How can the Living Lab approach support Agroecological Transition? Insights on the Socio- Economic Aspects from a Literature Review

State of the art and research question The transition toward more sustainable agri-food systems requires innovative processes integrating environmental, social, and economic sustainability. In this context, Agroecology Living Labs (ALLs) have emerged as participatory platforms that enable collaboration among farmers, researchers, advisors, and other stakeholders to co-design context-specific solutions. Living Labs provide dynamic environments for experimentation, knowledge exchange, and collective problem-solving (Galway, 2021; Leminen & Westerlund, 2019). However, their contribution to agroecological transitions remains insufficiently understood, particularly regarding their socio-economic dimensions. Existing frameworks, such as Schuurman’s (2015) three-layered model distinguishing macro (institutional), meso (project-based), and micro (methodological) levels, offer useful insights into Living Lab organization but limited understanding of how socio-economic dynamics interact with ecological outcomes. Similarly, research on participatory innovation and agroecological practices (McPhee, 2021; Pigford, 2018) highlights collaborative learning but does not fully address economic and institutional factors shaping ALL implementation. Against this background, this study aims to generate empirical insights into the implementation of ALLs and the relevance of socio-economic dimensions in their design and implementation. In particular, it examines if and how the socio-economic issues are addressed within these platforms and the mechanisms through which participatory processes contribute to agroecological transitions. Overall, the study’s research question is the following: How can the Agroecology Living Lab approach be implemented to support agroecological transitions while addressing socio-economic dimensions? Methodology and Data This study employs a rapid literature review (Tricco et al., 2015) to synthesize empirical research on Living Labs and comparable participatory approaches in agroecological contexts. The literature search was conducted in the Scopus database using keywords related to Living Labs and similar approaches ( including co-creation, co-design, and open-innovation systems) combined with agroecology to capture studies that employ diverse labels for comparable practices: [TITLE-ABS-KEY (living lab) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (livinglab) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (co-creat*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (co-design*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (open innovat*)] AND [TITLE-ABS-KEY (agroecolog*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (agro-ecolog*)]. Filters limited results to articles published between 2015 and 2025 in English. The search yielded 290 records, of which 12 were removed automatically by the database's built-in filters leaving 278 records for screening. Titles, abstracts, and keywords were then reviewed, resulting in the exclusion of 89 articles that did not address participatory approaches in agroecological contexts or were not published in peer-reviewed journals. The remaining 189 articles were assessed through full-text reading. After applying eligibility criteria, 136 articles were excluded because they did not focus on Living Lab design or implementation, did not align with an agroecological perspective, or did not report empirical applications with stakeholders. In total, 53 empirical studies were retained for analysis. The selected studies were analyzed using content analysis structured according to the Context–Intervention–Mechanism–Outcome (CIMO) framework, developed to support the formulation of structured insights that help practitioners to understand what works to generate specific outcomes, for whom, under which conditions, and through which processes (Denyer et al., 2008). This approach is well-suited for research areas with multiple actors and context-dependent processes such as ALLs. To ensure analytical consistency and transparency, each CIMO component was coded based on a set of variables: to identify contextual conditions, ‘C’ included (i) objectives, (ii) geographical setting, (iii) type of farming system, and (iv) involved stakeholders; to capture the design of intervention, ‘I’ draw on (i) participatory approach and (ii) stakeholder engagement; to surface implementation mechanisms, ‘M’ was populated from (i) participatory tools and (ii) drivers and barriers to implementation; finally, ‘O’ captured (i) agroecological outcomes and (ii) socio-economic outcomes reported in the studies. Results The analysis of the selected body of literature revealed that most studies (N. 27) aimed at co-designing farming or agri-food systems, followed by methodological development (N. 17) and knowledge co-creation (N. 10). Integrated farming systems (mixed crop-livestock or agroforestry) dominated, and France hosted the most case studies (N. 11), followed by Italy and Germany. All studies involved farmers and researchers, followed by advisors, public authorities, NGOs, and cooperatives. Participatory co-design (N. 20) and Participatory Action Research (N. 19) were the dominant approaches, reflecting a preference for iterative, co-constructed processes that integrate scientific and experiential knowledge. These approaches align with the prevalent objectives identified, confirming that intervention design tends to mirror the stated purpose of the process. At the mechanism level, workshops (N. 48) and semi-structured interviews (N. 34) were the most widely used tools, complemented by on-farm trials (N. 23) and field observations (N. 21) Regarding stakeholder engagement, three structured strategies were identified: differentiated role assignment based on interest and influence (N. 12), iterative temporal sequencing of participation phases (N. 11), and deliberate group composition balancing homogeneity and heterogeneity (N. 9). However, engagement design was unreported in nearly half of the studies, pointing to a significant methodological gap between participatory ambition and documented practice. Among the key drivers for implementing the LL approach, knowledge co-production and cross-learning (N. 25) emerged as the most frequently cited enabling mechanism, followed by shared problem urgency and intrinsic motivation (N. 23) and the use of boundary objects and participatory tools (N. 19). On the barrier side, time and workload burden (N. 23) and participation logistics and recruitment challenges (N. 22) were the most reported obstacles, alongside social and relational barriers such as power dynamics, and unequal voice (N. 20 articles each). Socio-economic outcomes emerged in a subset of studies, mainly raised by farmers around costs, labor burdens, and market access, rather than treated as explicit analytical targets. Conclusion The literature review contributes to systematizing evidence on the Living Lab approach to agroecological transition, emphasizing underexplored socio-economic dimensions and providing a foundation for more integrated ALL frameworks. ALLs show clear capacity for fostering co-designed, stakeholder-driven innovation in agroecological contexts. However, limited documentation of engagement strategies and marginal treatment of socio-economic dimensions indicate that existing frameworks prioritize technical and ecological over institutional and economic outcomes. This does not mean economic issues are absent, but rather that they are rarely designed into the process from the start. Strengthening both the rigor of stakeholder engagement design and the systematic integration of socio-economic analysis into ALL frameworks represents a key avenue for future research and practice. References Galway, L. P., Levkoe, C. Z., Portinga, R. L. W., & Milun, K. (2021). A Scoping Review Examining Governance, Co-Creation, and Social and Ecological Justice in Living Labs Literature. Challenges, 13(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe13010001 Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2019). Living labs: From scattered initiatives to a global movement. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(2), 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12310 McPhee, C., Bancerz, M., Mambrini-Doudet, M., Chrétien, F., Huyghe, C., & Gracia-Garza, J. (2021). The Defining Characteristics of Agroecosystem Living Labs. Sustainability, 13(4), 1718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041718 Pigford, A.-A. E., Hickey, G. M., & Klerkx, L. (2018). Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions. Agricultural Systems, 164, 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.04.007 Steinke, J., Ortiz-Crespo, B., van Etten, J., & Müller, A. (2022). Participatory design of digital innovation in agricultural research-for-development: Insights from practice. Agricultural Systems, 195, 103313. Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., ... & Straus, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC medicine, 13, 1-15.