Implementing Living Labs to Support Local Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Strategies Using a Systems Innovation Approach

Abstract

Climate change impacts in Europe are accelerating, creating urgent adaptation needs across diverse local contexts. This paper presents the implementation of a Systems Innovation Approach (SIA) through living labs to co-design climate resilience strategies in nine European case studies. SIA provides a structured, participatory framework for systemic change through a stepwise approach, enabling the development of tailor-made sustainability strategies by co-designing a portfolio of short-, mid-, and long-term innovative solutions. Living labs can successfully support open innovation ecosystems by facilitating knowledge exchange, trust-building, and co-creation of tailored innovation pathways for adaptation. Results showcase how the SIA can be operationalized in the context of climate change adaptation and resilience throughout nine case studies. The discussion highlights how living labs, using an SIA, can enhance stakeholder networks and build capacity and co-create knowledge and mutual understanding across diverse stakeholders while fostering actionable strategies. However, challenges remain regarding sustaining living labs beyond project funding, maintaining engagement, and bridging planning-to-implementation gaps. The paper concludes with recommendations for institutionalizing living labs within governance frameworks to accelerate Europe’s transition toward climate resilience.

1. Introduction

The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [1] details the increased consequences of a 1.5 °C rise in global temperature such as rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and shrinking sea ice. These effects are projected to intensify, with marked increases in the frequency and severity of heatwaves, heavy rainfall, and droughts expected in the coming years. One of AR6’s most alarming conclusions is that the impacts of climate change on human populations are more widespread and severe than previously thought, with about half of the global population facing severe water scarcity for at least one month per year, high temperatures enabling the spread of vector-borne diseases, and reduced agricultural productivity. Even in the very positive scenarios, climate change will continue to have manifold impacts due to the inertia of the climatic system. Therefore, apart from climate change mitigation efforts, the global community and climate policies are increasingly focusing on adaptation, meaning limiting the impacts of climate change and safeguarding people and nature.

According to the European Environmental Agency, Europe is the fastest-warming continent in the world and faces tremendous climate risks [2]. While climate change impacts will be felt throughout Europe, their effects will vary significantly locally. Some regions will experience higher temperature rises, while some others will face more intense storms and rainfall or be affected by water scarcity. In addition, inequality makes some communities more vulnerable to climate change impacts than others. For example, areas with populations whose livelihoods are primarily natural resource-based have disproportionate exposure to changes in ecological systems [3]. Likewise, urban areas and especially lower-income socioeconomic groups within these areas are more exposed to air pollution, noise, and high temperatures [4]. Therefore, climate change adaptation strategies must be designed and implemented in terms of local environmental and socio-economic conditions [5]. To achieve this, different authors stress the urgency of scientifically informed place-based approaches to designing climate change adaptation policies [6,7].

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the ongoing discourse on how the science–society interface can contribute to climate change adaption in Europe, using the Systems Innovations Approach (SIA) implemented in living labs. SIA is a methodological framework to orchestrate systemic and holistic change when facing complex problems such as climate change [3,8,9]. Historically, SIA has been effectively applied at the regional and local levels [3,10,11]. It comprises a stepwise participatory process, within the context of living labs, in which a sustainability challenge and the underlying complex systems are defined and analyzed, levers for change are identified, desired futures are illustrated, and innovative solutions are charted on a timeline. The methodology developed proposes a robust selection of stakeholders in order to ensure the quality of the participatory process, one of the most challenging aspects in the implementation of living labs [12].

2. Living Labs and Stakeholder Participation in Climate Adaptation and Resilience

Effective and efficient long-term engagement of stakeholders to address place-based sustainability challenges requires the creation of a new arena of knowledge exchange that enables the co-identification of tailor-made solutions within a specific context while fostering trust and the development of new relationships. Living labs are increasingly recognized as a tool to support and sustain long-term stakeholder engagement. Living labs, as defined by the European Network of Living Labs, are “open innovation ecosystems in real-life environments based on a systematic user co-creation approach that integrates research and innovation activities in communities and/or multi-stakeholder environments, placing citizens and/or end-users at the centre of the innovation process” and are particularly well suited to anchor this process in real-world systems [13]. Early living labs mainly involved users in technological innovation processes supporting the design and testing of new products and services [14]. In recent years, the value of living labs as a sustainability-oriented tool has gained traction [6,15,16].

Living labs can engage a diverse set of stakeholders to co-create knowledge related to context-specific sustainability challenges and allow for the co-development of holistic solutions. Living labs emphasize the importance of placing these stakeholders at the core of research and innovation processes, and additionally effectively integrate these processes into real-life communities and settings [17]. Furthermore, participation in a living lab aims to sustain long-term involvement; as such, stakeholders can be engaged in an iterative process in which learning and experimenting are continuous. Indeed, the literature argues that living labs are a practical tool for improving sustainability by facilitating both collaborative long-term learning within a diverse group of actors, as well as experimentation with solutions that are directly relevant to stakeholders [12,15,18].

Today, various living lab concepts coexist, depending on their methodological approach, underpinning theory, format, and purpose [19]. ENoLL describes various living labs on the basis of their purpose, such as Living Labs for Grand Societal Challenges, for Business and Emerging Technologies, and for Inclusive Societal Engagement, and Campus/University Living Labs [17]. It is equally important to acknowledge the various forms of living labs, in terms of their organizational structure and permanence, with the more common project-based living labs being temporary in nature and attached to specific actions, goals and initiatives within a defined scope, while permanent living lab organizations function as ongoing innovation ecosystems, supporting continuous collaboration and co-creation activities with no fixed end date [20,21,22]. All variations in living labs present various opportunities and challenges [23] in terms of engagement, building consensus, flexibility, communication, management of expectations and ownership of the process as outlined in Figure 1.

Specifically, within the context of climate adaptation and mitigation, living labs have been applied in various settings targeting location or sector-specific challenges, e.g., Urban living labs aimed at addressing climate change impacts like flooding, heat, etc. [24,25]. In addition, living labs are increasingly acknowledged as particularly successful in terms of real-world testing of solutions, bridging science, policy and practice, promoting local ownership, social learning and capacity development [26,27,28]. That said, the fact that living labs are often not embedded within formal governance structures hampers their effectiveness in terms of generating lasting impacts in relation to climate change adaptation and resilience, reflected in successful pilots by and large remaining local experiments [29]. In addition, many living labs in this space often lack systematic evaluation frameworks that can follow adaptation outcomes, which tend to manifest in the mid- to long-term [30].

SIA involves the long-term scientifically guided engagement of a broad set of stakeholders in living labs. The living lab tends to address grand sustainability challenges, such as climate change, which requires consideration of the biophysical, technological and social elements of the system before identifying holistic solutions. This can only be achieved by involving multi-actor groups with diverse knowledge and capabilities [31]. The engagement of a broad set of stakeholders in research has been identified as a valuable governance tool, particularly at the regional level [10,11]. Lack of awareness, high uncertainty, diverse perspectives, and conflicts are often innate in sustainability-related challenges [3]. The engagement of a broad set of stakeholders allows the group to address a broader societal agenda, negotiating alternative pathways towards a common goal, while promoting reflexivity. Moreover, such a multi-actor approach has been beneficial in delivering place-based policy recommendations that are widely acceptable and the translation of research results into existing policy frameworks [6]. Nevertheless, although the engagement of stakeholders in living labs is increasingly common across the science–policy interface, as indicated by a 2024 study conducted by ENoLL [17], there is an array of methodologies, structures, and practices that incorporate this useful tool. The same study also highlights the need for continued research to deepen insights into the application of living labs and the development of our understanding as a research community. This study advances previous living lab research by demonstrating how long-term, structured stakeholder engagement, sustained for over 40 months across nine diverse European regions, can be systematically orchestrated through SIA, analyzing consistent approaches in different local geographical contexts in order to develop an understanding of how systemic innovation, in the case of climate change adaptation, can be fostered. The study adopts learning from documented implementations of living labs [32] and unlike earlier sustainability-oriented living lab implementations, which often focus on short-term experimentation or single-site interventions, our approach embeds iterative co-creation processes that strengthen stakeholder networks over time and deepen collective systems understanding of complex societal challenges such as climate change. Moreover, the study introduces a novel application of SIA in a multi-case, transboundary setting, involving living labs that span administrative and national boundaries (e.g., Prespa Lakes and the Western Black Sea). This expands the methodological frontier by showing how SIA can sustain a co-creation process that operates not only within local systems, but also across national governance scales, offering new insights into how systemic adaptation pathways can be co-designed in complex, cross-border socio-ecological contexts.

In this paper, we examine how the implementation of SIA in living labs can be used to engage stakeholders in an iterative and participatory process aiming at better understanding and addressing local climate change challenges, and foster immediate tangible and intangible impacts based on a study involving nine different European living labs.

Figure 1. Living lab challenges and mitigation strategies [33].

Figure 1. Living lab challenges and mitigation strategies [33].

3. Empirical Context

3.1. Innovation for Climate-Resilient European Communities

As mentioned already, the impacts of climate change are accelerating with increasingly drastic financial and societal costs. From flash floods in Germany and Spain to extreme fires in Portugal and Greece, it has become extremely urgent for European regions to adapt to new climatic conditions. Adaptation options involve innovation in the structural/physical, social, and institutional spheres [1]. Innovation can range from the diffusion of new technologies to changes in governance structures and risk management policies to develop adaptive capacity through, for example, the establishment of novel institutional structures for knowledge diffusion [33,34,35,36]. The adaptation options that are selected across geographical areas vary tremendously depending on the type and severity of the impacts of climate change. These impacts also vary from place to place, depending on physical vulnerability, the degree of socio-economic development, and natural and human adaptive capacities [5]. Therefore, a portfolio of tailor-made solutions must be implemented, capable of addressing local needs and challenges, a task which cannot be effectively achieved without a stakeholder engagement approach including tools capable of harnessing the necessary knowledge. Moreover, such a process must be implemented across several sectors in order for their interlinked impacts to result in systemic change.

SIA aims to contribute to the development of such systemic change processes through the long-term engagement of stakeholders in living labs. Conceptually, SIA is based on systems thinking and the transition management approach [37,38,39]. The idea of a transition emerged to conceptualize processes of systemic change as a response to complex environmental problems [40]. A societal transition is understood as a shift from a dominant system, characterized by a specific socio-technical regime to another, through innovations encompassing changes in technologies, as well as in corresponding social structures, such as culture, norms, markets, policies and user practices [41,42]. A considerable number of studies analyze historical examples of transitions and employ the concept of an “innovation pathway” to analyze unfolding socio-technical innovation processes that lead to systemic change [43,44,45]. The transition management perspective has particularly focused on governing transitions. It assumes that actor activities can be deliberately influenced in such a way that they lead to accelerated systemic change [38], and in this sense is mainly aimed at decision makers who are willing and able to foster change. Within the context of the approach, living labs are used to organize multi-actor participatory activities required to collaboratively shift to new ways of doing to achieve objectives such as local climate change adaptation or promoting sustainability in the European science–policy interface.

3.2. The ARSINOE Project

Building on the foundation of systems approaches as a basis for sustainable socio-technical transitions [46], the EU-funded ARSINOE project aimed to co-create climate-resilient regions through systemic solutions and innovations with SIA at its core. The project adopts SIA as a framework within which scientists and stakeholders alike the growing complexity, interdependencies and interconnectedness of modern societies and economies, focusing on the functions of the cross-sectoral system “as a whole” and on the variety of actors, instead of focusing on specific functions or individual/sectoral benefits. The project further leverages an innovation matchmaking platform, the Climate Innovation Window (CIW), which presents a collection of adaptation innovations. In this context, adaptation to climate change refers to all approaches taken to adjust, prepare for, and accommodate new conditions that are created by changing climates. Adaptations may be cultural and societal or financial solutions, for example, families deciding to purchase flood, fire, or windstorm insurance. For natural-resource managers, adaptation strategies also include actions taken to assist natural resources (species, habitats, forest plantations, and watersheds) in not only adapting to new conditions imposed by the climate, but also facing socio-economic impacts brought about by a worsening climate migration crisis.

Within the ARSINOE project, the SIA is implemented in the context of nine diverse case study areas (CSAs) representing varied European geographic and socio-economic contexts to support the co-identification of a portfolio of innovations in the form of innovation pathways designed to support local regions in their resilience and adaptation strategy to climate change. These pathways are co-created and co-designed by stakeholders from the CSAs, who can then select either existing technologies from the CIW pool of solution providers or technologies from external solution providers to form an innovation package for resilience to climate change in their local context. The nine case studies were selected according to two criteria. First, each case study ought to revolve around a climate change adaptation challenge at the local scale. Second, the selection should comprise cases that vary in the type of climate change adaptation challenge, the degree of socio-economic development of the area, and natural and human adaptive capacity to contribute to the generalizability of the results and the robustness of the framework. The characteristics of the nine cases selected for the ARSINOE project are summarized in

Table 1. Description of ARSINOE case studies.

Case Studies	Location	Geography	Main Climate Change Adaptation Challenge
1	Athens, Greece	City	Extreme heat
2	Mediterranean ports (Piraeus, Greece; Limassol, Cyprus; Valencia, Spain)	Ports	Extreme weather damage to port and coastal infrastructure
3	Main river basin	River basin	Summer droughts, heat waves and winter floods
4	Ohrid and the Prespa Lakes, south-western Europe	Lakes	Water scarcity
5	Canary Islands, Spain	Islands	Vulnerability of aquifers in volcanic islands leading to water scarcity
6	Black sea (Romania; Bulgaria; Türkiye)	Delta and Sea basin	Water scarcity, flooding, and pressure on marine and freshwater ecosystems
7	Southern Denmark	Coastal areas	Flooding and storm surge
8	Torbay, Southwest England	Inland riverine area	Flooding and cascading failures
9	Sardinia, Italy	Island	Drought and water scarcity impact on agriculture

below. They represent different geographical contexts (river, lakes, seas, cities, islands, and ports) and governance levels (municipality, region, river basin, sea basin, and transboundary region), addressing the diversity of climate change challenges (extreme heat, flood, water scarcity, drought, extreme weather events, and ecosystem degradation).

It is within this context that this paper examines the implementation of SIA as a means to support climate change adaptation and resilience in a multi-case study setting.

4. Methodology

This study uses an action research design to examine the implementation SIA across nine European living labs, positioning knowledge generation and practical intervention as mutually reinforcing processes. With SIA as a methodology rooted in grounded theory, it is well-suited to the inductive nature of living lab processes, supporting the identification of stakeholder relationships, climate change challenges, and goal-setting, and envisioning and co-identification of solutions as they emerge from participatory activities within the living labs [47,48]. As such, the adoption of an overarching action research framework is particularly well-suited to complex, context-specific cases such as this, which deal with climate adaptation while also driving change in real-world systems. It supports repeated cycles of planning, action, observation, and reflection necessary to fine-tune the implementation of SIA in the context of each case study, providing a common framework with enough built-in flexibility to adapt to the unique attributes of each case study [49]. Reflexivity [50] is woven through the process: researchers regularly examine their positionality, facilitation roles, and methodological choices, allowing adaptive adjustments to SIA implementation as stakeholder dynamics and contextual conditions shift [51]. Together, these methods create a solid basis for assessing how SIA implementation in living labs can engage stakeholders through iterative, participatory cycles that deepen a shared understanding of local climate challenges, while generating immediate practical and relational impacts across varied European settings.

4.1. Systems Innovation Approach in Living Labs

SIA comprises a stepwise process to engage stakeholders in living labs with the end goal of co-designing “innovation pathways” as roadmaps for a system change to address complex sustainability challenges. A system can be described as an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in such a way that it produces its own pattern of behavior [39]. Within SIA, a system is delineated according to a sustainability challenge to be addressed in a particular geographic location. System elements comprise actors, institutions, practices, policies, and innovations relevant to a sustainability challenge in a geographical or administrative area (e.g., a municipality, a region, an island, a port, a catchment, a sea basin). The holistic understanding of the system and its behavior will allow further exploration of systemic change, as well as serve as a tool for consensus building among stakeholders in the participatory processes implemented in living labs [52].

Within this research, living labs are understood as sustainability-oriented living labs or labs for sustainability transition experiments [12], a cross-organizational collaborative initiative between actors from academia and society (government, industry and civil society) where members physically meet at regular intervals (in participatory workshops, focus groups, world cafés, site visits, public events, etc.) with clear inputs, objectives and expected outputs, and additionally interact virtually through online meetings, electronic surveys, virtual events, etc. They are used to foster mutual learning and knowledge exchange across various sectors and stakeholder groups impacted by a specific sustainability challenge, in this case, climate change. The group agrees on long-term sustainability goals, identifies innovative solutions and co-designs pathways to transition from the present to a desired future state.

The study adapts the generic SIA framework [8] to develop a project-specific methodology to suit the needs of the case studies. The methodology defines a stepwise process to be implemented by each of the project case studies over three workshops, as illustrated in Figure 2, and described in the following sub-chapters.

4.2. Living Lab Challenge and Stakeholder Selection

The SIA starts with the definition of the challenge the living lab aims to tackle, by clearly defining the system boundaries (spatial, temporal or conceptual) and the living lab objectives (‘what is the aim of the living lab and the expected outcome(s)?’). Another crucial step is the identification of the set of stakeholders to be engaged within the living lab participatory processes. The identification of stakeholders is conducted through a structured method informed by a stakeholder mapping [52]. First, relevant categories of stakeholders from the quadruple helix (academia, industry, government, civil society) are identified according to their capacity to influence the system behavior but also their knowledge of how the system behaves, for instance, entrepreneurs, citizens, and policy makers operating in various sectors impacting and impacted by the sustainability challenge the living lab aims to address. Afterwards, these stakeholders (organizations and/or individuals) for the identified categories are inventoried in a “long list” of stakeholders, considering stakeholder type, sector, and scale of operation. To narrow down the initial long list of stakeholders, an “influence/interest matrix” mapping and analysis are conducted [53,54]. The listed stakeholders are plotted along this matrix, where ‘influence’ refers to the degree of power and capacity the stakeholder has to generate change, and ‘interest’ refers to the likelihood that the stakeholder will participate in the living lab due to the relevance of the living lab’s focus to the stakeholder (e.g., on account of impact, occupational responsibility, local connection, etc.).

The stakeholders within the upper right quadrant (high influence/high interest) constitute the core group of stakeholders to be engaged in the living lab and will serve as the basis for recruiting living lab participants. In addition, consideration is also given to the inclusion of stakeholders at the upper limits of the top left (those likely to be able to drive change and may develop a stronger interest) and the bottom right quadrants (the voices less heard—those with a high level of interest and local knowledge but who are often left out of the decision-making processes). The analysis of stakeholders based on this matrix allows for the identification of stakeholders to whom the work is most relevant and who are most likely to be engaged in the research process. While it is advantageous to utilize the living labs as an opportunity to engage influential decision-makers, the examination of ‘Interest’ also allows for the identification of those stakeholders who will invest time and effort into supporting the research process and participate actively. Finally, to validate the choice of key stakeholders, the results of the analysis are reviewed by independent experts, and necessary revisions are implemented accordingly.

Following the identification of stakeholders, the SIA is implemented by convening a selected group of stakeholders, ensuring representation based on the relevant sectors in which the stakeholder is active, the various stakeholder types from the quadruple helix (public and private sector, academia and civil society) and gender balance in order to form the core of the living lab. The living lab is operationalized within the SIA process, which comprises four distinctive phases: 1. system mapping, 2. envisioning, 3. backcasting, and 4. building the pathways. These four stages are co-developed with stakeholders in living labs over a period which allows learning and experimentation.

4.3. System Mapping and Problem Scoping

Sustainability challenges are societal problems that are highly complex. Divergent claims, normative values, problem framings, and interests are inherent in such challenges. In addition, complexity in terms of the multi-dimensional nature of the problems and uncertainty due to lack of knowledge also adds to the struggle of clearly defining such problems and reaching a consensus on appropriate solutions. The first step of the SIA to ensure that all stakeholders engaged in the living lab share a common understanding of the sustainability challenge to be tackled, how it impacts the system the living lab is focusing on and how they affect (positively or negatively) this system. The participatory process begins with the implementation of a multi-stakeholder workshop focusing on an open discussion aimed at graphically representing the stakeholders’ mental perceptions of their system through the identification of the main issues, opportunities, obstacles, and solutions in the context of the sustainability challenge in the region. Emphasis is placed on the interconnections between the physical and social elements of the systems, which include actors, institutions and innovations, to understand the systems’ behavior and present a snapshot of a given point in time. The outputs are depicted in a mental map, which allows the representation of the interconnected systems and illustrates the multiple relationships between system elements. The group discussion is facilitated towards reaching consensus on the different elements of the system and key interactions across sectors and ecosystems, as well as a common understanding of the main challenges. Through this cognitive exercise, different representations of the system based on stakeholder background, experiences, knowledge, and perceptions of the environment are heard, discussed, and integrated to build a comprehensive graphical representation of the system that will form the basis of the living lab’s future discussions and activities. The participatory analysis of this mental map highlights not only synergies but also trade-offs within the system, and subsequently levers of change to inform the identification of a specific ‘living-lab problem’—a starting point for intervention within the system: the context-specific problem scope the living lab will focus on (e.g., in the context of climate change, how to adapt in future extreme heat events in the municipality of Athens).

4.4. Envisioning a Sustainable Future

The next step is about ideating and co-creating a sustainable future. Envisioning is a foresight method that attempts to create a feasible and desirable future scenario (normative scenario) in which current problems are solved. To achieve this in a living lab context, stakeholders are asked to develop a common vision describing a desirable sustainable future in which the key sustainability challenge, the living lab problem, has been addressed. The development of the vision can be prompted by attempting to answer an open question, i.e., “how would you like the region to look in 2050?” Following this open discussion, stakeholders further analyze their visions by participating in envisioning exercises [8]. Rooted in appreciative inquiry [55], the purpose here is to build a shared positive vision of the future across sectors and stakeholder groups (academia, business, policy makers, civil society). Stakeholders are encouraged to consider long-term systemic transitions, and not to be confined by the status quo or the way things are at present. Envisioning is not a predictive exercise but rather a means to provide a sense of direction, a goal to be achieved by the innovation pathways. To guide envisioning exercises, helpful material can be provided to the stakeholders, such as guiding principles based on the Sustainable Development Goal targets that are relevant to regions and sustainability challenges. In addition, examples of best practices, successful initiatives and innovative ideas already developed (e.g., seeds for Anthropocene database, https://goodanthropocenes.net/ (accessed on 25 November 2025), climate adapt platform, https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en, climate innovation window, https://climateinnovationwindow.eu/, etc.) can be used as inspiration for solutions which could be replicated in the local context of the living lab.

4.5. Backcasting: Co-Design of Innovation Pathways

The co-development of innovation pathways is based on participatory backcasting. In a participatory backcasting exercise, stakeholders analyze how the desirable future previously envisaged can be achieved by looking back from this future and identifying steps to get there. It has shown great value in exploring and evaluating possible system innovations towards sustainability [11,56,57]. This is because participatory backcasting, unlike other scenario approaches which focus on possible scenarios, has an explicit normative component that allows individuals to imagine normative goals and “out of the box” pathways that are not necessarily parts of dominant trends. Practically, stakeholders are encouraged to identify changes and key milestones for the long, middle and short term which will contribute to the development of innovation pathways. At this point, the term innovation is not limited to technological innovations but also includes social ones, such as new political or economic frameworks, public policies, significant changes in actor configuration, and changes in cultural conventions.

During this step, necessary changes such as future milestones are plotted along a realistic timeline which depicts their temporal relationship (short-, mid-, long-term timeline). The group further identifies innovations with the potential to support the achievement of the plotted milestones. The outcome of the participatory backcasting exercise will be outline innovation pathways which include a temporal sequence of changes and the innovations/actions that can enable those changes.

4.6. Building: Elaborating the Pathways

This final step aims to bridge the gap between strategy and action by elaborating the innovation pathways outlined during the backcasting phase. This crucial step in the SIA process examines each of the innovations and actions plotted in the outline pathways, identifying barriers that could obstruct and/or hinder the implementation of the innovations/actions, as well as enabling conditions that would support their implementation. A PESTLE framework (https://pestleanalysis.com/what-is-pestle-analysis/ (accessed on 25 November 2025)) looking at the Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental factors is used to map barriers and enablers for the implementation of innovations and actions along the pathways. In defining these concrete actions, participants also identify the relevant actors and their potential roles within the implementation of the pathways.

4.7. Action Research and Reflexivity: Monitoring and Evaluation

The implementation of the SIA process is centered on stakeholder participation grounded in a normative framework emphasizing empowerment, equity, trust, and multidirectional learning within the living labs. These stakeholder interactions as part of the SIA process are operationalized through the regular—and progressively institutionalized—organization of exchanges with living lab leaders (project partners responsible for the case study sites) who are either local stakeholders themselves or closely embedded within the living lab ecosystems of each site. This pillar of the methodological process provides the basis for the overarching action research strand of work [58], which focuses on the means of implementing the SIA within the context of a climate adaptation study with multiple case areas and living labs. Specifically, the action research considers reflexivity in the context of sustainability and climate adaptation studies [59,60], and how the practice of reflexivity in itself facilitates deeper engagement and co-production of adaptation solutions with stakeholders [61].

Within the context of weekly meetings held with the project consortium and case study leaders, findings on the implementation of the various SIA activities within the living labs were elicited through structured and iterative dialogue, enabling continuous monitoring of project progress at the local level and facilitating the incremental refinement of the SIA process within each case study. These meetings, along with regular internal meetings of the research team, also provide a basis for ongoing evaluation of the SIA process through internal self-assessment and reflexivity [50,62], improving the methodology on an iterative basis. This regularity of exchanges allows the project team to follow the evolution of local dynamics, identify emerging challenges, and adapt methodologies to the local context in real time, proposing additional activities accordingly if needed.

In parallel, the process is externally evaluated during stakeholder workshops, where participants provide immediate qualitative feedback and complete satisfaction surveys disseminated by case study leaders. The results of these evaluations are systematically analyzed and reintegrated into the design and organization of subsequent workshops, reinforcing an iterative cycle of learning and improvement. The surveys consider seven parameters for assessing the impact of the living labs and SIA implementation that relate both to living lab opportunities and challenges identified within the literature as well as specific objectives of the ARSINOE project [27,29,63]. As such, the survey solicited feedback on (i) creating new contacts and network, (ii) developing new skills, (iii) the feeling of being involve in concrete actions, (iv) usefulness in communicating sectoral challenges, (v) help linking local policy to action, (vi) improving knowledge on climate change, resilience and adaptation, and (vii) increasing awareness of the Sustainable Development Goals, providing both statistical data and open field responses, some of which are quoted within Section 6 of this paper.

This core mechanism of regular exchange is complemented by additional communication and coordination tools, including newsletters produced at both project and case study levels, face-to-face workshops, and regular online meetings among project partners specifically dedicated to case study activities. Collectively, these instruments contributed to the structuring and long-term support of stakeholder engagement across all sites, ensuring continuity, responsiveness to local contexts, and sustained involvement of stakeholders over the full duration of the project.

5. Results: Application to European Regions for Climate Resilience and Adaptation

5.1. Operationalization of the SIA

Within the ARSINOE project, every case study focused on co-designing innovation pathways for climate change adaptation with local stakeholders. The SIA was operationalized through the establishment and engagement of a living lab in each case study over a period of 40 months. The process was essentially the implementation of the methodological design described in Section 3.1 (see Figure 2). In order to ensure methodological consistency and comparability of results across the nine ARSINOE living labs, a dedicated coordination research team provided continuous support through structured methodological guidelines, targeted training, and a standardized reporting protocol. Prior to each participatory workshop, the coordination team organized preparatory training sessions (conducted either in person or online) for the nine local facilitation teams. These sessions included a mock workshop designed to enable an in-depth understanding of the planned activities and tools. Furthermore, individualized pre-workshop consultations were held to support planning, while post-workshop debriefings facilitated critical reflection on implementation outcomes and identification of effective practices and areas for improvement, revising the methodology where necessary. For example, while the mental map of the system produced from workshop 1 was evaluated in terms of clarity, hierarchy and focus, the use of the activities and tools used during the process was also reviewed, with case study leaders reflecting on their experience in facilitating the workshops. Moreover, a critical evaluation of the participants in living lab sessions was necessary. In case key stakeholders were missing, it was important to arrange bilateral meetings to include those missing perspectives, and potential knowledge gaps were rectified by inviting the relevant actors to participate in the next steps. In addition, weekly online meetings were convened among the nine living lab leaders to present progress updates, exchange feedback, and share lessons learned. This iterative process allowed early implementers to provide practical insights and recommendations to subsequent teams, fostering collective learning and adaptive management. For each workshop, the coordination team proposed a general agenda while allowing flexibility for local adaptation, including the integration of context-specific activities and interactive sessions. A standardized reporting template was also introduced to ensure consistency in documentation, enable cross-lab comparison, and support methodological reflection aimed at enhancing replicability.

Table 2. Operationalization of SIA.

SIA Steps	Scope	Method and Tools	Main Outcome
Step 0—Stakeholder selection	Identification of a core group of stakeholders representing key sectors and institutions	- Based on local knowledge, extended inventory of organization operating within the geographical boundary of the living lab and related to the societal issue to be addressed - Power/interest matrix - Validation of stakeholder list using expert local knowledge	Selection of an average group of 10–20 stakeholders with the necessary knowledge, power to foster change and influence decision-making, and interest in engaging in the living lab activities.
Step 1—System mapping and Problem scoping	Co-development of mental map and system boundaries (special/temporal/conceptual)	- Living lab participatory workshop 1 - Systems thinking approach - Causal Loop Diagram (CLD)	- A mental map representing stakeholders’ diverse perceptions of the system - A problem statement
	Fine tune and simplify the CLD	Desktop work One-on-one meeting with key stakeholders
	- Review and validation of system map - Validate the problem statement	Living lab participatory workshop 1
Step 2—Envisioning a sustainable future	Co-development of a future vision	Living lab participatory workshop 2 including individual and group envisioning activities. Use of visuals presenting examples of innovative solutions to trigger imagination
	- A future narrative describing how the case study successfully adapted to climate change as agreed upon across sectors and stakeholders	- Research team merges the groups’ vision - Stakeholders validate the merged vision through online interactions
Step 3—Backcasting: Co-design of innovation pathway outline	Identification of key sectors in need of innovation for climate change adaptation	Vision analysis	Key sector which will be the focus of the innovation pathways
	Strengthen stakeholder engagement in the living lab	Case study visit; online or face-to-face meeting to present the final vision; world café, etc.	Ensure living lab activities and outputs are anchored within local context
	Identification of potential innovations necessary to achieve the vision	- Online interactions with stakeholders to develop an inventory of key innovations adapted to the case study climate change challenge - Desktop research - Climate Innovation Window and climate adaptation databases	Short-, mid- and long-term milestones and supporting innovations
	Co-design of innovation pathways working backwards from the desired future	- Living lab participatory workshop 3 - Backcasting approach	Innovation pathway outline
Step 4—Building: Elaborating the pathways	Consolidate the Innovation pathways and identification of supporting actions	- One-on-one meeting with key stakeholders and experts - Desktop research - Policy analysis	A coherent set of short-, mid- and long-term milestones and innovations
	Identification of barriers and enablers for implementing the innovation pathways	- PESTLE framework - One-on-one meeting with key stakeholders and experts - Desktop research	A set of political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental barriers and enablers
Monitoring and evaluation	Ensure consistent methodological implementation across case studies Assess the impacts of the living lab SIA	- Living lab weekly online meetings - Yearly face-to-face meeting - Twinning - Participant evaluation survey	- A peer-to-peer learning process between living labs - Comparable results across living labs - Identification of living lab impacts and areas of improvement

summarizes the living lab activities, methods and tools used to collect, analyze and validate data, and the corresponding SIA steps.

The living lab implementation process started with stakeholder mapping conducted by the research team in close collaboration with a local partner knowledgeable on and embedded within the local stakeholder ecosystem (e.g., the municipality, the port authority). The selection process of stakeholders to be invited in the living lab was conducted based on a mapping of the stakeholders using a power/influence matrix, which was reviewed and validated by an external expert, ensuring the key sectors of the local system were represented (

Table 3. SIA implementation in ARSINOE living lab.

Case Studies	Location	Living Lab Focus	Number of Stakeholders Engaged in a Living Lab	Sector Represented
CS1	Athens, Greece	Mitigating urban heat through nature-based solutions	26	Water, Energy, Transportation, Health, Urban planning, Biodiversity, Tourism, Construction
CS2	Mediterranean ports (Piraeus, Greece Limassol, Cyprus Valencia, Spain)	Critical climate change impacts on port operations and infrastructures	12–30 per port	Shipping, Energy, Transportation, Port operations & Infrastructure, Insurance,
CS3	Main river basin (Germany)	Integrated water resource management and climate change resilience	12	Water, Energy, Environment, Agriculture, Fishing, Shipping, Mobility, Waste Management
CS4	Ohrid and the Prespa Lakes, south-western Europe (Albania—Macedonia—Greece)	Improve climate resilience in environmental, economic, and social sectors related to water use	38 engaged in 4 different workshop settings (3 national working groups and a transboundary living lab)	Social sector, Water management, Health, Environmental systems and biodiversity, Agriculture, Fishery, Forestry, Hydropower generation, Tourism, Cultural heritage
CS5	Canary Islands, Spain (Tenerife—Spain)	Impact of temperature raise on the Water-Food nexus	14	Agriculture, Water, Tourism, Wastewater
CS6	Black sea (Romania; Bulgaria; Türkiye)	Water resource management from source to sea in the Western Black Sea region in the context of climate change	49 engaged in 4 different workshops setting (3 national working groups and one international living lab)	Water, Infrastructure, Aquaculture/Agriculture, Environment, Tourism, Energy; Health; Waste management; Urban development
CS7	Southern Denmark	Security from flooding in the area along Esbjerg city and harbor.	14	Business and industry, Harbor, Investment (business and urban development), Housing
CS8	Torbay, Southwest England	Interconnections amongst water, health, community & infrastructure and ensuring resilience of all these	17	Water, Community, Health, Energy/power, Transport, Climate planning
CS9	Sardinia, Italy	Improving durum wheat sustainable food production and adaptation to climate change	21	Agricultural sector, Food and agri-food, Handicraft, Water, Policy, Social sector

). It included a written justification explaining why those specific institutions should be part of the living lab. The stakeholder mapping process in each living lab was supervised by a coordination team to ensure consistency in the methodological process and comparability across the nine living labs. The number of stakeholders engaged in the living labs depended on the scope and complexity of the local socio-technical ecosystem.

During the second step, the living labs were operationalized through the implementation of the first round of workshops. Stakeholders were engaged in an open discussion aimed at identifying the main issues, opportunities, obstacles and solutions in the context of climate change impacts (present and future) in their region by co-creating a mental map. The mental mapping, developed in the form of a Causal Loop Diagram (e.g., Figure 3), refers to a graphical [7] representation of the issues brought forward by the workshop participants, linking the elements mentioned. Causality between key variables is an important aspect of the mental maps (sometimes referred to as ‘mind maps’). The result provided a common understanding of the different elements of the system and key interactions across sectors and ecosystems where the main issues and challenges are highlighted. During this stage, careful attention must be paid to the participatory process during the workshops, ensuring all voices are heard. If a stakeholder gap is identified (e.g., absence of a sector representative), it must be filled post-workshop through alternative means of engagement (e.g., one-on-one meetings where the mental map is shared, reviewed and updated if needed).

While the second step focused on the climate change challenges and local consequences described in mental maps (examples of mental maps produced during the scope of this research can be found in Supplementary Material), with leverage points identified and specific problems identified, the third step moved away from a problem-driven discussion by first reviewing the mental map to ensure everybody has a common understanding of the system and critical climate change issues to be solved. The second round of living lab workshops sought to unite all stakeholders around a set of long-term adaptation goals, looking at a positive, sustainable future that leaves no one behind. Those goals took the form of an ambitious vision set in the year 2050, which described a future where each case study (e.g., the city, the port, the island) had successfully adapted to climate change impacts (e.g., extreme heat, flooding, drought, etc.) within various sectors (e.g., tourism, agriculture, water management, urban development, etc.) and communities (e.g., fishermen, farmers, urban citizens, elderly, islanders, etc.). The success of this second step lay in the workshop’s preparation and facilitation, allowing us to secure the co-development of a coherent, credible, practical and feasible vision [8] that is still ambitious, inspiring, and transformative.

During the fourth step, the living labs focused on solutions to adapt to climate change by co-identifying a portfolio of innovations across various sectors necessary to achieve the case study vision. Addressing climate change requires a combination of technological and social innovations. Technological innovations involve the development of new tools, processes, and systems for both mitigation and adaptation, whereas social innovations concentrate on modifying behaviors, policies, and societal norms to promote sustainability. The ARSINOE innovation pathways for climate adaptation focused on key areas of intervention, including water management, community engagement and education, environment and biodiversity, soil management and agriculture, energy, climate change risk management, fishery, tourism, governance and planning, and urban greening (

Table 4. Sectors targeted by the innovation pathways (CS6B = Bulgaria; CS6R = Romania; CS6I = Cross-country—Black Sea scale; CS6T—Türkiye.

	Climate Change Risks Addressed
Fields of Intervention	Urban Heat	Drought	Water Scarcity	Water Flooding	Marine Ecosystems Changes	Biodiversity Loss	Extreme Weather Events
Water	CS1	CS5; CS9; CS6R	CS3; CS4;	CS6B; CS7; CS8
Community engagement/Education	CS1		CS3; CS4;	CS6B; CS7; CS8		CS6I
Environment/biodiversity		CS6R	CS3; CS4;	CS8	CS6T	CS6I	CS2
Soil management/Agriculture		CS5; CS9; CS6R	CS3; CS4;
Energy	CS1	CS9	CS4				CS2
Risk management	CS1			CS6B, CS7			CS2
Fishery		CS6R	CS4		CS6T
Tourism		CS5	CS4		CS6T
Governance/Planning					CS6T	CS6I	CS2
Port operation/Infrastructure				CS8			CS2
Urban greening	CS1
Finance							CS2

).

The fifth step saw case study leaders work collaboratively with local stakeholders to reflect on the outline innovation pathways utilizing a PESTLE framework. Collectively, they elaborated their innovation pathways, identifying key enablers and barriers within their regions to support the effective implementation of the innovation pathways co-created with local stakeholders. Examples of barriers and enablers identified throughout the process can be found in the Supplementary Materials.

At the end of the process, local authorities and sector representatives in each case study were equipped with an actionable roadmap (referred to as the innovation pathways) outlining targeted solutions for local climate adaptation and resilience, along with the institutions best positioned to lead their implementation. In each case study, at least one innovative solution was tested. The ARSINOE project did not include a monitoring system to track the operationalization of these innovation pathways after the project’s completion; however, because the pathways were co-designed with key stakeholders who hold both influence and interest in advancing climate adaptation, there is an increased likelihood that the proposed portfolio of solutions will be implemented (provided that the identified barriers, financial constraints included, are effectively addressed). Regarding the continuity of the living labs beyond the project, all living labs planned to maintain engagement virtually via the ENRICH GLOBAL platform, https://egcp.enrich-global.eu/ (accessed on 11 March 2026). In addition, one case study (Torbay, Southwest England) has already secured funding to keep the engagement process through the living lab structure alive.

5.2. Evaluation Survey

In addition to the iterative monitoring process previously described, a survey was conducted targeting living lab participants over a 40-month period of time in order to measure the immediate impact of the ARSINOE living labs. With a response rate of 52%, the survey conducted across the nine case studies, in the local language, collected 119 responses. All categories of stakeholders were represented in the respondents (Figure 4).

Overall, the ARSINOE living labs were rated with a high level of satisfaction among participants (Figure 5). Most stakeholders expressed a high degree of satisfaction in participating in the living lab workshops, highlighting the living lab role in building competencies, enhancing knowledge, and generating concrete benefits for participants, while very few reported negative experiences.

More specifically, the immediate impacts of the living lab process can be expressed in terms of (i) creating new contacts and network, (ii) improving knowledge in climate change, resilience and adaptation, (iii) help linking local policy to action, (iv) the feeling of being involve in concrete actions, (v) increasing awareness of the Sustainable Development Goals, (vi) developing new skills and (vii) usefulness in communicating sectoral challenges (Figure 6).

6. Discussion: ARSINOE Living Labs Impacts

The survey, processed a year after the end of the third workshop of the living lab, is used to discuss the positive impacts of the methodology and the implementation process and its limitations.

6.1. A Flexible, Iterative, and Adaptive Methodology

The Systems Innovation Approach implemented in the ARSINOE living labs provides a robust framework for engaging stakeholders in a collaborative, problem-solving process. This approach enables the co-creation of actionable strategies in the form of tailored roadmaps of innovations and supporting measures adapted to specific contexts, building on and extending several established theoretical and practical frameworks, including transition management and governance theory [5,64]. It is particularly effective for addressing complex, multifaceted sustainability challenges (such as climate change adaptation) that demand holistic, systemic solutions and multi-stakeholder engagement. Within this framework, researchers and stakeholders alike are able to collectively conceptualize climate change adaptation as a long-term, non-linear process of systemic change that requires coordinated action across socio-technical regimes and diverse actor constellations [65].

SIA is highly adaptable, allowing customization to the needs and challenges within defined system boundaries of varying scales (e.g., a port, city, island, or region) and scopes (e.g., urban planning, agriculture, ecosystems, or risk management). The ARSINOE project demonstrates this flexibility across diverse contexts with consistent success. Furthermore, the use of living labs creates an environment where SIA could integrate complementary sustainability approaches, tools, and activities, provided they align with the overarching goal: offering a safe space for knowledge exchange and the co-design of long-term innovative solutions.

The application of living labs across all ARSINOE case studies confirms the effectiveness of SIA as a participatory framework. Structured around three core workshops, the living labs facilitated a coherent, iterative process that actively engaged stakeholders and promoted systems thinking in diverse regional settings. Between workshops, stakeholders remain involved through progress updates, co-development of inputs, and validation of outputs, ensuring continuity and shared ownership throughout the process.

6.2. Networking, Capacity Building and Action

The ARSINOE living labs are beneficial first and foremost for the opportunity they offer to bring together representatives across sectors around the same table, in a context where local governance arrangements still work in silos. The approach also resonates with place-based and asset-based community development frameworks by anchoring adaptation strategies in local knowledge, capabilities, and resources, and by prioritizing the mobilization of existing social, institutional, and ecological assets rather than externally imposed solutions [66,67]. The living lab participatory process triggers change in the participants’ networks and cross-sector discourse by allowing them to speak out about sustainability priority challenges at the local level. It also supports the expansion of stakeholder networks at the collective level and contributes to the growth of the individual networks of each participant. Participants report increased exposure to new collaborations, ideas, and cross-sectoral interactions, demonstrating the added value of the ARSINOE approach in fostering connectivity, on both a systemic and personal level, across the climate innovation ecosystem. Additionally, through the co-design process of innovation pathways, the living lab processes increase the social acceptance of the proposed innovative approaches and solutions.

The second most noticeable impact of ARSINOE living labs can be expressed in terms of capacity building regarding climate related issues by improving knowledge and understanding in terms of local knowledge in climate change, resilience, and adaptation (e.g., climate change risks and consequences), increasing awareness of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and environmental issues (e.g., present and future climate change vulnerability and impacts). To a lesser extent, participants report having developed new skills (e.g., in terms of systems thinking) and feeling more equipped to communicate across sectors.

6.3. Remaining Challenges

ARSINOE living labs, through the SIA and their challenge-driven focus, are explicitly oriented toward sustainability [68]. They provide a space where stakeholders meet regularly to co-create knowledge and co-design pathways for change toward a sustainable future. However, these labs operate with dedicated funding and human resources only for a limited period. The process is resource- and time-intensive, relying on sustained facilitation and institutional commitment [69,70]. As such, despite high participant satisfaction and recognition of the positive impacts of multi-stakeholder engagement, particularly in advancing local climate policy adaptation, the long-term sustainability of the living labs beyond the project remains uncertain. To date, only one living lab of the nine has secured follow-up funding through a new EU project. While local policymakers (e.g., municipalities, regions) acknowledge the benefits for governance, they often lack the time and financial capacity to maintain such initiatives. Ultimately, the survival of a living lab beyond the project cycle largely depends on the commitment of local research teams to sustain stakeholder engagement. Embedding long-term sustainability as a core objective from the start could significantly improve the chances of these labs continuing beyond the project lifetime. Also, limitations in the number of stakeholders in each living lab limit the representation of the multi-level governance of the system [71].

A second challenge for sustainability-oriented living labs, such as those in ARSINOE, is maintaining stakeholder engagement over time. Instability, competing priorities, resource constraints and stakeholder fatigue often limit participation [72]. Increased mobility of personnel across organizations and sectors further complicates continuity. This calls for research into strategies that sustain motivation, such as tailored communication plans, continuous feedback loops, and the involvement of local “anchor stakeholders” who can provide stability. Stakeholder feedback across case studies highlights both the difficulties and opportunities inherent in multi-stakeholder processes addressing complex challenges like climate change. A recurring observation is the persistence of deeply rooted differences in perspectives and interests, often coupled with reluctance to move beyond entrenched positions. As one participant noted: “As expected, there are very different points of view and, unfortunately, in some cases, no apparent willingness to make adjustments or changes. It would be desirable for all parties involved to recognize that a black-and-white view does not benefit anyone and that solutions can only be found by leaving familiar and comfortable zones.” This underscores the need to cultivate a culture of openness, encouraging stakeholders to step outside traditional silos and explore common ground. While polarization, internal conflict, and short-term thinking remain significant barriers, they also highlight the importance of ongoing, well-designed engagement that prioritizes inclusivity, critical reflection, and shared long-term goals. Addressing these issues head-on can enhance future initiatives and build the collective capacity needed for sustainable transformation across European regions.

Finally, another key challenge lies in translating locally generated knowledge into actionable, cross-scale planning and implementation [73]. While living lab activities and outputs are perceived as meaningful, some participants express uncertainty about how to operationalize the living lab’s outputs, such as the innovation pathways. As one stakeholder observed: “It will be nice if such initiatives can continue with more implementation actions; It is not clear how to implement the technologies discussed in our areas.” This feedback emphasizes the need to bridge the gap between planning and execution within the SIA by going beyond project-based time frames.

7. Conclusions

The ARSINOE living labs, through the Systems Innovation Approach (SIA), offered a dynamic stakeholder engagement framework for addressing complex sustainability challenges such as adaptation to climate change. The Systems Innovation Approach in ARSINOE focused on identifying the main current and future climate change concerns in different case studies, based on the perspectives of local stakeholders. All case studies followed a common methodology, with some local adaptations, and successfully completed a series of living lab workshops within the planned timeline. The use of local knowledge helped improve the understanding of climate impacts and adaptation needs, while also increasing awareness and a sense of ownership among participants. This process supported the creation of local networks of actors willing to work together on shared challenges, both within the ARSINOE project and beyond. Stakeholder mapping and the preparation of workshops were key early steps, helping teams adapt the approach to local contexts and identify relevant actors. Tools such as the influence/interest matrix and mental mapping exercises helped participants adopt a more systemic view of their local context, reveal connections between sectors, and refine problem definitions toward more integrated and socially grounded perspectives. By enabling cross-sectoral knowledge sharing and mutual understanding, the development of a systems thinking mindset, and the co-design of innovation pathways, SIA enables the development of tailored, actionable strategies that reflect local contexts and priorities. The iterative and participatory nature of living labs proved effective in building trust, enhancing knowledge, and strengthening networks across sectors, thereby contributing to more inclusive and resilient governance structures. However, the ARSINOE living labs also revealed critical challenges that must be addressed to ensure long-term impacts. These include the sustainability of living labs themselves beyond project funding, the difficulty of maintaining stakeholder engagement over time, and the gap between planning and implementation of innovation pathways. Overcoming these barriers will require embedding long-term sustainability objectives from the very beginning of the process, designing strategies to sustain motivation and participation, and creating mechanisms to translate locally generated knowledge into solutions implemented within the life cycle of the sustainability-oriented living lab.

Future research and policy efforts should focus on institutionalizing living lab methodologies within regional governance frameworks, securing stable funding streams, and strengthening capacity for implementation. By doing so, living labs can evolve from project-based experiments into enduring platforms for systemic innovation—accelerating Europe’s transition toward climate resilience and sustainability.

At least two papers dedicated to individual living lab case studies (Athens; Black Sea) and one paper focused on the innovation pathways are under development.