The Defining Characteristics of Agroecosystem Living Labs

Abstract

In response to environmental, economic, and social challenges, the living labs approach to innovation is receiving increasing attention within the agricultural sector. In this paper, we propose a set of defining characteristics for an emerging type of living lab intended to increase the sustainability and resilience of agriculture and agri-food systems: the “agroecosystem living lab”. Drawing on first-hand knowledge of case studies of large initiatives from Canada and France and supported by eight other cases from the literature, we highlight the unique nature of agroecosystem living labs and their distinct challenges with respect to their aims, activities, participants, and context. In particular, these living labs are characterized by exceptionally high levels of scientific research; long innovation cycles with high uncertainty due to external factors; and the high number and diversity of stakeholders involved. Both procedurally and conceptually, we link to earlier efforts undertaken by researchers seeking to identify urban living labs and rural living labs as distinct, new types of living labs. By highlighting what makes agroecosystem living labs unique and their commonalities with other types of living labs, we hope to encourage their further study and help practitioners better understand their implementation and operational challenges and opportunities.

Living Labs Past Achievements, Current Developments, and Future Trajectories

“…The articles cover all the LL generations. For example, [30,31] document LLs in the context of agriculture and health care, and such articles represent a tradition of firstgeneration LLs, while [27][28][29], focus on co-creation, its process and phases in LLs in secondgeneration LLs. Greve et al [23], Bronson et al [24], Engez et al [25], and Cuomo et al [26] in turn offer various conceptualizations for LLs, which are part of discussion of thirdgeneration LLs.…”

“…McPhee et al [30] draw on agroecosystem LLs and analyze country-wide LL cases in Canada and France, including eight supporting cases. The study provides characteristics of agroecosystem LLs, meaning that such characteristics create a foundation in an emergent sub-field of agroecosystem LLs.…”

“…Several studies cf. [24,25,30] underline the need for either understanding the sustainability of LLs or the role of LL as a tool or a mechanism for better understanding sustainability both in urban and rural contexts. In this vein, McPhee et al [30] call for future research to future conceptualize agroecosystem LLs and their unique characteristics.…”

“…[24,25,30] underline the need for either understanding the sustainability of LLs or the role of LL as a tool or a mechanism for better understanding sustainability both in urban and rural contexts. In this vein, McPhee et al [30] call for future research to future conceptualize agroecosystem LLs and their unique characteristics. Studies also emphasize the need for further studies of co-creation processes, their phases, methods, and stakeholders associated processes and phases [27][28][29]31].…”

Implementing agricultural living labs that renew actors’ roles within existing innovation systems: A case study in France

“…They are also associated to the "sense of place" that is created and intervenes into the local saliency and sustainability of innovations (Frantzeskaki et al, 2018). Recent work on what has been called "agroecosystem Living Lab" underlines the specificities of agricultural Living Labs to be anchored in territories, in "connection with nature and the living system" (McPhee et al, 2021), and in "places" that should be considered broader than farms or agroecosystems given the interactions with larger agri-food systems. Territorial aspects are much more rarely mentioned in terms of already existing realities with which a newly created Living Labs should intertwin (see Santoro and Conte, 2009 for an exception), or as effects of the implementation of Living Labs on the construction of collectives desired (Lafontaine, 2017), especially in the case of rural Living Labs (Lovell et al, 2018).…”