, as well.
    Nonetheless, the main distinction between these two concepts is the specific focus on developing solutions to improve sustainability in urban settings. Urban living labs have a particular aspect that is frequently referred to as the “urban” component by researchers of urban living labs: the inclusion of this clear goal of promoting urban sustainability in a living lab’s problem and goal statement [45,46,47]. To conclude, living labs are rooted in sustainability and span many fields of study and interests. These include the advancement of intelligent network technologies that are applicable to smart urban environments [48,49], investigations of local settings that reveal best practices in sustainable development in real time [50], and research on ways to improve social and material conditions whilst ensuring agency and resource efficiency [51]. This article is structured into five main chapters, whereSection 2 outlines the methodology for the systematic review and bibliometric analysis,Section 3 presents the results, including key performance and thematic findings, andSection 4 andSection 5 offer a discussion on the role of living labs in sustainable development and conclude with implications, key insights, and future research directions.

    2. Materials and Methods

    Generally, bibliometric analysis is termed as the application of mathematical and statistical techniques to any written means of communication [52]. Bibliometric analysis enables the examination of the literature on different research subjects in order to investigate the conceptual structure and trends of research topics [53]. Science maps are often used in conjunction with bibliometric methods to obtain a visualization of the structure of a research topic’s theoretical foundation [54]. Bibliometric techniques include co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, co-authorship analysis, and co-word analysis [55]. To ensure a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the link between living labs and sustainable development, this study followed a three-phase methodology that combines bibliometric analysis with a systematic literature review. In the first phase, an extensive search was conducted in the Web of Science database to identify relevant publications using specific keywords related to sustainability and living labs. Following the data collection, a careful screening phase was conducted to exclude publications that did not meet the predetermined inclusion criteria. Finally, the selected documents were analyzed using Biblioshiny software 4.1.2 to generate a detailed picture of trends, collaborations, and the global impact of research in this field. This systematic approach allowed for an objective and replicable assessment of how living labs contribute to innovation in sustainability, with a particular focus on the bioeconomy.
    Phase 1. Data collection
    To begin with, we selected Web of Science, one of the most prestigious scientific databases, to collect data that integrates the state-of-the-art literature on living labs, sustainable development, and bioeconomy. Next, by taking into account the review of the literature, we identified the search phrases and confirmed them with domain professionals. The abstract, title, and keywords were encompassed in the string (“sustainability” OR “sustainable development” AND “living labs”). This study looked at publications that came out before February 2024. The preliminary search yielded 1704 results.
    Among those 1704 results, only 1606 were published between 2012 and 2023. Additionally, only articles that were written in English were considered for the review process; reviews and conference proceedings were excluded. After applying the second and the third search criteria, a total of 1274 documents were identified. The last criteria used was the exclusion–inclusion one: only subjects that were directly related to the keywords that we utilized were included, such as environmental science, economics, earth and planetary sciences, green sustainable science technology, and multidisciplinary sciences. Finally, a number of 818 articles complied with the mentioned criteria. In order to reduce the possibility of bias, determined by the continuous update of the WoS database, the process of retrieving the relevant papers was performed once only.
    Phase 2. Data Screening
    All publication titles and abstracts were carefully reviewed for their relevance to sustainable development and living lab concepts. Publications unrelated to this topic, as well as duplicates, were excluded from the sample. Next, the papers were manually evaluated for validity, which means that a quality control analysis of the publications was performed through abstract analysis, to ascertain if the selected keywords were contextually relevant.
    A total of 120 articles were found to be satisfactory.Appendix A provides a short description of all the papers analyzed.
    Phase 3. Bibliometric analysis
    The documents were then imported into Biblioshiny software, the virtual interface of Bibliometrix. This study used bibliometric analysis to create an overall picture of the existing knowledge on LLs and sustainability.
    One of the primary applications of bibliometric analysis is performance analysis—the evaluation of publication information of authors and institutions, such as annual production, citations, author ranks, countries, journals, and disciplines.
    Furthermore, science mapping, another important application of bibliometric analysis, creates structural images of scientific fields using bibliographic data.
    In contrast to the narrative literature review, which is susceptible to the researcher’s subjective bias and is frequently less rigorous, bibliometric analysis can improve the quality and objectivity of a review by introducing a systematic and reproducible review process [56].

    3. Results

    3.1. Performance Analysis

    This section analyzes the contribution of research constituents to a specific field (countries and journals in this case). The results show the distribution of the 132 publications indexed in Scopus related to LLs and starting from 2012. The trend that characterizes the annual scientific production is ascendant, starting with 1 article in 2012 and 28 articles in 2022.Table 2 presents the details on the number of articles published every year.
    In terms of country production, the territories with the most intense blue tones are responsible for the highest publication records. InFigure 1, the world’s scientific production on living labs and the sustainability linkage is depicted. In this map, all author nationalities, who make up the collection, are considered.
    The color intensity increases directly proportional to the number of publish papers. It appears that the topic is widespread around the world, with particular importance in The Netherlands (89), Germany (27), Italy (56), and the United Kingdom (41), which are considered the most productive countries in the sampled base.
    With respect to the corresponding authors’ countries,Figure 2 depicts two important indicators: the SCP (single country publications) indicating, for all countries, the number of papers that have at least one co-author affiliated in a different country) and the MCP (multi country collaboration) measuring the extent of the international collaboration of a country.
    Table 3 bellow contains detailed statistics on single country publications and multiple country publication. A high international collaboration can be observed in the case of The Netherlands, Italy, Sweeden, and the United Kingdom, while the lowest is present in countries such as Spain or Korea.

    3.2. Source Analysis

    Generally, the ”source” concept refers to a journal, book, conference proceedings series, etc., which published one or more documents included in our database.Figure 3 presents the first 10 most relevant sources from the study sample we examined. It can be observed thatSustainability is the most relevant source, representing 20 papers from the sample.
    Moreover, we used the Bradford law of scattering to determine the most influential journals. This law is particularly useful for quantifying the correlation between scientifical journals and the number of articles published.
    It argues that a small number of major journals will produce the majority of articles on a specific topic, presenting a sizable portion (one-third) of publications, followed by a second, larger group of journals, whilst the remaining third depicts a much broader group.
    The first zone is considered to be the nucleus of journals particularly devoted to the given subject. The nucleus zone (zone 1) is represented in the case by the journal “Sustainability”, comprising 55% of the articles analyzed. The following two journals are the main contributors to the middle zone (zone 2). SeeTable 4 below.

    3.3. Global Citations

    Global citations quantify the number of citations obtained by all the documents forming the sample. These data are provided by WoS and are included in the meta-data record. For most documents, a significant part of global citations could come from other disciplines (Figure 4).
    FromTable 5, it can be observed that the paper elaborated on by Torrijos and collaborators [56] is the most globally cited document from the analyzed sample. The research focuses, among other issues, on integrating composting systems in bio-technological living labs for educational purposes.

    3.4. Thematic Analysis

    The Biblioshiny software program can also conduct data mining and statistical analysis on the most encountered extracted keywords from research publications. Keywords associated with a word frequency greater than or equal to 10 are then illustrated under the shape of word cloud (seeFigure 5).
    Overall, the figure depicts a pictorial representation of the most popular themes in this research field. The basic themes comprising the clearly established research issues in this area are shown in the bottom-right corner of the figure. The main themes are living labs, technology, urban living labs, etc. The themes increasing in importance in the last years are illustrated in the upper-right part ofFigure 5. They primarily consist of three research topics: cities governance, the co-creation approach, and sustainability design. Keyword analysis (Table 6) also demonstrates that significant research has been conducted in these research areas.

    4. Discussion

    4.1. Living Labs as Catalysts for Sustainable Development

    As a general remark, we conclude that sustainable patterns cannot be realized exclusively via technological efficiency improvements. Many innovations in products and services with a great potential for sustainability fail because consumers reject them or because they have undesirable knock-on effects [64,65]. Unexpected user behavior and the improper usage of sustainable efficient technologies are additional critical factors [66].
    Living labs tackle exactly these issues and enforce sustainable development by implementing a user-centric innovation environment, grounded in daily practice and research. This enables user and stakeholder influence in innovation processes, engaging stakeholders in real-life contexts with the aim of developing sustainable values [16,67].
    With respect to the proposed objectives, particularly the analysis of the living labs contribution to sustainability, from the sample of analyzed studies we concluded that LLs can assist with the following issues on the implementation of the sustainable development agenda: (1) finding common ground with several actors who have various approaches and objectives concerning bioeconomy and sustainability; (2) assessing, evaluating, and adopting useful solutions from people who are difficult to reach out to; and (3) prevail over the lack of trust among stakeholders. Therefore, living laboratories support the resolution of complex issues that cannot be addressed by a single stakeholder, using a systematic method. Living labs can assist in both the rapid scaling up of bioeconomy innovations and the better attainment of broad social acceptance, by involving people and end users from the very beginning. These findings are useful for practitioners and researchers, but they are the most useful for policy makers. If the first two categories are usually well informed when it comes to a subject of interest, the latter are more likely to make decisions based on political conjecture. The only way for research results to reach the political sphere would be through actions to popularize science, such as information campaigns and conferences in which political representatives are invited.
    Moreover, living labs can also help assist in achieving the SDGs by addressing issues such as circular economy, sustainable urban planning, or sustainable consumption and production [68]. Climate change is also one of the targets that may be pursued through a living lab methodology by approaching both adaptation and mitigation solutions [49]. Regarding the specific contribution to the bioeconomy implementation, based on the analyzed sample of articles, we point out two important aspects.
    First, bioeconomy innovation seeks to contribute to the transformation of production and consumption systems towards sustainability. This involves a gradual structural shift in business models and value chains, which can only be developed through collaboration, given the diversity of engaged stakeholders. The context of LLs is ideal for planning this transition. Hence, accordingly, the innovation processes in LLs should be focused on creating innovations that entail a low-resource consumption–production loop [69].
    Second, only by involving system-relevant stakeholders in the process of innovation will this transition be successful. Consumers and policy makers are relevant in addition to science and business representatives. In practice, they should be integrated into living labs for a bioeconomy towards sustainability. In light of these arguments, creating living labs to aid in implementing the SDGs can be a useful instrument. Living labs might serve as the link between open innovation and the users of these technologies, in a sustainability setting, in addition to driving better interaction and cooperation among the many actors involved [70,71].

    4.2. Further Research Directions

    However, for being able to measure a specific contribution of living labs to sustainable development, a proper methodology for evaluation, a reliable database, and a relevant indicator set are required and should be taken into account during the innovation process and constantly be updated.
    The research on sustainability illustrates the need for a comprehensive approach that considers the production–consumption system. The potential for achieving resource efficiency and improved life quality lies in the research areas of individual decision making, merged with organizational learning processes. Living labs provides the chance to analyze the production–consumption system interaction using a technical and socially flexible framework [72].

    5. Conclusions

    Living labs, with a focus on sustainability, can drive innovation that can be transposed into tangible measures for tackling economic, environmental, and social problems [73,74]. They can be effective instruments for encouraging knowledge integration for issues addressing sustainability, since social behavior is based on environmental and cultural contexts [75,76]. Also, besides the widespread use of the notion, interest in living labs as a resource for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals has grown steadily over time. The most recent research has been on how living labs may support urban entrepreneurship that encourages social and economic development, sustainability, and local business growth [49,77]. The living lab may also support rural areas. In this respect, the agro living lab, also known as the “agroecosystem living lab”, ”agroecology living lab”, or the “agri-food living lab”, emerged as a response to the environmental, economic, and social challenges.
    From a policy framework standpoint, when implementing the transition to a bioeconomy, it is crucial to take into account both economic development and environmental sustainability. Although it is frequently assumed that the advancement of biotechnology and the capitalization of bioresources will result in both economic growth and favorable environmental effects, it is crucial to assess and take into account the potential climate changes and other environmental effects of this transition. To make sure that the transition to a bioeconomy is actually sustainable, policy makers should pay close attention to the sustainability issue, but also to horizontal and vertical policy integration [41,78,79]. Since the stakeholders’ interest might be competing, some elements must be taken into account in this process: there has to be a “problem owner”, trust, and organizational structure [41]. The possible effects of bioeconomy policies on the environment, social equity, and economic development must be carefully assessed and carefully considered, in order to achieve this. The bioeconomy may not achieve its potential to aid in long-term sustainable development without an emphasis on sustainability [80,81].
    To maximize the potential of living labs in driving sustainable development, it is essential to establish clear frameworks for collaboration across sectors and to engage stakeholders from the earliest stages of the innovation process. Policy makers should recognize the strategic value of living labs as platforms for co-creation and inclusive development, integrating them into broader sustainability agendas. Furthermore, it is recommended that future initiatives focus on developing robust evaluation methodologies to track the long-term impact of living labs, particularly in areas such as the circular economy, urban sustainability, and bioeconomy. By fostering stronger connections between research, industry, and policy, living labs can play a pivotal role in addressing complex sustainability challenges on a global scale.

    Author Contributions

    Conceptualization, E.S.L. and R.L.P.; methodology, A.S. and A.M.; software, A.M. and A.S.; validation, L.I.C., E.S.L. and E.C.R.; formal analysis, E.S.L., A.S., L.I.C. and E.C.R.; investigation, R.L.P., A.L.B., A.S. and A.M.; resources, E.S.L.; data curation, A.L.B., A.S. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.S.L., R.L.P. and A.S.; writing—review and editing, L.I.C. and E.C.R.; visualization, R.L.P., A.L.B. and A.S.; supervision, E.S.L., L.I.C. and E.C.R.; project administration, R.L.P.; funding acquisition, R.L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

    Funding

    This research was funded by the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitization, CCCDI-UEFISCDI, grant number 34PHE din 08/01/2024/PN-IV-P8-8.1-PRE-HE-ORG-2023-0097.

    Conflicts of Interest

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

    Appendix A

    Table A1. Papers included in the analyzed sample.
    Table A1. Papers included in the analyzed sample.
    No.AuthorsJournalMain Findings
    Theoretical StudiesCase Studies/Best Practices
    1Bernert, P., Wanner, M., Fischer, N., and Barth, M [81]Environment Development And SustainabilityThis study presents the framework underlying design concepts for transformational learning materials in postsecondary education.X
    2Plassnig, S. N., Pettit, M., Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., and Säumel, I. [82]Frontiers In Sustainable CitiesXThe study documents various scaling living lab practices and activities developed in collaboration with local actors in Andernach, Berlin, Havanna, Oslo, and Rotterdam.
    3Bouwma, I., Wigboldus, S., Potters, J., Selnes, T., van Rooij, S., and Westerink, J. [83]SustainabilityThe study develops ways of assessing the activity of living laboratories and how they contribute to transitions towards sustainability.X
    4Bradley, S., Mahmoud, I. H., and Arlati, A. [84]SustainabilityXThis research is grounded on a comparative synthesis regarding various case studies, aimed at identifying complex integrated and collaborative governance frameworks.
    5Leal Filho, W., Ozuyar, P. G., Dinis, M. A. P., Azul, A. M., Alvarez, M. G., da Silva Neiva, S., … and Vasconcelos, C. R. [85]Sustainability ScienceThis paper presents the results of a lengthy analysis into the strategies, techniques, and resources used by postsecondary institutions to develop living labs.X
    6Oliveira, R. [86]LandXThis study describes how the food web creation procedure was carried out, as well as its main accomplishments in terms of a dedicated action plan, and provides the first baseline for the pursuit of a food strategy for city–region food planning.
    7Alexandrakis, J., Hein, J., and Kratzer, J. [87]SustainabilityThis study found that living lab programs had a significant impact on SMEs’ ability to innovate sustainably and transfer knowledge.X
    8Alamanos, A., Koundouri, P., Papadaki, L., Pliakou, T., and Toli, E [88]WaterThe results have important implications for comprehensive water resource management, including for international sustainability agendas.X
    9Willems, J. J., Kuitert, L., and Van Buuren, A. [41]Environmental Policy And GovernanceThe framework presented in this article is used to analyze how the urban living lab might support the integration of policies, and it is then applied to three case studies from Antwerp, Dordrecht, and Gothenburg.X
    10Florez Ayala, D. H., Alberton, A., and Ersoy, A. [89]SustainabilityXFrom a circular economy overview, this paper examines how ULLs might develop into paths of sustainability and transition towards cutting-edge city systems.
    11Amorim, E. E. R., Menezes, M., and Fernandes, K. V. G. [90]SustainabilityThe paper examines study cases with ULL projects, governmental innovation policies, and international knowledge transfer processes.X
    12Xu, Y., Li, P., Pan, J., Zhang, Y., Dang, X., Cao, X., … and Yang, Z [91]SustainabilityXThe study’s conclusions suggest that in order to lessen human-ecological conflicts, topographic variables and human disturbance should be fully taken into account in future land-use and spatial development decisions.
    13Ness, B. and Wahl, D. [92]AmbioXFrom the perspective of sustainability researchers, this paper offers reflections on transdisciplinary processes of knowledge co-production and experimentation.
    14Almeida-Silva, M., Monteiro, A., Carvalho, A. R., Teixeira, A. M., Moreira, J., Tavares, D., … and Manteigas, V. [93]International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public HealthXThe SAVING project, whose goal was to create an active and sustainable aging program to support the shift to sustainable aging in senior housing structures, is examined in this study.
    16Salvatore, S., Magatti, G., Acciarri, M., Rossetti, M., da Costa, L. P., and Ribeiro, I. [94]SustainabilityXThis research tackles the implementation of SWM projects in two European universities, Milan-Bicocca University and Instituto Superior Técnico from Portugal.
    17Eaton, E., Hunt, A., Di Leo, A., Black, D., Frost, G., and Hargreaves, S. [95]SustainabilityXThis paper quantifies and evaluates the underlying impacts of household food waste before delving into the potential costs and benefits of changes in food waste behavior.
    18Moreira, F. D. A., Dalla Fontana, M., Sepe, P. M., Lopes, M. V., Moura, L. D. V., Medeiros, L. S., … and Di Giulio, G. M. [96]Sustainability ScienceXThe analyzed process is aimed at significantly improving usability by engaging users from the beginning, linking the nexus approach to prior knowledge and frameworks.
    19Koller, M., Eckert, K., Ferber, U., Gräbe, G., Verbücheln, M., and Wendler, K. [97]SustainabilityThis research provides the basis for a sustainable transformation of urban districts and proposes further research directions.X
    20Martek, I., Hosseini, M. R., Durdyev, S., Arashpour, M., and Edwards, D. J. [98]International Journal Of Sustainability In Higher EducationThe evolution of living labs is analyzed, with a focus on the university setting.X
    21Bridi, M. E., Soliman-Junior, J., Granja, A. D., Tzortzopoulos, P., Gomes, V., and Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K. [99]SustainabilityThe paper discusses an integrative synthesis of the literature regarding housing retrofit developed in the context of living labs.X
    23Turku, V., Jokinen, A., and Jokinen, P. [57]Sustainable Cities And SocietyXThis study investigates how multi-actor cooperation at the micro-scale ignites sustainability pathways in Tampere, Finland.
    24Galardi, M., Moruzzo, R., Riccioli, F., Granai, G., and Di Iacovo, F. [100]SustainabilityXThis study presents how 16 small rural businesses located in Turin worked together to create innovative business models.
    25Brons, A., van Der Gaast, K., Awuh, H., Jansma, J. E., Segreto, C., and Wertheim-Heck, S. [101]Cities The paper investigates ULLs as an instrument for inclusive civic participation.X
    26Eneqvist, E., Algehed, J., Jensen, C., and Karvonen, A. [102]European Planning Studies The emphasis on legitimacy reveals the fact that experimental governance has fragmented practices and it is used only as a way of obtaining short-term results, without long-term coherence. The governance has a lack of organizational ability. Both aspects could negatively affect its legitimacy, reducing trust and acceptance of the involved parties.X
    27Burbridge, M. and Morrison, G. M. [103]SustainabilityThis study builds on the current top-down/bottom-up methodology for the construction of intermediaries of innovation and offers insights into partnership building at the university–industry–government nexus.X
    28Maksymiuk, G., Pallares-Barbera, M., Arvanitidis, P., and Gawryszewska, B. J. [104]SustainabilityXIn order to mobilize the community’s effort towards social and economic development with less engagement from the state and market players, this study aims to explain how the UBH and its fringe function, as a facilitator of common identity.
    29Sarabi, S., Han, Q., L. Romme, A. G., de Vries, B., Valkenburg, R., den Ouden, E., … and Wendling, L. [58]Sustainability The results of this study can assist cities in creating plans for overcoming the key obstacles in the adoption of ULL in the context of nature-based solutions.X
    30Leminen, S., Rajahonka, M., Westerlund, M., and Hossain, M. [59]Journal Of Cleaner ProductionXThis study investigates 49 cases that focus on open innovation for sustainability, including Fab labs, participatory budgeting, and living labs.
    31Soto, R. L., de Vente, J., and Padilla, M. C. [60]Journal Of Rural StudiesXThe study employs participatory action research with farmers and researchers to increase agricultural innovation and sustainability of the agroecosystem restoration.
    32Lasarte, N., Elguezabal, P., Sagarna, M., Leon, I., and Otaduy, J. P. [105]SustainabilityThe paper highlights how to identify, evaluate, and overcome significant renovation barriers using BIM and the possibilities of digitization.X
    33Toffolini, Q., Capitaine, M., Hannachi, M., and Cerf, M. [106]Journal Of Rural StudiesBased on relevant competencies and their distribution across actors, this study’s findings make recommendations for establishing an agricultural LL inside an already-existing innovation system.X
    34Kohl, K., Hopkins, C., Barth, M., Michelsen, G., Dlouhá, J., Razak, D. A., … and Toman, I. [61]International Journal Of Sustainability In Higher EducationThis paper focuses on UN developments and the lengthy history of university engagement in sustainability.X
    35Rollin, P., Bamberg, S., Ketterl, C., and Weiland, S. [107]Journal Of Environmental PsychologyThis study focuses on assessing the outcomes of a ULL, which seeks to encourage a local mobility system sustainable transition by encouraging civic participation within a network involving multi-actor collaboration.X
    36Tyl, B. and Allais, R. [108]Journal Of Cleaner ProductionThis article questions how the living lab philosophy might incorporate the creation of networks for repair and reuse.X
    37Kok, K. P., Gjefsen, M. D., Regeer, B. J., and Broerse, J. E. [24]Sustainability ScienceThe study argues that facilitators can better understand and manage the transdisciplinary challenges needed for change, if they consider “inclusion in practice” as a political action. This thing involves the clarification of the normative objectives specific to each context where inclusion is applied.X
    39Nguyen, H. T., and Marques, P. [109]European Planning StudiesXThe study findings challenge the usual perspective of the quadruple helix methodology and offers suggestions for managing future collaborations and evidence-based policy.
    40Homer, S. T. and Khor, K. S. [110]International Journal Of Sustainability In Higher EducationThis article attempts to present a multidimensional sustainability practice model that higher education institutions found useful and feasible for implementation.X
    41Särkilahti, M., Åkerman, M., Jokinen, A., and Rintala, J. [111]European Planning StudiesThis research analyzes the links between a sanitation experiment and future urban development directions in the city of Tampere, FinlandX
    42van Waes, A., Nikolaeva, A., and Raven, R. [112]Technological Forecasting And Social ChangeThe paper combines empirical data from a qualitative case study of four cycling innovation living labs, with theoretical insights from the literature on Strategic Niche Management, and insights from cross-disciplinary research on LLs.X
    43Torrijos, V., Dopico, D. C., and Soto, M [56]Journal Of Cleaner ProductionThe primary outcome of this project was the reduction in waste that did not have to be collected, transported, disposed of, or incinerated.X
    44Kretschmer, S. and Dehm, S [113]SustainabilityX This study presents the case of a German University, the students, and other relevant stakeholders involved in a living lab.
    45Shafqat, O., Malakhtka, E., Chrobot, N., and Lundqvist, P. [114]Sustainability This paper presents a framework for end-use energy services that was created jointly with several stakeholders for a case study in a an LL setting.X
    46Barak, N., Sommer, U., and Mualam, N. [62]Science Of The Total Environment The papers discusses population density as a key driver for the dissemination of COVID-19 and the direct environmental consequences.X
    47Baran, G. and Berkowicz, A [26]SustainabilityThe paper’s main idea is to combine new search methods such as LLs with new technological opportunities for entrepreneurship.X
    48Shvetsova, O. A. and Lee, S. K. [115]SustainabilityXThis study was conducted to find out how South Korea’s innovation landscape might be affected by living labs.
    49Ciaccia, C., Testani, E., Fiore, A., Iocola, I., Di Pierro, M., Mele, G., … and Diacono, M. [116]SustainabilityA step-by-step process is analyzed through the definition of common objectives, highlighting the interest of local actors in sharing insights for the territory, in the process of completing the transition to sustainable food systems.X
    50Koo, K. M., Han, K. H., Jun, K. S., Lee, G., and Yum, K. T. [117]SustainabilityXIn this study, the development of SWG key constituent technologies—including intelligent water source management and distribution systems and the building of smart water distribution networks—is introduced.
    51Aquilué, I., Caicedo, A., Moreno, J., Estrada, M., and Pagès, L. [118]SustainabilityThis paper presents a framework to support the assessment of urban design projects through Urban Living Labs (ULLs).X
    52Choi, C., Yang, S., Choi, S. H., and Jang, S. [119]SustainabilityIn order to provide the participants in LL with a theoretical foundation for problem solving, this study introduces the modelling and simulation (M&S) method.X
    53Tolentino-Zondervan, F., Bogers, E., and van de Sande, L. [120]SustainabilityThis study examines the objectives of the parties involved in the Heijendaal living lab, a city logistics initiative that uses two hubs to bundle deliveries of commodities to The Netherlands’ Heijendaal campus.X
    54Catulli, M., Sopjani, L., Reed, N., Tzilivakis, J., and Green, A. [121]Resources Conservation And RecyclingXIn this work, a socio-technical experiment related to a sustainable innovation project that was conducted in a protected niche or a living lab is described, along with an evaluation of the experiment’s capacity to drive learning and strategic vision.
    55Engez, A., Leminen, S., and Aarikka-Stenroos, L. [122]SustainabilityThe goal of this research is to analyze a ULL through an ecosystem approach in order to reveal the actor activities and flows between them, that enable sustainable development in urban settings.X
    56Sahakian, M., Rau, H., Grealis, E., Godin, L., Wallenborn, G., Backhaus, J., … and Fahy, F. [123]Energy Research & Social ScienceXThis papers demonstrates the usefulness of practice-centered designs for project implementation.
    57Yusoff, S., Abu Bakar, A., Rahmat Fakri, M. F., and Ahmad, A. Z. [124]Environment Development And SustainabilityXThe article provides data on the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from on-campus activities and a living laboratory project carried out at the main campus of Malaysia University.
    58Malakhatka, E., Sopjani, L., and Lundqvist, P. [125]SustainabilityXThis study aims to synthesize commonly held theories about co-creation from two major perspectives: co-creation as an innovation process and co-creation as a design process.
    59McPhee, C., Bancerz, M., Mambrini-Doudet, M., Chrétien, F., Huyghe, C., and Gracia-Garza, J. [126]SustainabilityIn order to improve the sustainability and resilience of agri-food systems, this study proposes a set of defining parameters for a newly emergent form of living lab.
    60Save, P., Terim Cavka, B., and Froese, T. [127]SustainabilityXThe purpose of this study was to examine the UBC CLL program, identify, and formalize its operations, retrieve significant transferable characteristics, and suggest reproducible processes that other academic institutions and local governments can use to scale up their sustainable practices in a similar manner.
    61Compagnucci, L., Spigarelli, F., Coelho, J., and Duarte, C. [69]Journal Of Cleaner Production This study investigates the contribution of LLs in promoting innovation and sustainability.X
    62Blezer, S. and Abujidi, N. [128]Technology Innovation Management ReviewThis study supports and adds to existing theoretical positions on how to deal with the difficulty of maintaining a common ideology and examine the concepts of agency and power.X
    63Della Valle, N., Gantioler, S., and Tomasi, S. [129]Frontiers In Sustainable CitiesThis work investigates how behavioral science results might influence ULL design to effectively encourage active participation in the urban energy transition.X
    64Greve, K., Vita, R. D., Leminen, S., and Westerlund, M. [27]Sustainability The study discusses the conceptual basis of living labs research, examines recurring themes influencing the debate, and highlights their influence on other domains.X
    65Lupp, G., Zingraff-Hamed, A., Huang, J. J., Oen, A., and Pauleit, S. [130]SustainabilityThis paper investigates how a LL methodology can be utilized for the design and application of nature-based solutions.X
    66Mahmoud, I. H., Morello, E., Ludlow, D., and Salvia, G. [131]Frontiers In Sustainable CitiesThe authors of this study looked at three active European projects’ co-creation paths and various shared governance approaches.X
    67Matschoss, K., Fahy, F., Rau, H., Backhaus, J., Goggins, G., Grealis, E., … and Vasseur, V. [132]Sustainability-Science Practice And PolicyXA change initiative is examined, designed to engage households in testing modalities to transform two common practices—heating and doing laundry.
    68Sharp, D. and Raven, R. [133]Urban PlanningThis article notices a rising trend toward precinct-scale experimentation and responds to a call for more research into relevant processes in urban experimentation.X
    69Veeckman, C. and Temmerman, L. [134]SustainabilityXThis article analyzes best practices in incorporating citizen science in ULLs based on the challenges in FloodCitiSense.
    70Cerreta, M., Elefante, A., and La Rocca, L. [135]SustainabilityXThe process’s preliminary findings demonstrate how a co-exploration phase defined the living lab’s cultural traits and how the potential reuse scenarios are oriented by the co-evaluation of individual activities.
    71Gamache, G., Anglade, J., Feche, R., Barataud, F., Mignolet, C., and Coquil, X. [6]Environmental Innovation And Societal TransitionsIn this work, the limits of LLs for analyzing and supporting the local transition of agri-food systems are explored.X
    72Marcucci, E., Gatta, V., Le Pira, M., Hansson, L., and Bråthen, S. [136]SustainabilityThis paper explains how to properly conceptualize the Digital Twin (DT) idea in relation to developing urban planning and policy.X
    73Marone, L., Onofrio, R., and Masella, C. [137]Sustainability The goal of this research is to determine the needs of the stakeholders in developing an LL in healthcare and to provide activities that will encourage innovation.X
    74Mazutti, J., Londero Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A., Fritzen Gomes, B. M., Damke, L. I., Tibola da Rocha, V., and Santos Rabello, R. D. [138]International Journal Of Sustainability In Higher EducationXThis case study illustrated how air quality monitoring in an intelligent setting could emphasize and convey the effect of urban movement on air quality.
    75Korzer, T., Hübscher, M., Schade, K., and Ringel, J. [28]Proceedings Of The Institution Of Civil Engineers—Urban Design And PlanningXLLs are analyzed as a scientific approach, addressing the gap between theory and practice and providing additional evidence of how digitization occurs outside of first-tier cities.
    76Baedeker, C., Piwowar, J., Themann, P., Grinewitschus, V., Krisemendt, B., Lepper, K., … and von Geibler, J. [139]SustainabilityXThis study’s findings are presented, and a user-centered building management system (UC-BMS) is suggested as a prototype for office buildings.
    77Cuomo, F., Ravazzi, S., Savini, F., and Bertolini, L. [140]SustainabilityXThis article contrasts the paths followed by two transformative urban lab experiments, one in The Netherlands and the other in Italy.
    78Polderman, A., Haller, A., Viesi, D., Tabin, X., Sala, S., Giorgi, A., … and Bidault, Y. [141]SustainabilityThis paper informs about the novel approach developed within the project named “Smart Altitude”, co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund.X
    79Baran, G. and Berkowicz, A. [29]Sustainability The study’s goal was to create an example of a sustainability living lab as a methodological approach to studying the cultural enablers of sustainable development based on the living lab concept and its capabilities.X
    80Jiang, C., Xiao, Y., and Cao, H. [142]SustainabilityXIn this article, two design-driven techniques are suggested: encouraging locals to become innovation activists and encouraging collaborative entrepreneurial clusters based on reorganizing local resources.
    81Delina, L. L. [143]Journal Of Environmental Studies And SciencesXThis research analyzes the co-development of a community-based energy transition in a rural setting as an LL.
    82Moore, T., Horne, R., and Doyon, A. [144]Urban Policy And ResearchXThis paper investigates the impact of a government-led demonstration project in Australia.
    83Thees, H., Pechlaner, H., Olbrich, N., and Schuhbert, A. [145]Sustainability The research gap in the integration of LL mechanisms and destination governance is addressed in this study.X
    84Ersoy, A. and van Bueren, E. [10]Urban PlanningXThree innovation projects from a ULL in Amsterdam are compared in this article’s comparative case study.
    85Rodrigues, M. and Franco, M. [146]Sustainable DevelopmentX This study aims to review indicators measuring sustainable development in cities.
    86Purcell, W. M., Henriksen, H., and Spengler, J. D. [11]International Journal Of Sustainability In Higher EducationXThis study analyzes different strategies to promote supstainability and reach Sustainable Development Objectives, using an approach based on many case studies.
    87Bulkeley, H., Marvin, S., Palgan, Y. V., McCormick, K., Breitfuss-Loidl, M., Mai, L., … and Frantzeskaki, N. [147]European Urban And Regional StudiesThis paper focuses on the urban living laboratory and creates a framework for a comparative examination of 40 European ULLs.X
    88Hirata, S. [148]Risus Journal On Innovation And SustainabilityX This study illustrates a model for co-designing service innovation in the context of enterprises and postsecondary institutions.
    89Pucihar, A., Zajc, I., Sernec, R., and Lenart, G. [149]Sustainability The article presents the AV living lab and offers details about a large-scale pilot testing of AV and further mobility solutions.X
    90Van Geenhuizen, M. [150]SustainabilityThe purpose of this study is to produce a list of essential learnings on urban living labs using the Responsible Research and Innovation strategy.X
    91Levenda, A. M. [151]Local EnvironmentThis paper investigates a ULL centered on smart grid research and demonstration in an Austin, Texas residential neighborhood.X
    92Chronéer, D., Ståhlbröst, A., and Habibipour, A. [152]Technology Innovation Management ReviewThe following seven important components of an urban living lab are identified and discussed in this article: governance and management structure; financing examples; urban environment; NBS solutions; partners and users approach; ICT and infrastructure.X
    93Osorio, F., Dupont, L., Camargo, M., Palominos, P., Peña, J. I., and Alfaro, M. [153]Creativity And Innovation ManagementA new framework is developed as the foundation for a guidance instrument for researchers and practitioners looking to assess or adapt an existing project.X
    94García-Llorente, M., Pérez-Ramírez, I., Sabán de la Portilla, C., Haro, C., and Benito, A. [12]SustainabilityX This study discusses a project contribution to new and integrated rural development methods, as well as the potential to encourage cooperative solutions that improve farming activities while simultaneously delivering ecosystem benefits.
    95Von Wirth, T., Fuenfschilling, L., Frantzeskaki, N., and Coenen, L. [154]European Planning StudiesThis study contributes to an improved comprehension regarding the diffusion mechanisms and strategies used by ULL to deliver impacts.X
    96Ondiek, M. A., and Moturi, C. [155]Innovation & Management ReviewXThis paper assesses the sustainability of several LLs in Kenya.
    97Plaisier, C., Sibomana, M., Van der Waal, J., Clercx, L., Van Wagenberg, C. P., and Dijkxhoorn, Y. [156]SustainabilityXThe framework presented is grounded on participatory development and includes LLs and World Cafes.
    98Roggema, R. and Yan, W. [157]Urban PlanningBased on urban design practice, this article depicts urban agriculture as an enabling factor of nexus thinking.X
    99Bracco, S., Delfino, F., Laiolo, P., and Morini, A. [158]SustainabilityXThe article focuses on the actions performed by the University of Genoa to implement the Living Lab Smart City.
    100 Van Geenhuizen, M. [159]Environment And Planning C-Politics And SpaceThis article presents a new framework for living labs evaluation.X
    101Puerari, E., De Koning, J. I., Von Wirth, T., Karré, P. M., Mulder, I. J., and Loorbach, D. A [160]SustainabilityXThis paper concentrates on co-creation dynamics in ULLs associated with knowledge generation, and contribution to urban sustainability transitions.
    102Rodrigues, M. and Franco, M. [161]Journal Of Cleaner ProductionXThe main objective of this study is to analyze the LLs contribution toward the promotion of urban entrepreneurship in urban settings and their sustainability.
    103Dias, A. and Salmelin, B. [13]Modeling Innovation Sustainability And Technologies: Economic And Policy PerspectivesThe article elaborates on the background thinking and path for the conceptual innovation model. Open Innovation 2.0. Its basis lies on theories of virtual enterprises, as well as the MIT living lab concept.X
    104Evans, J., Bulkeley, H., Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., and Curtis, S. [14]Routledge Handbook On Spaces Of Urban PoliticsThis paper examines the production and circulation of urban experiments through urban living laboratories.X
    105Menny, M., Palgan, Y. V., and McCormick, K. [162]Gaia-Ecological Perspectives For Science And SocietyThis article examines how ULLs engage in a participatory methodology that facilitates co-creation with users.X
    106Scholl, C., de Kraker, J., Hoeflehner, T., Wlasak, P., Drage, T., and Eriksen, M. A. [15]Gaia-Ecological Perspectives For Science And SocietyA four-steps approach of LLs is analyzed: co-designing experiments, establishing clear learning objectives, reviewing what has been learned, and disseminating and integrating lessons learnedX
    107van Geenhuizen, M. and Guldemond, N. [163]Cities And Sustainable Technology Transitions: Leadership, Innovation And AdoptionThis research identifies critical factors in the performance of LLs based on complex case studies in The Netherlands, Denmark, and Canada.X
    108Sharp, D. and Salter, R. [164]SustainabilityXThis report assesses Livewell Yarra, a ULL in Australia that brought along academic scholars and community stakeholders to take part in low-carbon living experiments.
    109Jurietti, E., Mandelli, A., and Fudurić, M. [165]Corporate Social Responsibility And Environmental Management This study uses a case study about the Unilever Sustainable LL to test the virtual CSR dialogue methodology.X
    110Rizzo, S., Cappellaro, F., Accorsi, M., Orsini, F., and Bonoli, A. [166]Environmental Engineering And Management JournalVarious experimental green technologies for urban resilience were co-designed by students, researchers, and lecturers as an outcome of a living lab.X
    111Cerreta, M. and Panaro, S [167]SustainabilityXThis research proposes a multi-stakeholder spatial decision analysis that integrates multi-stakeholder decision analysis with GIS processing using a collaborative evaluative framework to enable the development of resilient landscape solutions.
    112Steen, K. and Van Bueren, E. [16]Technology Innovation Management ReviewThis paper adds to theoretical background by creating an operationalized definition of ULLs, which was used to evaluate 90 sustainable urban innovation projects in Amsterdam.X
    113Canzler, W., Engels, F., Rogge, J. C., Simon, D., and Wentland, A. [168]Energy Research & Social ScienceThis case demonstrates the evolution of interdependent interests and collaborations between different industries as well as between businesses and academic organizations.
    114Caprotti, F. and Cowley, R. [169]Urban GeographyThis paper discusses urban experiments and the associated concepts regarding the LL typology.X
    115Hansen, S. S. [170]Handbook Of Theory And Practice Of Sustainable Development In Higher Education, Vol 3This work examines the performance of one living laboratory case study at Macalester College in Minnesota.X
    116Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., … and Palgan, Y. [50]Current Opinion In Environmental SustainabilityThis paper suggests that LLs may acquire useful knowledge from transition studies and the literature on urban governance.X
    117Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J., and Schliwa, G. [72]Journal Of Cleaner ProductionThe purpose of this article is to develop current understandings by examining how the ULL concept is being operationalized in contemporary urban governance for sustainability and low-carbon cities.X
    118Schliwa, G. and McCormick, K. [171]Experimental CityThis research examines how the living lab approach was adapted from the private to the public sectors, emerging as a research infrastructure and governance instrument for urban transitions.X
    119Evans, J., Jones, R., Karvonen, A., Millard, L., and Wendler, J. [18]Current Opinion In Environmental SustainabilityThe article examines how living laboratories could offer a comprehensive and iterative framework for the co-production of knowledge.X
    120Liedtke, C., Jolanta Welfens, M., Rohn, H., and Nordmann, J. [65]International Journal Of Sustainability In Higher EducationThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the results from the LIVING LAB design study, an initiative related to the Framework Programme created by the European Union.X

    References

    1. Brundtland, G.H. Our common future—Call for action.Environ. Conserv.1987,14, 291–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    2. Parkin, S.; Sommer, F.; Uren, S. Sustainable development: Understanding the concept and practical challenge.Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Eng. Sustain.2003,156, 19–26. [Google Scholar]
    3. Zimon, D.; Tyan, J.; Sroufe, R. Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Practices to alignment with un sustainable development goals.Int. J. Qual. Res.2020,14, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    4. Pertry, I.; Bleyaert, P.; Demyttenaere, P.; Demeulemeester, M. Agrotopia, a living lab for high-tech urban horticulture within Europe. InInternational Symposium on Greener Cities for More Efficient Ecosystem Services in a Climate Changing World 1215; International Society for Horticultural Science: Leuven, Belgium, 2017; pp. 153–158. [Google Scholar]
    5. Ballon, P.; van Hoed, M.; Schuurman, D. The Effectiveness of Involving Users in Digital Innovation: Measuring the Impact of Living Labs.Telemat. Inform.2018,35, 1201–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    6. Gamache, G.; Anglade, J.; Feche, R.; Barataud, F.; Mignolet, C.; Coquil, X. Can Living Labs Offer a Pathway to Support Local Agri-Food Sustainability Transitions?Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.2020,37, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    7. Hossain, M.; Leminen, S.; Westerlund, M. A Systematic Review of Living Lab Literature.J. Clean. Prod.2019,213, 976–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    8. Reid, W.V.; Mooney, H.A.; Cropper, A.; Capistrano, D.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chopra, K.; Zurek, M.B.Ecosystems and Human Well-Being-Synthesis: A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
    9. Delvenne, P.; Hendrickx, K. The multifaceted struggle for power in the bioeconomy: Introduction to the special issue.Technol. Soc.2013,35, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    10. Ersoy, A.; van Bueren, E. Challenges of urban living labs towards the future of local innovation.Urban Plan.2020,5, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    11. Purcell, W.M.; Henriksen, H.; Spengler, J.D. Universities as the engine of transformational sustainability toward delivering the sustainable development goals: “Living labs” for sustainability.Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.2019,20, 1343–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    12. García-Llorente, M.; Pérez-Ramírez, I.; Sabán de la Portilla, C.; Haro, C.; Benito, A. Agroecological strategies for reactivating the agrarian sector: The case of Agrolab in Madrid.Sustainability2019,11, 1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    13. Salmelin, B. Living Labs and open Innovation in European Context. InOpen Innovation: A Multifaceted Perspective: Part I; World Scientific: Singapore, 2016; pp. 273–285. [Google Scholar]
    14. Evans, J.; Bulkeley, H.; Voytenko, Y.; McCormick, K.; Curtis, S. Circulating experiments: Urban living labs and the politics of sustainability. InThe Routledge Handbook on Spaces of Urban Politics; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 416–425. [Google Scholar]
    15. Scholl, C.; de Kraker, J.; Hoeflehner, T.; Wlasak, P.; Drage, T.; Eriksen, M.A. Transitioning urban experiments: Reflections on doing action research with urban labs.GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc.2018,27, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    16. Steen, K.; van Bueren, E. The defining characteristics of urban living labs.Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev.2017,7, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    17. Baletic, B.; Lisac, R.; Vdovic, R. Campus living lab knowledgebase: A tool for designing the future. InHandbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Volume 4; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 441–456. [Google Scholar]
    18. Evans, J.; Jones, R.; Karvonen, A.; Millard, L.; Wendler, J. Living labs and co-production: University campuses as platforms for sustainability science.Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.2015,16, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    19. Lakatos, E.S.; Birgovan, L.A.; Szilagy, A.; Koval, V.; Karshowsky, A.B. The role of living-labs in cities’ transition to a circular economy.Innov. Econ. Manag.2023,10, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    20. Bugge, M.M.; Hansen, T.; Klitkou, A. What is the bioeconomy? InFrom Waste to Value; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 19–50. [Google Scholar]
    21. Viaggi, D.The Bioeconomy: Delivering Sustainable Green Growth; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
    22. Staffas, L.; Gustavsson, M.; McCormick, K. Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: An analysis of official national approaches.Sustainability2013,5, 2751–2769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    23. Talmar, M.; Romme, A.G.L.; Valkenburg, R. Enhancing the replication potential of smart lighting projects.Smart Cities2022,5, 608–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    24. Kok, K.P.; Gjefsen, M.D.; Regeer, B.J.; Broerse, J.E. Unraveling the politics of ‘doing inclusion’in transdisciplinarity for sustainable transformation.Sustain. Sci.2021,16, 1811–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    25. European Commission.A Clean Planet for All. A European Strategic Long-Term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
    26. Baran, G.; Berkowicz, A. Digital platform ecosystems as living labs for sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation: A conceptual model proposal.Sustainability2021,13, 6494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    27. Greve, K.; Vita, R.D.; Leminen, S.; Westerlund, M. Living Labs: From niche to mainstream innovation management.Sustainability2021,13, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    28. Korzer, T.; Hübscher, M.; Schade, K.; Ringel, J. Rethinking retail digitisation in urban settings. The case of Leipzig, Germany.Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Urban Des. Plan.2020,173, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    29. Baran, G.; Berkowicz, A. Sustainability living labs as a methodological approach to research on the cultural drivers of sustainable development.Sustainability2020,12, 4835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    30. Losacker, S.; Heiden, S.; Liefner, I.; Lucas, H. Rethinking bioeconomy innovation in sustainability transitions.Technol. Soc.2023,74, 102291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    31. 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; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
    32. Ballon, P.; Schuurman, D. Living labs: Concepts, tools and cases.info2015,17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    33. Burbridge, M. If living labs are the answer–what’s the question? A review of the literature.Procedia Eng.2017,180, 1725–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    34. Trivellas, P.; Mavrommati, S.; Anastasopoulou, A.; Grapas, C.; Kallikantzarou, E. Agro living Labs: Creating innovative, sustainable, resilient and social inclusive food systems.IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.2023,1185, 012036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    35. Carayannis, E.G.; Campbell, D.F. ‘Mode 3’and’Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem.Int. J. Technol. Manag.2009,46, 201–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    36. Bronson, K.; Devkota, R.; Nguyen, V. Moving toward generalizability? A scoping review on measuring the impact of living labs.Sustainability2021,13, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    37. Lepore, D.; Testi, N.; Pasher, E. Building Inclusive Smart Cities through Innovation Intermediaries.Sustainability2023,15, 4024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    38. Kok, K.P.; Den Boer, A.C.; Cesuroglu, T.; Van Der Meij, M.G.; de Wildt-Liesveld, R.; Regeer, B.J.; Broerse, J.E. Transforming research and innovation for sustainable food systems—A coupled-systems perspective.Sustainability2019,11, 7176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    39. Ståhlbröst, A. A Set of Key Principles to Assess the Impact of Living Labs.Int. J. Prod. Dev.2012,17, 60–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    40. Baedeker, C.; Liedtke, C.; Welfens, M.J. Green economy as a framework for product-service systems development: The role of sustainable living labs. InLiving Labs: Design and Assessment of Sustainable Living; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 35–52. [Google Scholar]
    41. Willems, J.J.; Kuitert, L.; Van Buuren, A. Policy integration in urban living labs: Delivering multi-functional blue-green infrastructure in Antwerp, Dordrecht, and Gothenburg.Environ. Policy Gov.2022,33, 258–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    42. Giannouli, I.; Tourkolias, C.; Zuidema, C.; Tasopoulou, A.; Blathra, S.; Salemink, K.; Koutsomarkos, N. A methodological approach for holistic energy planning using the living lab concept: The case of the prefecture of Karditsa.Eur. J. Environ. Sci.2018,8, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    43. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B.; Ihlström Eriksson, C.; Ståhlbröst, A.; Svensson, J. A Milieu for Innovation: Defining Living Labs. In Proceedings of the ISPIM Innovation Symposium, New York, NY, USA, 6–9 December 2009. [Google Scholar]
    44. Mukhtar-Landgren, D.; Kronsell, A.; Voytenko Palgan, Y.; von Wirth, T. Municipalities as enablers in urban experimentation.J. Environ. Policy Plan.2019,21, 718–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    45. Bakıcı, T.; Almirall, E.; Wareham, J. A smart city initiative: The case of Barcelona.J. Knowl. Econ.2013,4, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    46. Mahmoud, I.H.; Morello, E.; Vona, C.; Benciolini, M.; Sejdullahu, I.; Trentin, M.; Pascual, K.H. Setting the social monitoring framework for nature-based solutions impact: Methodological approach and pre-greening measurements in the case study from CLEVER cities Milan.Sustainability2021,13, 9672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    47. Kronsell, A.; Mukhtar-Landgren, D. Experimental governance: The role of municipalities in urban living labs.Eur. Plan. Stud.2018,26, 988–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    48. Leal Filho, W.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Ruiz-de-Maya, S.; Doni, F.; Eustachio, J.H.; Swart, J.; Paço, A. The economics of the UN sustainable development goals: Does sustainability make financial sense?Discov. Sustain.2022,3, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    49. Nevens, F.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gorissen, L.; Loorbach, D. Urban transition labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities.J. Clean. Prod.2013,50, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    50. Bulkeley, H.; Coenen, L.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Hartmann, C.; Kronsell, A.; Mai, L.; Marvin, S.; McCormick, K.; van Steenbergen, F.; Voytenko Palgan, Y. Urban living labs: Governing urban sustainability transitions.Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.2016,22, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    51. Pritchard, A.Statistical Bibliography; An Interim Bibliography; ERIC: Washington, DC, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
    52. Leung, X.Y.; Sun, J.; Bai, B. Bibliometrics of social media research: A co-citation and co-word analysis.Int. J. Hosp. Manag.2017,66, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    53. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools.J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol.2011,62, 1382–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    54. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer.arXiv2011, arXiv:1109.2058. [Google Scholar]
    55. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric methods in management and organization.Organ. Res. Methods2015,18, 429–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    56. Torrijos, V.; Dopico, D.C.; Soto, M. Integration of food waste composting and vegetable gardens in a university campus.J. Clean. Prod.2021,315, 128175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    57. Turku, V.; Jokinen, A.; Jokinen, P. How do time-bound practices initiate local sustainability pathways?Sustain. Cities Soc.2022,79, 103697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    58. Sarabi, S.; Han, Q.; L Romme, A.G.; de Vries, B.; Valkenburg, R.; den Ouden, E.; Zalokar, S.; Wendling, L. Barriers to the Adoption of Urban Living Labs for NBS Implementation: A Systemic Perspective.Sustainability2021,13, 13276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    59. Leminen, S.; Rajahonka, M.; Westerlund, M.; Hossain, M. Collaborative innovation for sustainability in Nordic cities.J. Clean. Prod.2021,328, 129549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    60. Soto, R.L.; de Vente, J.; Padilla, M.C. Learning from farmers’ experiences with participatory monitoring and evaluation of regenerative agriculture based on visual soil assessment.J. Rural. Stud.2021,88, 192–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    61. Kohl, K.; Hopkins, C.; Barth, M.; Michelsen, G.; Dlouhá, J.; Razak, D.A.; Bin Sanusi, Z.A.; Toman, I. A whole-institution approach towards sustainability: A crucial aspect of higher education’s individual and collective engagement with the SDGs and beyond.Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.2022,23, 218–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    62. Barak, N.; Sommer, U.; Mualam, N. Urban attributes and the spread of COVID-19: The effects of density, compliance and socio-political factors in Israel.Sci. Total Environ.2021,793, 148626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    63. Rehm, S.V.; McLoughlin, S.; Maccani, G. Experimentation platforms as bridges to urban sustainability.Smart Cities2021,4, 569–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    64. Druckman, J.N.; Kam, C.D. Students as experimental participants. InCambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 41–57. [Google Scholar]
    65. Liedtke, C.; Jolanta Welfens, M.; Rohn, H.; Nordmann, J. LIVING LAB: User-driven innovation for sustainability.Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.2012,13, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    66. Sierra-Pérez, J.; López-Forniés, I. Co-creative Experiences for the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. InAdvances in Design Engineering, Proceedings of the XXIX International Congress INGEGRAF, Logroño, Spain, 20–21 June 2019; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 49–57. [Google Scholar]
    67. Favaloro, T.; Ball, T.; Lipschutz, R.D. Mind the gap! Developing the campus as a living lab for student experiential learning in sustainability. InSustainability on University Campuses: Learning, Skills Building and Best Practices; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 91–113. [Google Scholar]
    68. Buhl, J.; von Geibler, J.; Echternacht, L.; Linder, M. Rebound effects in Living Labs: Opportunities for monitoring and mitigating re-spending and time use effects in user integrated innovation design.J. Clean. Prod.2017,151, 592–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    69. 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]
    70. Burbridge, M.; Morrison, G.M.; Van Rijn, M.; Silvester, S.; Keyson, D.V.; Virdee, L.; Liedtke, C. Business models for sustainability in living labs. InLiving Labs: Design and Assessment of Sustainable Living; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 391–403. [Google Scholar]
    71. Liedtke, C.; von Geibler, J.; Baedeker, C. The sustainability living lab as a reflective user-integrating research infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Sustainability Transitions, Lyngby, Denmark, 29–31 August 2012; pp. 206–222. [Google Scholar]
    72. Voytenko, Y.; McCormick, K.; Evans, J.; Schliwa, G. Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda.J. Clean. Prod.2016,123, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    73. Kalinauskaite, I.; Brankaert, R.; Lu, Y.; Bekker, T.; Brombacher, A.; Vos, S. Facing societal challenges in living labs: Towards a conceptual framework to facilitate transdisciplinary collaborations.Sustainability2021,13, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    74. Rivera, C.J.; Savage, C. Campuses as living labs for sustainability problem-solving: Trends, triumphs, and traps.J. Environ. Stud. Sci.2020,10, 334–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    75. Heilmann, A.; Pundt, H. Methods of transdisciplinary collaboration within sustainable research and development projects. InUniversities, Sustainability and Society: Supporting the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 81–89. [Google Scholar]
    76. Lakatos, E.S.; Bercea, O.B.; Bacali, L. The concept of innovation in social economy. A review and a research agenda.Rev. Appl. Socio-Econ. Res.2016,11, 32–50. [Google Scholar]
    77. Duchesne, L.C.; Wetzel, S. The bioeconomy and the forestry sector: Changing markets and new opportunities.For. Chron.2003,79, 860–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    78. Levidow, L.; Birch, K.; Papaioannou, T. Divergent paradigms of European agro-food innovation: The knowledge-based bio-economy (KBBE) as an R&D agenda.Sci. Technol. Hum. Values2013,38, 94–125. [Google Scholar]
    79. Pfau, S.F.; Hagens, J.E.; Dankbaar, B.; Smits, A.J.M. Visions of sustainability in bioeconomy research.Sustainability2014,6, 1222–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    80. Ponte, S. From fishery to fork: Food safety and sustainability in the ‘virtual’knowledge-based bio-economy (KBBE).Sci. Cult.2009,18, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    81. Bernert, P.; Wanner, M.; Fischer, N.; Barth, M. Design principles for advancing higher education sustainability learning through transformative research.Environ. Dev. Sustain.2022, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    82. Plassnig, S.N.; Pettit, M.; Reichborn-Kjennerud, K.; Säumel, I. Successful scaling of Edible City Solutions to promote food citizenship and sustainability in food system transitions.Front. Sustain. Cities2022,4, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    83. 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.Sustainability2022,14, 15628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    84. Bradley, S.; Mahmoud, I.H.; Arlati, A. Integrated Collaborative Governance Approaches towards Urban Transformation: Experiences from the CLEVER Cities Project.Sustainability2022,14, 15566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    85. Leal Filho, W.; Ozuyar, P.G.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Azul, A.M.; Alvarez, M.G.; da Silva Neiva, S.; Vasconcelos, C.R. Living labs in the context of the UN sustainable development goals: State of the art.Sustain. Sci.2022,18, 1163–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    86. Oliveira, R. FoodLink—A Network for Driving Food Transition in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area.Land2022,11, 2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    87. Alexandrakis, J.; Hein, J.; Kratzer, J. Living Labs and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Symbioses Propelling Sustainable Innovation.Sustainability2022,14, 12729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    88. Alamanos, A.; Koundouri, P.; Papadaki, L.; Pliakou, T.; Toli, E. Water for Tomorrow: A Living Lab on the Creation of the Science-Policy-Stakeholder Interface.Water2022,14, 2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    89. Florez Ayala, D.H.; Alberton, A.; Ersoy, A. Urban living labs: Pathways of sustainability transitions towards innovative city systems from a circular economy perspective.Sustainability2022,14, 9831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    90. Amorim, E.E.R.; Menezes, M.; Fernandes, K.V.G. Urban Living Labs and Critical Infrastructure Resilience: A Global Match?Sustainability2022,14, 9826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    91. Xu, Y.; Li, P.; Pan, J.; Zhang, Y.; Dang, X.; Cao, X.; Yang, Z. Eco-Environmental Effects and Spatial Heterogeneity of “Production-Ecology-Living” Land Use Transformation: A Case Study for Ningxia, China.Sustainability2022,14, 9659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    92. Ness, B.; Wahl, D. Getting personal with collaborative sustainability experimentation: Reflections and recommendations from a transdisciplinary partnership with the Swedish craft beer sector.Ambio2022,51, 2544–2556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    93. Almeida-Silva, M.; Monteiro, A.; Carvalho, A.R.; Teixeira, A.M.; Moreira, J.; Tavares, D.; Manteigas, V. Sustainable and Active Program—Development and Application of SAVING Methodology.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health2022,19, 6803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    94. Di Salvatore, S.; Magatti, G.; Acciarri, M.; Rossetti, M.; da Costa, L.P.; Ribeiro, I. Solid Waste Management Approach at the University through Living Labs and Communication Strategies: Case Studies in Italy and Portugal.Sustainability2022,14, 5240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    95. 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.Sustainability2022,14, 5573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    96. Moreira, F.D.A.; Dalla Fontana, M.; Sepe, P.M.; Lopes, M.V.; Moura, L.D.V.; Medeiros, L.S.; Di Giulio, G.M. Co-creating sustainability indicators for the local water–energy–food nexus.Sustain. Sci.2022,17, 2315–2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    97. Koller, M.; Eckert, K.; Ferber, U.; Gräbe, G.; Verbücheln, M.; Wendler, K. Resource Management as Part of Sustainable Urban District Development.Sustainability2022,14, 4224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    98. Martek, I.; Hosseini, M.R.; Durdyev, S.; Arashpour, M.; Edwards, D.J. Are university “living labs” able to deliver sustainable outcomes? A case-based appraisal of Deakin University, Australia.Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.2022,23, 1332–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    99. Bridi, M.E.; Soliman-Junior, J.; Granja, A.D.; Tzortzopoulos, P.; Gomes, V.; Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K. Living Labs in Social Housing upgrades: Process, challenges and recommendations.Sustainability2022,14, 2595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    100. Galardi, M.; Moruzzo, R.; Riccioli, F.; Granai, G.; Di Iacovo, F. Small rural enterprises and innovative business models: A case study of the Turin area.Sustainability2022,14, 1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    101. Brons, A.; van Der Gaast, K.; Awuh, H.; Jansma, J.E.; Segreto, C.; Wertheim-Heck, S. A tale of two labs: Rethinking urban living labs for advancing citizen engagement in food system transformations.Cities2022,123, 103552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    102. Eneqvist, E.; Algehed, J.; Jensen, C.; Karvonen, A. Legitimacy in municipal experimental governance: Questioning the public good in urban innovation practices.Eur. Plan. Stud.2022,30, 1596–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    103. Burbridge, M.; Morrison, G.M. A systematic literature review of partnership development at the university–industry–government nexus.Sustainability2021,13, 13780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    104. Maksymiuk, G.; Pallares-Barbera, M.; Arvanitidis, P.; Gawryszewska, B.J. Thinking Deep. Acting on Top. Underground Built Heritage and Its Fringe as a Community Catalyst for Local Sustainable Development: Exploratory Cases from Poland and Greece.Sustainability2021,13, 14031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    105. Lasarte, N.; Elguezabal, P.; Sagarna, M.; Leon, I.; Otaduy, J.P. Challenges for Digitalisation in Building Renovation to Enhance the Efficiency of the Process: A Spanish Case Study.Sustainability2021,13, 12139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    106. Toffolini, Q.; Capitaine, M.; Hannachi, M.; Cerf, M. Implementing agricultural living labs that renew actors’ roles within existing innovation systems: A case study in France.J. Rural. Stud.2021,88, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    107. Rollin, P.; Bamberg, S.; Ketterl, C.; Weiland, S. Cracks in the wall of a car-oriented local mobility system–Results of an urban living lab.J. Environ. Psychol.2021,77, 101678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    108. Tyl, B.; Allais, R. A design study into multi-level living labs for reuse and repair activities in France.J. Clean. Prod.2021,321, 129032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    109. Nguyen, H.T.; Marques, P. The promise of living labs to the Quadruple Helix stakeholders: Exploring the sources of (dis) satisfaction.Eur. Plan. Stud.2022,30, 1124–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    110. Homer, S.T.; Khor, K.S. Sustainable campus using concept mapping: A bottom-up approach engaging both staff and students.Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.2022,23, 645–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    111. Särkilahti, M.; Åkerman, M.; Jokinen, A.; Rintala, J. Temporal challenges of building a circular city district through living-lab experiments.Eur. Plan. Stud.2022,30, 1333–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    112. van Waes, A.; Nikolaeva, A.; Raven, R. Challenges and dilemmas in strategic urban experimentation An analysis of four cycling innovation living labs.Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.2021,172, 121004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    113. Kretschmer, S.; Dehm, S. Sustainability Transitions in University Food Service—A Living Lab Approach of Locavore Meal Planning and Procurement.Sustainability2021,13, 7305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    114. Shafqat, O.; Malakhtka, E.; Chrobot, N.; Lundqvist, P. End Use Energy Services Framework Co-Creation with Multiple Stakeholders—A Living Lab-Based Case Study.Sustainability2021,13, 7565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    115. Shvetsova, O.A.; Lee, S.K. Living labs in university-industry cooperation as a part of innovation ecosystem: Case study of South Korea.Sustainability2021,13, 5793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    116. Ciaccia, C.; Testani, E.; Fiore, A.; Iocola, I.; Di Pierro, M.; Mele, G.; Diacono, M. Organic Agroforestry Long-Term Field Experiment Designing Trough Actors’ Knowledge towards Food System Sustainability.Sustainability2021,13, 5532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    117. Koo, K.M.; Han, K.H.; Jun, K.S.; Lee, G.; Yum, K.T. Smart Water Grid Research Group Project: An Introduction to the Smart Water Grid Living-Lab Demonstrative Operation in YeongJong Island, Korea.Sustainability2021,13, 5325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    118. Aquilué, I.; Caicedo, A.; Moreno, J.; Estrada, M.; Pagès, L. A methodology for assessing the impact of living labs on urban design: The case of the furnish project.Sustainability2021,13, 4562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    119. Choi, C.; Yang, S.; Choi, S.H.; Jang, S. Modeling & Simulation-Based Problem Solving Process in Sustainable Living Lab.Sustainability2021,13, 3690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    120. Tolentino-Zondervan, F.; Bogers, E.; van de Sande, L. A managerial and behavioral approach in aligning stakeholder goals in sustainable last mile logistics: A case study in The Netherlands.Sustainability2021,13, 4434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    121. Catulli, M.; Sopjani, L.; Reed, N.; Tzilivakis, J.; Green, A. A socio-technical experiment with a resource efficient product service system.Resour. Conserv. Recycl.2021,166, 105364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    122. Engez, A.; Leminen, S.; Aarikka-Stenroos, L. Urban living lab as a circular economy ecosystem: Advancing environmental sustainability through economic value, material, and knowledge flows.Sustainability2021,13, 2811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    123. Sahakian, M.; Rau, H.; Grealis, E.; Godin, L.; Wallenborn, G.; Backhaus, J.; Fahy, F. Challenging social norms to recraft practices: A Living Lab approach to reducing household energy use in eight European countries.Energy Res. Soc. Sci.2021,72, 101881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    124. Yusoff, S.; Abu Bakar, A.; Rahmat Fakri, M.F.; Ahmad, A.Z. Sustainability initiative for a Malaysian university campus: Living laboratories and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.Environ. Dev. Sustain.2021,23, 14046–14067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    125. Malakhatka, E.; Sopjani, L.; Lundqvist, P. Co-Creating Service Concepts for the Built Environment Based on the End-User’s Daily Activities Analysis: KTH Live-in-Lab Explorative Case Study.Sustainability2021,13, 1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    126. McPhee, C.; Bancerz, M.; Mambrini-Doudet, M.; Chrétien, F.; Huyghe, C.; Gracia-Garza, J. The defining characteristics of agroecosystem living labs.Sustainability2021,13, 1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    127. Save, P.; Terim Cavka, B.; Froese, T. Evaluation and lessons learned from a campus as a living lab program to promote sustainable practices.Sustainability2021,13, 1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    128. Blezer, S.; Abujidi, N. Urban Living Labs and Transformative Changes: A qualitative study of the triadic relationship between financing, stakeholder roles, and the outcomes of Urban Living Labs in terms of impact creation in the city of Groningen, The Netherlands.Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev.2021,11, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    129. Della Valle, N.; Gantioler, S.; Tomasi, S. Can behaviorally informed urban living labs foster the energy transition in cities?Front. Sustain. Cities2021,11, 573174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    130. Lupp, G.; Zingraff-Hamed, A.; Huang, J.J.; Oen, A.; Pauleit, S. Living labs—A concept for co-designing nature-based solutions.Sustainability2020,13, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    131. Mahmoud, I.H.; Morello, E.; Ludlow, D.; Salvia, G. Co-creation pathways to inform shared governance of urban living labs in practice: Lessons from three european projects.Front. Sustain. Cities2021,3, 690458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    132. Matschoss, K.; Fahy, F.; Rau, H.; Backhaus, J.; Goggins, G.; Grealis, E.; Vasseur, V. Challenging practices: Experiences from community and individual living lab approaches.Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy2021,17, 135–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    133. Sharp, D.; Raven, R. Urban planning by experiment at precinct scale: Embracing complexity, ambiguity, and multiplicity.Urban Plan.2021,6, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    134. Veeckman, C.; Temmerman, L. Urban living labs and citizen science: From innovation and science towards policy impacts.Sustainability2021,13, 526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    135. Cerreta, M.; Elefante, A.; La Rocca, L. A creative living lab for the adaptive reuse of the Morticelli Church: The SSMOLL project.Sustainability2020,12, 10561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    136. Marcucci, E.; Gatta, V.; Le Pira, M.; Hansson, L.; Bråthen, S. Digital twins: A critical discussion on their potential for supporting policy-making and planning in urban logistics.Sustainability2020,12, 10623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    137. Marone, L.; Onofrio, R.; Masella, C. The Italian case of lecco innovation living lab: Stakeholders’ needs and activities to contribute to the technological innovation process in healthcare.Sustainability2020,12, 10266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    138. Mazutti, J.; Londero Brandli, L.; Lange Salvia, A.; Fritzen Gomes, B.M.; Damke, L.I.; Tibola da Rocha, V.; Santos Rabello, R.D. Smart and learning campus as living lab to foster education for sustainable development: An experience with air quality monitoring.Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ.2020,21, 1311–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    139. Baedeker, C.; Piwowar, J.; Themann, P.; Grinewitschus, V.; Krisemendt, B.; Lepper, K.; von Geibler, J. Interactive design to encourage energy efficiency in offices: Developing and testing a user-centered building management system based on a living lab approach.Sustainability2020,12, 6956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    140. Cuomo, F.; Ravazzi, S.; Savini, F.; Bertolini, L. Transformative urban living labs: Towards a circular economy in Amsterdam and Turin.Sustainability2020,12, 7651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    141. Polderman, A.; Haller, A.; Viesi, D.; Tabin, X.; Sala, S.; Giorgi, A.; Bidault, Y. How can ski resorts get smart? Transdisciplinary approaches to sustainable winter tourism in the European Alps.Sustainability2020,12, 5593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    142. Jiang, C.; Xiao, Y.; Cao, H. Co-creating for locality and sustainability: Design-driven community regeneration strategy in Shanghai’s old residential context.Sustainability2020,12, 2997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    143. Delina, L.L. A rural energy collaboratory: Co-production in Thailand’s community energy experiments.J. Environ. Stud. Sci.2020,10, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    144. Moore, T.; Horne, R.; Doyon, A. Housing industry transitions: An urban living Lab in Melbourne, Australia.Urban Policy Res.2020,38, 118–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    145. Thees, H.; Pechlaner, H.; Olbrich, N.; Schuhbert, A. The living lab as a tool to promote residents’ participation in destination governance.Sustainability2020,12, 1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    146. Rodrigues, M.; Franco, M. Measuring the urban sustainable development in cities through a Composite Index: The case of Portugal.Sustain. Dev.2020,28, 507–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    147. Bulkeley, H.; Marvin, S.; Palgan, Y.V.; McCormick, K.; Breitfuss-Loidl, M.; Mai, L.; Frantzeskaki, N. Urban living laboratories: Conducting the experimental city?Eur. Urban Reg. Stud.2019,26, 317–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    148. Hirata, S. Co-design of Service Innovation Through Problem Based Learning in Higher Education Incorporating Living Labs.J. Innov. Sustain. RISUS2019,10, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    149. Pucihar, A.; Zajc, I.; Sernec, R.; Lenart, G. Living lab as an ecosystem for development, demonstration and assessment of autonomous mobility solutions.Sustainability2019,11, 4095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    150. Van Geenhuizen, M. Applying an RRI filter in key learning on urban living labs’ performance.Sustainability2019,11, 3833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    151. Levenda, A.M. Thinking critically about smart city experimentation: Entrepreneurialism and responsibilization in urban living labs. InSmart and Sustainable Cities? Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 9–23. [Google Scholar]
    152. Chronéer, D.; Ståhlbröst, A.; Habibipour, A. Urban living labs: Towards an integrated understanding of their key components.Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev.2019,9, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    153. Osorio, F.; Dupont, L.; Camargo, M.; Palominos, P.; Peña, J.I.; Alfaro, M. Design and management of innovation laboratories: Toward a performance assessment tool.Creat. Innov. Manag.2019,28, 82–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    154. Von Wirth, T.; Fuenfschilling, L.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Coenen, L. Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: Mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation.Eur. Plan. Stud.2019,27, 229–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    155. Ondiek, M.A.; Moturi, C. An assessment of the sustainability of Living Labs in Kenya.Innov. Manag. Rev.2019,16, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    156. Plaisier, C.; Sibomana, M.; Van der Waal, J.; Clercx, L.; Van Wagenberg, C.P.; Dijkxhoorn, Y. Approach for designing context-specific, locally owned interventions to reduce postharvest losses: Case study on tomato value chains in Nigeria.Towards Sustain. Glob. Food Syst.2019,86, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    157. Roggema, R.; Yan, W. Developing a design-led approach for the food-energy-water nexus in cities.Urban Plan.2019,4, 123–138. [Google Scholar]
    158. Bracco, S.; Delfino, F.; Laiolo, P.; Morini, A. Planning & open-air demonstrating smart city sustainable districts.Sustainability2018,10, 4636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    159. Van Geenhuizen, M. A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation.Environ. Plan. C Politics Space2018,36, 1280–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    160. Puerari, E.; De Koning, J.I.; Von Wirth, T.; Karré, P.M.; Mulder, I.J.; Loorbach, D.A. Co-creation dynamics in urban living labs.Sustainability2018,10, 1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    161. Rodrigues, M.; Franco, M. Importance of living labs in urban Entrepreneurship: A Portuguese case study.J. Clean. Prod.2018,180, 780–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    162. Menny, M.; Palgan, Y.V.; McCormick, K. Urban living labs and the role of users in co-creation.GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc.2018,27, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    163. van Geenhuizen, M.; Guldemond, N. Living labs in healthcare innovation: Critical factors and potential roles of city governments. InCities and Sustainable Technology Transitions; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2018; pp. 318–338. [Google Scholar]
    164. Sharp, D.; Salter, R. Direct impacts of an urban living lab from the participants’ perspective: Livewell Yarra.Sustainability2017,9, 1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    165. Jurietti, E.; Mandelli, A.; Fudurić, M. How do virtual corporate social responsibility dialogs generate value? A case study of The Unilever Sustainable Living Lab.Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.2017,24, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    166. Rizzo, S.; Cappellaro, F.; Accorsi, M.; Orsini, F.; Gianquinto, G.; Bonoli, A. Co-design for a circular approach in green technologies: Adaptation of reused building material as growing substrate for soilless cultivation of lettuce (Lactuca sativa var.capitata).Environ. Eng. Manag. J.2017,16, 1775–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    167. Cerreta, M.; Panaro, S. From perceived values to shared values: A multi-stakeholder spatial decision analysis (M-SSDA) for resilient landscapes.Sustainability2017,9, 1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    168. Canzler, W.; Engels, F.; Rogge, J.C.; Simon, D.; Wentland, A. From “living lab” to strategic action field: Bringing together energy, mobility, and Information Technology in Germany.Energy Res. Soc. Sci.2017,27, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    169. Caprotti, F.; Cowley, R. Interrogating urban experiments.Urban Geogr.2017,38, 1441–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
    170. Hansen, S.S. The campus as a living laboratory: Macalester College case study. InHandbook of Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education: Volume 3; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 223–239. [Google Scholar]
    171. Schliwa, G.; McCormick, K. Living labs: Users, citizens and transitions. InThe Experimental City; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 163–178. [Google Scholar]
    Earth 05 00042 g001
    Figure 1. Scientific production by country.
    Figure 1. Scientific production by country.
    Earth 05 00042 g001
    Earth 05 00042 g002
    Figure 2. Corresponding authors’ countries.
    Figure 2. Corresponding authors’ countries.
    Earth 05 00042 g002
    Earth 05 00042 g003
    Figure 3. Most relevant sources.
    Figure 3. Most relevant sources.
    Earth 05 00042 g003
    Earth 05 00042 g004
    Figure 4. Most globally cited documents [24,26,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63].
    Figure 4. Most globally cited documents [24,26,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63].
    Earth 05 00042 g004
    Earth 05 00042 g005
    Figure 5. Keyword thematic map.
    Figure 5. Keyword thematic map.
    Earth 05 00042 g005
    Table 1. Key principles of living labs.
    Table 1. Key principles of living labs.
    PrincipleDescription
    RepresentativenessParticipants in the quadruple helix model include individuals from every sector of society.
    High-end technologyAny LL should also have access to multiple contexts, top-tier infrastructure, and technology that can enable user involvement, as well as technology development and testing processes.
    Context-dependent methodologiesEvery LL setting also requires organization and procedures appropriate to its particular conditions.
    Stakeholder accessFinally, an LL requires access to a variety of partners with diverse areas of knowledge who can add to the ongoing operations.
    PragmatismInnovation should be conducted in settings that are as similar to real-world situations as possible.
    Added valueProviding value for all stakeholders along the value chain.
    Table 2. Number of articles published.
    Table 2. Number of articles published.
    YearArticles
    202228
    202134
    202021
    201918
    201815
    201711
    20163
    20151
    20140
    20130
    20121
    Table 3. Statistics on country collaboration.
    Table 3. Statistics on country collaboration.
    CountryArticlesSCPMCPFreqMCP_Ratio
    The Netherlands211290.150.42857143
    Germany161150.114285710.3125
    Italy15960.107142860.4
    Sweden10460.071428570.6
    United Kingdom9360.064285710.66666667
    Portugal6510.042857140.16666667
    Spain6600.042857140
    USA6600.042857140
    Australia5320.035714290.4
    Brazil5230.035714290.6
    France5320.035714290.4
    Finland4220.028571430.5
    China3210.021428570.33333333
    Korea3300.021428570
    Norway3120.021428570.66666667
    Poland3210.021428570.33333333
    Belgium2200.014285710
    Canada2020.014285711
    Croatia2110.014285710.5
    Greece2110.014285710.5
    Table 4. Most relevant journals.
    Table 4. Most relevant journals.
    SourceRankFreqCum FreqZone
    Sustainability15555Zone 1
    International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education2762Zone 2
    Journal of Cleaner Production3769Zone 2
    European Planning Studies4574Zone 2
    Technology Innovation Management Review5478Zone 2
    Frontiers in Sustainable Cities6381Zone 2
    Urban Planning7384Zone 2
    Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability8286Zone 2
    Energy Research and Social Science9288Zone 2
    Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions10290Zone 2
    Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society11292Zone 2
    Table 5. Statistics on most globally cited documents.
    Table 5. Statistics on most globally cited documents.
    PaperTotal CitationsTC per YearTC Normalized
    Torrijos V, 2021,J Clean Prod [56]2174.586
    Barak N, 2021,Sci Total Environ [62]1553.275
    Kohl K, 2022,Int J Sustain High Educ [61]1058.484
    Kok Kpw, 2021,Sustain Sci [24]82.6661.747
    Leminen S, 2021,J Clean Prod [59]72.3331.528
    Baran G, 2021,Sustainability [26]51.6661.091
    Rehm Sv, 2021,Smart Cities [63]51.6661.091
    Turku V, 2022,Sust Cities Soc [57]423.393
    Sarabi S, 2021,Sustainability [58]41.3330.873
    Soto Rl, 2021,J Rural Stud [60]41.3330.873
    Table 6. Keyword analysis.
    Table 6. Keyword analysis.
    WordsOccurrenceClustersBtw_CentralityClos_CentralityPage Rank
    Sustainability11Sustainability2386.660.0030.025
    Cities10Cities1075.690.0020.026
    Governance10Cities1313.540.0020.025
    Innovation9Cities1942.400.0030.026
    Management8Cities1468.890.0020.020
    City7Cities1133.770.0020.018
    Design7Sustainability1332.600.0020.018
    Living labs5Living labs1581.720.0020.014
    Energy4Cities855.520.0020.013
    Framework4Cities606.850.0020.013
    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.

    © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

    Share and Cite

    MDPI and ACS Style

    Lakatos, E.S.; Pacurariu, R.L.; Bîrgovan, A.L.; Cioca, L.I.; Szilagy, A.; Moldovan, A.; Rada, E.C. A Systematic Review of Living Labs in the Context of Sustainable Development with a Focus on Bioeconomy.Earth2024,5, 812-843. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth5040042

    AMA Style

    Lakatos ES, Pacurariu RL, Bîrgovan AL, Cioca LI, Szilagy A, Moldovan A, Rada EC. A Systematic Review of Living Labs in the Context of Sustainable Development with a Focus on Bioeconomy.Earth. 2024; 5(4):812-843. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth5040042

    Chicago/Turabian Style

    Lakatos, Elena Simina, Roxana Lavinia Pacurariu, Andreea Loredana Bîrgovan, Lucian Ionel Cioca, Andrea Szilagy, Alina Moldovan, and Elena Cristina Rada. 2024. "A Systematic Review of Living Labs in the Context of Sustainable Development with a Focus on Bioeconomy"Earth 5, no. 4: 812-843. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth5040042

    APA Style

    Lakatos, E. S., Pacurariu, R. L., Bîrgovan, A. L., Cioca, L. I., Szilagy, A., Moldovan, A., & Rada, E. C. (2024). A Systematic Review of Living Labs in the Context of Sustainable Development with a Focus on Bioeconomy.Earth,5(4), 812-843. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth5040042

    Article Metrics

    No
    No

    Article Access Statistics

    For more information on the journal statistics, clickhere.
    Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
    Earth, EISSN 2673-4834, Published by MDPI
    RSSContent Alert

    Further Information

    Article Processing Charges Pay an Invoice Open Access Policy Contact MDPI Jobs at MDPI

    Guidelines

    For Authors For Reviewers For Editors For Librarians For Publishers For Societies For Conference Organizers

    MDPI Initiatives

    Sciforum MDPI Books Preprints.org Scilit SciProfiles Encyclopedia JAMS Proceedings Series

    Follow MDPI

    LinkedIn Facebook X
    MDPI

    Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

    © 1996-2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated
    Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
    We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
    Read more about our cookieshere.
    Accept
    Back to TopTop
    [8]ページ先頭
    ©2009-2025 Movatter.jp