From Co-Creation to Circular Cities: Exploring Living Labs in EU Governance Frameworks – A Literature Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2025.2.09Keywords:
co-creation, European Union, living labs, participatory governance, public policy, urban experimentationAbstract
Purpose: This paper provides a comprehensive and integrative literature review of how Living Labs (LLs) are conceptualised, implemented, and evaluated within the European Union’s governance frameworks. It aims
to trace the evolution of LLs beyond their original innovation rhetoric and to assess their actual contributions to co-creation, participatory governance, and circular transitions.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Using a PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review methodology, the study screened 403 peer-reviewed publications from the Web of Science Core Collection. Following the application
of rigorous inclusion criteria, 77 eligible studies were analysed. A co-occurrence analysis of 360 keywords was conducted using VOSviewer to identify ten thematic clusters that structure the field. The findings are discussed across four dimensions: institutional anchoring, collaborative learning, socio-economic transition, and methodological consolidation.
Findings: The review reveals that LLs function as hybrid governance infrastructures that foster innovation only when they are embedded in stable institutional settings and aligned with multi-level governance systems. While many LLs claim inclusivity, their actual transformative capacity is often constrained by power asymmetries, weak institutionalisation, and methodological fragmentation. Nevertheless, high-performing LLs demonstrate
significant value in facilitating systemic learning, promoting circular practices, and enabling democratic experimentation.
Practical Implications: The findings emphasise the need for standardised evaluation frameworks, long-term funding mechanisms, and stronger in stitutional pathways for LL outcomes to inform policy. Policymakers and
practitioners are urged to move beyond pilotism and adopt LLs as embedded tools of governance.
Originality/Value: Unlike previous studies that focused narrowly on sectoral applications or isolated urban experiments, this review is the first to systematically map the evolution of Living Labs across four governanceoriented dimensions: collaborative anchoring, democratic learning, circular innovation, and methodological evaluation. By linking these dimensions
to the structural conditions of institutional consolidation within EU public policy frameworks, the article provides a novel conceptual synthesis that bridges fragmented scholarship. It advances the field by offering an integrated perspective that captures the multifunctional role of Living
Labs as infrastructures for systemic governance innovation.
Downloads
References
Acke, A., Taelman, S. E., and Dewulf, J. (2020). A multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary approach to waste management and circular economy: The case of Flanders and Ghent, Belgium. European Spatial Research and Policy, 27(2), pp. 43–57. https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.27.2.04
Aivaz, K. A., and Vancea, D. P. C. (2009). A study of the Black Sea tourism companies efficiency using envelope techniques. Transformations in Business and Economics, 8(3), pp. 217–230.
Alexandrakis, J. (2021). Cycling towards sustainability: The transformative potential of urban design thinking in a sustainable living lab. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 9, p. 100269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100269
Amenta, L. et al. 2019). Managing the transition towards circular metabolism: Living labs as a co-creation approach. Urban Planning, 4(3), pp. 5–18. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i3.2170
Aniche, L. Q. et al. (2024). Boosting co-creation of nature-based solutions within living labs: Interrelating enablers using interpretive structural modelling. Environmental Science and Policy, 161, p. 103873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103873
Aquilue, I. et al. (2021). A methodology for assessing the impact of living labs on urban design: The case of the FURNISH project. Sustainability, 13(8), p. 4562. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084562
Arciniegas, G. et al. (2019). A geodesign decision support environment for integrating management of resource flows in spatial planning. Urban Planning, 4(3), pp. 32–51. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i3.2173
Arias, A. et al. (2025). Application of living lab concept: Where, how and for what is being used in Europe to support energy, social and environmental transition. Sustainability, 17(6), p. 2727. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062727
Arlati, A. et al. (2021). Stakeholder participation in the planning and design of nature-based solutions. Insights from CLEVER Cities project in Hamburg. Sustainability, 13(5), p. 2572. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052572
Backhaus, J., and John, S. (2025). Generalization as local and translocal embedding: Interrogating governance and deconstructing democratization in living labs. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 21(1), p. 2450856. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2025.2450856
Battisti, L., Cuomo, F., and Manganelli, A. (2024). Collaborative governance arrangements: What makes nature-based solutions endure? Territory, Politics, Governance. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2024.2355317
Bhatta, A., Vreugdenhil, H., and Slinger, J. (2025a). Harvesting living labs outcomes through learning pathways. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 9, p. 100277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2024.100277
Bhatta, A., Vreugdenhil, H., and Slinger, J. (2025b). A living lab learning framework rooted in learning theories. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 114, p. 107894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2025.107894
Bifulco, F., Tregua, M., and Amitrano, C. C. (2017). Co-governing smart cities through living labs. Top evidences from EU. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences(50E), pp. 21–37. https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.2017.0002
Bouzarovski, S. et al. (2023). Energy justice intermediaries: Living Labs in the low-carbon transformation. Local Environment, 28(12), pp. 1534–1551. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2023.2238747
Bradley, S., and Mahmoud, I. H. (2024). Strategies for co-creation and co-governance in urban contexts: Building trust in local communities with limited social structures. Urban Science, 8(1), pp. 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8010009
Bradley, S., Mahmoud, I. H., and Arlati, A. (2022). Integrated collaborative governance approaches towards urban transformation: Experiences from the CLEVER Cities project. Sustainability, 14(23), p. 15566. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315566
Broekema, P. M., Bulder, E. A. M., and Horlings, L. G. (2023). Evaluating co-creation in social innovation projects: Towards a process orientated framework for EU projects and beyond. Research Evaluation, 32(2), pp. 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad017
Brons, A. et al. (2022). A tale of two labs: Rethinking urban living labs for advancing citizen engagement in food system transformations. Cities, 123, p. 103552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103552
Bulkeley, H. et al. (2016). Urban living labs: Governing urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, pp. 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.003
Campos, I., and Marin-Gonzalez, E. (2023). Renewable energy living labs through the lenses of responsible innovation: Building an inclusive, reflexive, and sustainable energy transition. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2023.2213145
Cerreta, M. et al. (2021). Triggering active communities for cultural creative cities: The “Hack the City” play ReCH mission in the Salerno historic centre (Italy). Sustainability, 13(21), p. 11877. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111877
Ceseracciu, C. et al. (2025). Innovative governance for sustainable management of Mediterranean coastal aquifers: Evidence from Sustain-COAST living labs. Environmental Science and Policy, 167, p. 104038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104038
DeLosRios-White, M. I. et al. (2020). Mapping the life cycle co-creation process of nature-based solutions for urban climate change adaptation. Resources, 9(4), p. 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9040039
Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., and Sanchez-Canete, F. J. M. (2024). Boosting the Spanish Urban Agenda through urban living labs: The case study of Madrid. Sustainable Development, 32(5), pp. 5019–5030. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2950
Dignum, M. et al. (2020). Nurturing nature: Exploring socio-spatial conditions for urban experimentation. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, pp. 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.010
Du, R., Grigorescu, A., and Aivaz, K.-A. (2023). Higher educational institutions’ digital transformation and the roles of digital platform capability and psychology in innovation performance after COVID-19. Sustainability, 15(16), p. 12646. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612646
Dupont, L. et al. (2019). Living lab as a support to trust for co-creation of value: Application to the consumer energy market. Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, 28, pp. 53–78. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.028.0053
Ebbesson, E. (2022). Towards a co-creation framework based on citizens’ dreams of future mobility. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 16, p. 100686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100686
Ehnert, F. (2025). Sustainability transitions as contextual reconfiguration: Governance innovation through local experimentation. Earth System Governance, 23, p. 100237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2025.100237
Eneqvist, E. et al. (2022). Legitimacy in municipal experimental governance: Questioning the public good in urban innovation practices. European Planning Studies, 30(8), pp. 1596–1614. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.2015749
Falanga, R., and Nunes, M. C. (2021). Tackling urban disparities through participatory culture-led urban regeneration. Insights from Lisbon. Land Use Policy, 108, p. 105478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105478
Frantzeskaki, N. et al. (2019). Nature-based solutions for urban climate change adaptation: Linking science, policy, and practice communities for evidence-based decision-making. BioScience, 69(6), pp. 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz042
Frantzeskaki, N., van Steenbergen, F., and Stedman, R. C. (2018). Sense of place and experimentation in urban sustainability transitions: The resilience lab in Carnisse, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Sustainability Science, 13(4), pp. 1045–1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0562-5
Fuglsang, L., and Hansen, A. V. (2022). Framing improvements of public innovation in a living lab context: Processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement. Research Policy, 51(1), p. 104390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104390
Furlan, C. et al. (2024). Exploring a geodesign approach for circular economy transition of cities and regions: Three European cases. Cities, 149, p. 104930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.104930
Galli, F. et al. (2024). Integrating local food policies and spatial planning to enhance food systems and rural-urban links: A living lab experiment. Land, 13(12), p. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122014
Gatta, V., Marcucci, E., and Le Pira, M. (2017). Smart urban freight planning process: Integrating desk, living lab and modelling approaches in decision-making. European Transport Research Review, 9(3), p. 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-017-0245-9
Giannouli, I. et al. (2018). A methodological approach for holistic energy planning using the living lab concept: The case of the prefecture of Karditsa. European Journal of Environmental Sciences, 8(1), pp. 14–22. https://doi.org/10.14712/23361964.2018.3
Haddaway, N. R. et al. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(2), e1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230
Jung, M., and Wentland, A. (2024). Beyond scalable impacts: Roles of mobility experiments in local transition governance. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 33(1, SI), pp. 80–86. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.33.S1.12
Kalinauskaite, I. et al. (2021). Facing societal challenges in living labs: Towards a conceptual framework to facilitate transdisciplinary collaborations. Sustainability, 13(2), p. 614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020614
Kerboua, K. et al. (2025). A Techno-Ecological Transformative Approach of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill in Upper-Middle-Income Countries Based on Energy Recovery. Sustainability, 17(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041479
Kok, K. P. W. et al. (2021). Unraveling the politics of ‘doing inclusion’ in transdisciplinarity for sustainable transformation. Sustainability Science, 16(6), pp. 1811–1826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01033-7
Llancce, A. O. et al. (2025). From silos to synergy: Conceptualizing an integrated infrastructure design for climate resilience in Rotterdam. Climate Risk Management, 47, p. 100691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2025.100691
Mandic, A., Petric, L., and Pivcevic, S. (2025). Harmonizing sustainability and resilience in post-crisis cultural tourism: Stakeholder insights from the Split metropolitan area living lab. Tourism Management Perspectives, 55, p. 101331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2024.101331
Marchigiani, E., and Garofolo, I. (2023). Italian universities for territorial sustainable development and responsible communities – The case study of the University of Trieste. Sustainability, 15(3), p. 2325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032325
Massari, S. et al. (2023). Co-creativity in living labs: Fostering creativity in co-creation processes to transform food systems. JCOM – Journal of Science Communication, 22(3), A03. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22030203
McCrory, G. et al. (2022). Sustainability-oriented labs in transitions: An empirically grounded typology. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 43, pp. 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.03.004
McCrory, G. et al. (2020). Sustainability-oriented labs in real-world contexts: An exploratory review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, p. 123202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123202
Menny, M., Palgan, Y. V., and McCormick, K. (2018). Urban living labs and the role of users in co-creation. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 27(1), pp. 68–77. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.14
Mitic-Radulovic, A., and Lalovic, K. (2021). Multi-level perspective on sustainability transition towards nature-based solutions and co-creation in urban planning of Belgrade, Serbia. Sustainability, 13(14), p. 7576. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147576
Mukhtar-Landgren, D. (2021). Local autonomy in temporary organizations: The case of smart city pilots. Administration and Society, 53(10), pp. 1485–1511. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211009884
Mukhtar-Landgren, D. et al. (2019). Municipalities as enablers in urban experimentation. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 21(6), pp. 718–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1672525
Munteanu, I. et al. (2024). Corruption perceptions in the Schengen Zone and their relation to education, economic performance, and governance. PLOS ONE, 19(7), e0301424. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301424
Muur, J., and Karo, E. (2023). Learning from public sector innovation pilots: The case of autonomous bus pilots. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2023.2286438
Nguyen, H. T., Marques, P., and Benneworth, P. (2022). Living labs: Challenging and changing the smart city power relations? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183, p. 121866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121866
Norgard, R. T., and Holflod, K. (2025). Meeting in the middle: Cultural co-creation, transformative partnerships, and ecosystems for public good. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 57(2, SI), pp. 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2024.2384722
Obersteg, A., Arlati, A., and Knieling, J. (2020). Making cities circular: Experiences from the Living Lab Hamburg-Altona. European Spatial Research and Policy, 27(2), pp. 59–77. https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.27.2.05
Oedl-Wieser, T. et al. (2020). Formal and informal governance arrangements to boost sustainable and inclusive rural-urban synergies: An analysis of the metropolitan area of Styria. Sustainability, 12(24), p. 10637. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410637
Owen, R., Bessant, J., and Heintz, M. (Eds.). (2013). Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424
Pettersson, F., Westerdahl, S., and Hansson, J. (2018). Learning through collaboration in the Swedish public transport sector? Co-production through guidelines and living labs. Research in Transportation Economics, 69(SI), pp. 394–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.07.010
Plassnig, S. N. et al. (2022). Successful scaling of Edible City Solutions to promote food citizenship and sustainability in food system transitions. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4, p. 1032836. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.1032836
Prendeville, S., Cherim, E., and Bocken, N. (2018). Circular cities: Mapping six cities in transition. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 26, pp. 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.03.002
Rastorgueva, N. et al. (2025). Agroecological living labs as entry points for transition towards sustainable food systems: A novel framework for the evaluation of living labs at different scales. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2025.2477215
Rehm, S.-V., McLoughlin, S., and Maccani, G. (2021). Experimentation platforms as bridges to urban sustainability. Smart Cities, 4(2), pp. 569–587. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4020030
Ruijer, E. (2021). Designing and implementing data collaboratives: A governance perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), p. 101612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101612
Saad, E. A., and Agogue, M. (2024). Living labs in science-industry collaborations: Roles, design, and application patterns. Technovation, 135, p. 103066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103066
Sarabi, S. et al. 2021). Barriers to the adoption of urban living labs for NBS implementation: A systemic perspective. Sustainability, 13(23), p. 13276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313276
Scholl, C., and Kemp, R. (2016). City labs as vehicles for innovation in urban planning processes. Urban Planning, 1(4), pp. 89–102. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v1i4.749
Sjoman, M., Ringenson, T., and Kramers, A. (2020). Exploring everyday mobility in a living lab based on economic interventions. European Transport Research Review, 12(1), p. 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-019-0392-2
Slave, A. R. et al. (2023). Assessing public opinion using self-organizing maps. Lessons from urban planning in Romania. Landscape and Urban Planning, 231, p. 104641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104641
Slingerland, G., and Overdiek, A. (2023). Beyond human sensors: More-than-human citizen sensing in biodiversity urban living labs. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Communities and Technologies – Humanization of Digital Technologies, pp. 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3593743.3593753
Soeiro, D. (2021). Smart cities and innovative governance systems: A reflection on urban living labs and action research. Fennia – International Journal of Geography, 199(1), pp. 104–112. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.97054
Stan, M.-I., Aivaz, K.-A., Vintilă, D.-F., and Lonițiu, L. (2021). Assessing the perception of stakeholders regarding the impact of coastal tourism on the environment in the Romanian Black Sea coastal area. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research, 8(4), pp. 628–639. https://doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v8i4.695
Stan, M.-I., and Tasente, T. (2023). Examining information, consultation, and communication in Romanian local public administrations within the online sphere: A case study of Constanta and Cluj-Napoca. Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI, 56, pp. 357–376.
Stan, M.-I., and Tasente, T. (2024). Citizen-centric smart cities: Empowering public administration through social media and citizen engagement. Hrvatska i Komparativna Javna Uprava, 23(4), pp. 529–558. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.23.4.5
Stan, M.-I., Țenea, D.-D., Vintilă, D.-F., and Tasențe, T. (2023). Curricular relevance and workforce preparedness: Student perspectives on practical experiences in urban planning and construction courses. Studies in Business and Economics, 18(3), pp. 261–280. https://doi.org/10.2478/sbe-2023-0058
Teko, E., and Lah, O. (2022). Capacity needs assessment in transport innovation living labs: The case of an innovative e-mobility project. Frontiers in Future Transportation, 3, p. 799505. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffutr.2022.799505
Thees, H. et al. (2020). The living lab as a tool to promote residents’ participation in destination governance. Sustainability, 12(3), p. 1120. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031120
van Waes, A., Nikolaeva, A., and Raven, R. (2021). Challenges and dilemmas in strategic urban experimentation: An analysis of four cycling innovation living labs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, p. 121004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121004
Vilarino, F., Karatzas, D., and Valcarce, A. (2018). The Library Living Lab: A collaborative innovation model for public libraries. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(12), pp. 17–25. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1202
Voorwinden, A., van Bueren, E., and Verhoef, L. (2023). Experimenting with collaboration in the smart city: Legal and governance structures of urban living labs. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), p. 101875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101875
Voytenko, Y. et al. (2016). Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, pp. 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.053
Wehrmann, C., Pentzold, C., Rothe, I., and Bischof, A. (2023). Introduction: Living labs under construction. JCOM – Journal of Science Communication, 22(3), p. 22030501. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22030501
Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., and Habib, C. (2018). Key constructs and a definition of living labs as innovation platforms. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(12), pp. 51–62. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1205
Witteveen, L. et al. (2023). Reflecting on four living labs in the Netherlands and Indonesia: A perspective on performance, public engagement and participation. JCOM – Journal of Science Communication, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.22030201
Zingraff-Hamed, A. et al. (2020). Stakeholder mapping to co-create nature-based solutions: Who is on board? Sustainability, 12(20), p. 8625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208625
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Mari-Isabella Stan, Tănase Tasente
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
