Same Words, Different Worlds? Living Labs in Multifunctional Landscapes - Aligning Terminologies, Approaches for Optimal Research for Impact

Research for impact in the CGIAR Multifunctional Landscapes Program is implemented with partners and stakeholders in Living Labs. Living labs are gaining momentum as sub-national territories within which sustainable food system transformation is sought through multi-stakeholder engagement processes. According to the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), Living Labs are defined as “user-centered, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings”. In other words, Living Labs are intended to address complex situations and challenges requiring multi-scalar, multi-actor, multi-dimensional and holistic solutions.

In an internal seminar held in September 2025, CGIAR Multifunctional Science Program addressed the crucial question:  how to define (and name) our arenas of engagement, and how do we effectively engage in and with them.

Lisa Elena Fuchs, a social and political scientist with a research focus on transdisciplinary co-creation of knowledge, co-design of solutions, and agroecology at the Alliance Bioversity-CIAT, set the scene for the seminar by summarizing the experiences of the CGIAR Agroecology Initiative. She explained:

“We re-interpreted the Living Lab concept and supported the development of 11 Agroecological Living Landscapes (ALLs). We defined ALLs as multi-stakeholder spaces in which agroecological innovations can be identified, co-designed, tested, and adopted. These landscapes emerged as coherent territories that have fuzzy boundaries defined by the functionality and meaning bestowed onto them by their diverse users, who care about and are willing to take transformative action in pursuit of just food system transitions, rather than by geographical or administrative limits. However, we faced some challenges in establishing and engaging these ALLs. A key consideration was that we had not yet fully defined what an ALL is, how it should be practically established, the role of the research team, or what its governance structure should look like. While we conducted literature reviews on the Living Lab concept and on governance modalities, and developed important methodological guidance, including the Six Principles of Engagement, the Vision to Action (V2A) process, and the ALL engagement toolkit, the absence of a shared working definition complicated some of our work – and the related research; though it also contributed to interesting locally-led diversity!”

Fuchs highlighted that ALLs respond to common challenges faced by external partners when supporting local stakeholders in  sustainable and locally-led transition pathways. ALLs offer an opportunity to act as vehicles of transformation that foster transdisciplinary research, through the co-creation of knowledge and co-design of innovations. However, she noted that doing transdisciplinary research pushes researchers to develop and implement principle-based approaches to structure equitable collaboration.

Fuchs also outlined five key directions for future research on Living Labs. These include examining the benefits and challenges of Living Labs; conducting empirical research on their long-term impacts on innovation processes; assessing their socio-cultural dimensions; advancing user engagement and co-creation strategies; and structuring interdisciplinary governance and partnerships. In line with these directions, the seminar focused on three main areas: (1) the primary characteristics and functioning of Living Labs (to develop typologies); (2) processes for setting up and engaging in Living Labs in the short term; and (3) governance modalities for long-term collaboration and partnership.

From Theory to Practice and Back Again

Angela Navarrete-Cruz, an agricultural scientist with a background in social and political sciences presented her research on Living Labs and governance mechanisms.

She emphasized several key points: an essential characteristic of a Living Lab is the co-design of innovations coupled with experimentation in real-life contexts where end-users are directly engaged; Living Labs have evolved beyond industry and the private sector into the public sector, now encompassing not only technical but also institutional innovations; and terminology varies widely (e.g., multi-stakeholder platforms, innovation platforms, agroecosystem living labs, integrated landscape approaches), with each model differing in purpose, scale, degree of user involvement, and scope.

Navarrete noted that in the CGIAR Agroecology Initiative, different combinations of these characteristics were leveraged across seven countries, each with its own governance structures and mechanisms .For the CGIAR Multifunctional Landscapes Program, Navarrete suggests establishing clear terminology to help stakeholders understand what kind of work is being done and how engagement processes unfold. In this regard, Living Labs offer the advantage of being a recognized and well-established term for partners, practitioners, and researchers

Agroecology Living Landscapes in Laos PDR, Senegal, Kenya

The seminar included three case studies from the Agroecology Initiative (in Laos PDR, Senegal and Kenya), which allowed a better understanding of their respective contexts, respective approaches and focus of the transdisciplinary action research as well as lessons learnt to date.

Lao PDR, presented by Mark Dubois, Principal Researcher at IWMI

In Lao PDR, IWMI, WorldFish, and the Alliance of Bioversity-CIAT established an ALL alongside multi-ethnic indigenous communities in Attapeu Province, in the challenging environments of the Mekong region. These communities face intersecting challenges of poverty, malnutrition, seasonal water insecurity, and climate risks, compounded by reliance on monocropping systems. The research is advancing an agroecological transition through integrated, climate-resilient, and nutrition-sensitive innovation bundles. Central to this approach is the integration of indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge within inclusive governance structures that operate across multiple scales. Efforts include strengthening water and wetland management, surface – groundwater connectivity, improving soil health, diversifying food production through integrated rice–fish and livestock–vegetable systems, citizens science and institutional strengthening, and supporting farmer-led irrigation models.

Emerging lessons underscore the importance of time, trust, and responsiveness in transdisciplinary research within complex governance and socio-cultural contexts. Multidisciplinary partnerships, community-led design, and capacity-sharing mechanisms have proven effective, while challenges remain in translating concepts across multiple languages, sustaining cross-community connections, and addressing power relations that shape resource access. Future directions emphasize the need to conceptualize landscapes as nested and interconnected systems, physical, virtual, and political, while recognizing diversity as a central principle. By linking local initiatives such as the community knowledge hub (a physical space for capacity sharing) to national and transboundary scales, living landscapes in the Mekong are positioned to support multifunctional outcomes that enhance both ecosystem integrity and human well-being.

Senegal, presented by Marc Piraux, Principal Researcher at CIRAD

In the semi-arid region of Fatick, Senegal, a departmental-level initiative is advancing agroecological transitions through the DyTAEL platform of Fatick, which is embedded within the national DyTAES network. The platform brings together a broad coalition of 74 organizations through a steering committee and 35 stakeholders in a technical committee, encompassing public authorities, associations, and elected representatives at municipal and departmental levels. Governance mechanisms have been formalized through institutional charters, designed to translate commitments into concrete responsibilities. This structure enables an inclusive and multi-scale framework where diverse actors co-develop strategies for food security, agroecological resilience, and local development within a context of rainfed, mixed farming under increasing environmental pressure. The Living Lab approach allowed progress on integrating agroecology into crop-livestock systems, with improved productivity and sustainability through crop associations and enhanced soil health through manure application. An innovative agroecology business model, millet is now processed locally, contributing to wealth creation and job generation in local communities.

Contributions of the Agroecology Initiative emphasize the role of process in transdisciplinary research and action. Stakeholders have collectively established shared understandings, visions, missions, and rules, grounded in values such as dialogue, respect, and inclusion. Central to this work is the cultivation of a shared culture of experimentation, evaluation, and collective intelligence for supporting commitment. The concept of “research accompaniment” plays a pivotal role, reframing researchers as facilitators and mediators who strengthen community capacity to act, rather than as external experts. This approach integrates technical, organizational, institutional, and socio-cultural innovation across scales, with trust and engagement emerging as outcomes of the quality of these participatory processes.

Kenya, Lisa Elena Fuchs, Social and Agroecological Systems Scientist at the Alliance Bioversity-CIAT

In Kenya, two Agroecological Living Landscapes (ALLs) were established in Kiambu and Makueni, anchored in farmer training centers (CSHEP and DNRC) referred to as ALL host centers. This represented a new form of structured engagement for the research team, with co-creation placed at the core of the process from the outset. National scaling partners were identified to link local efforts with broader policy and networks—namely PELUM, an NGO network of 63 organizations, and the Intersectoral Forum on Agro-Biodiversity and Agroecology (ISFAA) housed at the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries. Together with these actors, territorial partners were identified, and stakeholder mapping and co-creation workshops were held to define opportunities for meaningful contributions to Kenya’s agroecology transition. Identified priorities included collaborations to explore, share, and compare effects of soil, water, and pest management innovations and strengthen producer networks.

The ALLs worked through “communities of place,” bringing together local actors responsive to agroecological narratives. The host centers facilitated mobilization via existing farmer networks and schools, ensuring both horizontal knowledge sharing and sustainability. Formal partnership agreements with host centers positioned them as true collaborators, not service providers. The approach emphasized appreciative characterization, focusing on strengths and assets rather than needs,and promoted informed consent, co-led activities, and responsive programming aligned with stakeholder priorities.

Key successes included stepwise stakeholder engagement, strong physical anchorage in host centers, and coordination through focal points. Challenges involved risks of a misarticulation of co-creation efforts and top-down implementation, weak data feedback mechanisms, and limited formal governance structures. Future improvements should strengthen structured co-design, build institutional capacity of local partners, and clarify governance. Overall, the ALLs demonstrated the value of participatory, networked approaches in advancing agroecology.

Adapting experiences to the Multifunctional Landscapes Program

Webinar participants were asked to discuss three questions and mobilize their experiences to propose a way forward on how to define (and name) our arenas of engagement, and with that, how to engage in and with them. In their can be summarized as follows:

1. Features of effective Living Labs: They should foster plurality of visions, allowing multiple perspectives to coexist and generate richer knowledge and innovation. Strong connectivity (geographical, environmental, social, economic) and high levels of multi-stakeholder engagement are needed. A foundation of trust and supportive formal/informal institutions is essential for meaningful co-creation. Acting as innovation ecosystems, Living Labs require integrated, systemic approaches and sustainable financial mechanisms. Governance should align with government structures while remaining polycentric, so multiple actors share responsibility, strengthen livelihoods, and enhance well-being. (Some suggest shifting from “Living Labs” to “Living Landscapes” to reflect broader landscape realities.)

2. Operationalizing and engaging in Living Labs: Efforts must be anchored in co-creation and co-design with a broad range of actors (farmers, women, youth, researchers, authorities, technical experts, private sector). Previous pilot sites can serve as entry points for testing, data generation, and shared learning. Strong engagement with local government is needed for continuity, legitimacy, and scaling, alongside links to national policy frameworks. Work across multiple scales ensures local actions align with wider strategies. Governance should be co-constructed with stakeholders (not imposed top-down) to fit local realities. Researchers should act as facilitators (“research accompaniment”) rather than external experts, helping connect and sustain collective processes. Risks to mitigate include lack of cross-scale coherence (fragmentation) and superficial participation that undermines local ownership.

3. Governance for sustainable Living Labs: Governance must be context-specific, building on existing organizations but staying flexible. Situations vary: Senegal’s LL built on a formalized platform with clear rules, whereas Kenya’s relied on networks with nascent formal structures. Governance should mirror the diversity of actors and political context, balancing flexibility and accountability. Key mechanisms include inclusive participation, rotating/renewable leadership, and openness to evolution. Ultimately, governance should embed research in local institutions and enable shared decision-making so that Living Labs persist beyond project timelines.

(The webinar initiated an internal cross-cutting working group to produce a position paper with concrete recommendations for our MFL sites.).

Authors : Simone Staiger, Lisa Elena Fuchs, Patricia Angela Navarrete